Is the 1060 DOA?

[pendragon1]

speculating on this when it hasn't even been announced yet is POINTLESS. there is ZERO info...
only thing I can agree with is that NV is most likely in "wait and see mode" so they can do what is needed to counter the 480.

 

[KazeoHin]

Every major review site I've seen reviewing the 1080/1070 FE has given them their highest rating I believe. So yeah, marketing. /s

I was quoting a post talking directly about the 960 and only the 960. Please improve your reading compression. People like you make Nvidia look bad.

 

[heatlesssun]

I was quoting a post talking directly about the 960 and only the 960. Please improve your reading compression. People like you make Nvidia look bad.

And the 960 was well regarded in reviews also including many on this site.

 

[schizo]

They'd be crazy to price the 1060 at $300, I expect similar performance to the RX480 while drawing less power.

I was talking about the RX-480. The GTX1060's pricing will of course be closely aligned with the 480.

 

[Daniel_Chang]

EDIT: Updated numbers in Post #58.

DISCLAIMER 1: Numbers below are based on 1080p (the resolution targeted for the RX 480 and GTX 1060). Scaling (performance gains) will be higher for 1440p and 4k.

DISCLAIMER 2: Numbers are speculative since we don't have GTX 1070 and RX 480 numbers in an apples to apples fashion yet. It will be run to revisit this when we do.

I am curious with what Nvidia will do with the GTX 1060. TPU hasn't done their 1070 review yet, so I'll go off this chart in their 1080 review:

First, let's state the obvious. The GTX 1070 is a replacement for the market previously served by the GTX 970 and the R9 390. The RX 480 is a replacement for the market previously served by the GTX 960 and the R9 380. The GTX 970 was 62% faster than the GTX 960, and the R9 390 was 56% faster than the R9 380, using the above chart (1080p). So, we should see a similar gap in performance between the GTX 1070 and the RX 480. However, Nvidia priced the GTX 1070 higher ($379 vs/ last gen's $329 for the 970/390), while AMD retained the $199/$229 pricing of the 960/380 2/4GB cards. As a result, we should expect a larger performance gap commensurate with that price.

Because neither the GTX 1070 nor the RX 480 are part of that review, we'll use the two cards they are often compared with as being near equal, the GTX 980ti and the R9 390x, respectively.

For AMD, going from the R9 380 to the RX 480 (R9 390x) means a gain of roughly 67% in performance. That is an obscene generation-over-generation gain.

For Nvidia, going from the GTX 970 to the GTX 1070 (980ti) means a gain of roughly 38%. This is still a VERY good generational gain going off the last few generations.

If we compare them directly, the GTX 1080 (980ti) is roughly 27% faster than the RX 480 (R9 390x). If these numbers are even close to correct, then AMD has made this interesting. They probably under priced the RX 480. If we applied the same $50 price increase that Nvidia did, the RX 480 should be selling at $249/$279 for 4/8GB. They would still be an adequate value, a huge generational gain, and would still probably cannibalize sales of the GTX 1070 for budget-minder buyers. But at $199/$229, this card is an absolute steal.

And this is where the GTX 1060 comes in. Based on the 1070/1080 price increases over the 970/980, I expected a potential GTX 1060 to be offered at $249/$279 if they had two memory configurations. But I also expected a sizeable performance gap between the 1060/1070, more in tune with the 960/970 gap. Nvidia cannot release a card like this. No sane person would buy it. The RX 480 (again, caveat, IF my numbers are close to correct) is just too close to the GTX 1070 in performance at a huge discount. I really don't know what Nvidia can do with a GTX 1060. The more competitive it is with the RX 480, the more it will cannibalize sales of the GTX 1070.

 

[Criticalhitkoala]

DISCLAIMER 1: Numbers below are based on 1080p (the resolution targeted for the RX 480 and GTX 1060). Scaling (performance gains) will be higher for 1440p and 4k.

DISCLAIMER 2: Numbers are speculative since we don't have GTX 1070 and RX 480 numbers in an apples to apples fashion yet. It will be run to revisit this when we do.

I am curious with what Nvidia will do with the GTX 1060. TPU hasn't done their 1070 review yet, so I'll go off this chart in their 1080 review:

First, let's state the obvious. The GTX 1070 is a replacement for the market previously served by the GTX 970 and the R9 390. The RX 480 is a replacement for the market previously served by the GTX 960 and the R9 380. The GTX 970 was 62% faster than the GTX 960, and the R9 390 was 56% faster than the R9 380, using the above chart (1080p). So, we should see a similar gap in performance between the GTX 1070 and the RX 480. However, Nvidia priced the GTX 1070 higher ($379 vs/ last gen's $329 for the 970/390), while AMD retained the $199/$229 pricing of the 960/380 2/4GB cards. As a result, we should expect a larger performance gap commensurate with that price.

Because neither the GTX 1070 nor the RX 480 are part of that review, we'll use the two cards they are often compared with as being near equal, the GTX 980ti and the R9 390x, respectively.

For AMD, going from the R9 380 to the RX 480 (R9 390x) means a gain of roughly 67% in performance. That is an obscene generation-over-generation gain.

For Nvidia, going from the GTX 970 to the GTX 1070 (980ti) means a gain of roughly 38%. This is still a VERY good generational gain going off the last few generations.

If we compare them directly, the GTX 1080 (980ti) is roughly 27% faster than the RX 480 (R9 390x). If these numbers are even close to correct, then AMD has made this interesting. They probably under priced the RX 480. If we applied the same $50 price increase that Nvidia did, the RX 480 should be selling at $249/$279 for 4/8GB. They would still be an adequate value, a huge generational gain, and would still probably cannibalize sales of the GTX 1070 for budget-minder buyers. But at $199/$229, this card is an absolute steal.

And this is where the GTX 1060 comes in. Based on the 1070/1080 price increases over the 970/980, I expected a potential GTX 1060 to be offered at $249/$279 if they had two memory configurations. But I also expected a sizeable performance gap between the 1060/1070, more in tune with the 960/970 gap. Nvidia cannot release a card like this. No sane person would buy it. The RX 480 (again, caveat, IF my numbers are close to correct) is just too close to the GTX 1070 in performance at a huge discount. I really don't know what Nvidia can do with a GTX 1060. The more competitive it is with the RX 480, the more it will cannibalize sales of the GTX 1070.

To be honest I think Nvidias probably not gonna care about the cannibalizing. Three is such a demand for the 1070 because of the proof that it does perform faster than a Titan somewhat that I think it's gonna outsell the 970 which sold like 17 million units. That's 6 billion in sales for the 970/980s. From the feel of it I think the 1070 will actually outshine it.

 

[PGHammer]

I was quoting a post talking directly about the 960 and only the 960. Please improve your reading compression. People like you make Nvidia look bad.

And my point about the GTX960 4GB came from here at [H] itself - the configuration told us two things; GDDR5 is in either nearly glut turf or glut turf (if anything, GTX 1070 and RX 480, respectively, confirmed the latter), and GTX 1070 CAN use the whole 8GB - unless they nerf wrong, there is no reason GTX 1060 couldn't ship in the same 8 GB configuration and offer GTX 980 (not necessarily GTX 980 Ti) performance at the GTX 960 4GB price. Yes - it would be problematical for GTX 970 inventory if GTX 1060 did that; however, the GTX 960 4G needs to die; if GTX 1060 takes out GTX 970 in addition, so be it. (By the way, whose idea WAS it for that clankish configuration - nVidia, or the AIBs?

 

[fingerbob69]

The problem for the 1060 is not the 480 but its big brother, the 480 X (or 485 or 490 or whatever AMD call it).

AMD did not create Polaris to just release one sku in 4/8g variants. There's another with 6+6 pin or even a single 8pin sku @ $299.

29th June will be really interesting

 

[TaintedSquirrel]

The 1060 will be slightly slower and slightly more expensive than the RX 480, and it will sell three to four times as many units. It is known.

I'm helping a friend with a build he's doing this fall, he wants the 1060. I told him he can probably get the 480 earlier and it will probably be better and cheaper but he wants Nvidia anyway. Nvidia only... AMD = Budget brand. I have been arguing with him about this for nearly a decade. He will not give an inch.

This is what AMD is up against.

 

[xorbe]

Did I miss some 1060 specs or leaked charts somewhere?

 

[TaintedSquirrel]

280 vs 760
380 vs 960

Ergo, 480 vs 1060.

It's science.

 

[Maddness]

The 1060 will be slightly slower and slightly more expensive than the RX 480, and it will sell three to four times as many units. It is known.

I'm helping a friend with a build he's doing this fall, he wants the 1060. I told him he can probably get the 480 earlier and it will probably be better and cheaper but he wants Nvidia anyway. Nvidia only... AMD = Budget brand. I have been arguing with him about this for nearly a decade. He will not give an inch.

This is what AMD is up against.

I have a few friends that have exactly that type of attitude towards AMD and Nvidia. No matter that they can save some money and in most cases get better performance.

 

[Nenu]

The 1060 will be slightly slower and slightly more expensive than the RX 480, and it will sell three to four times as many units. It is known.

I'm helping a friend with a build he's doing this fall, he wants the 1060. I told him he can probably get the 480 earlier and it will probably be better and cheaper but he wants Nvidia anyway. Nvidia only... AMD = Budget brand. I have been arguing with him about this for nearly a decade. He will not give an inch.

This is what AMD is up against.

My own experience with AMD caused me to give up on them.
I had to sell my 290x and get a 980 because I couldnt put up with the shit drivers any more.

My previous experience with AMD/ATI caused me just as much stress such that I had to use a user modified driver that fixed the problems. He only did driver mods because the originals were so crap, he had no choice and luckily for us he made them available.
That was just to get single cards working correctly and I was running crossfire. Only one game worked well in crossfire, Dirt 2.
Everything else was very low performance or stuttered so badly it wasnt worth using.

Each time I have gone back to NVidia I have had a great experience, as I am now.
The last good experience I had with AMD (ATI at that time) was the X1800 card. 10 Years ago.
I agree with your friend.
AMD are killing themselves, I have given them enough chances.

 

[TaintedSquirrel]

I actually had the opposite experience with Nvidia that made me abandon them for many years, it was mostly the appeal of tools like ATI Tray Tools, RBE, and RadeonPro. Nvidia Inspector came after. And for a while Nvidia didn't allow non-blower/custom designs while AMD did. AMD was simply the superior option through-and-through.

Everything was fine until I got the 280X which was one of the most unstable/buggiest cards I have ever owned. That GPU was a mess.

 

[Michaelius]

My last Amd cards were 2x6850 I put them into my pc started Hard Reset - wow 90 fps huge increase to my 470 ,then I started Witcher 2 - oh nice fps on fraps - hmm but why does it feel so weird to play. Let's remove one - hmm it feels the same what's happening here? After few weeks of experiments I went back to 470 since it gave me better experience despite Fraps showing otherwise.

Few months later first website published article about framepacing

Then I observed how it took AMD long time to admit issue even exists and nearly a year before they partialy fixed it in DX11 games and their fix for DX9 stuff was to ignore problem until DX9 fades away.


So with this in mind I expect at least 10-20% performance more from AMD card at the same price level or rather I did before buying g-sync - currently I only care about AMD to drive down prices of Nvidia gpus.

 

[PGHammer]

I don't necessarily HATE AMD; I just find their GPU performance-for-price (at present) underwhelming - compared not just to current-generation nVidia, but previous-generation nVidia (Maxwell in my case - let alone Pascal).
Maxwell is where Fermi was when I went there (and unlike Fermi, Maxwell - albeit baby Maxwell - is at that price new, not refurbished).
Lastly, regardless of whether I go Maxwell OR Pascal, I can make the swap without driver changes (I'm running the current Game-Ready Driver). Swap GPUs, readjust baseline via GFE, pick up where I left off (but with performance improvements due to the GPU swap).

 

[Daniel_Chang]

I don't necessarily HATE AMD; I just find their GPU performance-for-price (at present) underwhelming - compared not just to current-generation nVidia, but previous-generation nVidia (Maxwell in my case - let alone Pascal).
Maxwell is where Fermi was when I went there (and unlike Fermi, Maxwell - albeit baby Maxwell - is at that price new, not refurbished).

I guess it depends on where you draw the line.

GTX 950 - AMD had no equivalent, Nvidia wins
GTX 960 - R9 380 offers better performance at the same exact price (better performance to price), AMD wins
GTX 970 - R9 390 offers better performance at the same exact price
GTX 980 - R9 390x offers slightly better performance for roughly 20% less ($549 vs. $429 MSRP)
GTX 980ti - R9 Fury X offers similar performance at same price
Titan X - AMD has no direct equivalent

If you're going strictly off performance to price, as you stated, AMD won the last round except at the GTX 950 level. What hurt them was availability (very late to market with competing products), power draw, and lack of OC headroom (Fury X doesn't compete with the 980ti outside of stock settings). But going by your sig rig, a GTX 950 is probably your target price range, and in that case NV trumps AMD.

Lastly, regardless of whether I go Maxwell OR Pascal, I can make the swap without driver changes

You will need to do a driver reinstall. There have been known issues with doing a GPU swap and leaving the same driver. It's hit or miss. But, driver familiarity will still favor NV in your case.

 

[Daniel_Chang]

I'm updating my numbers from Post #45 based on TPU's GTX 1070 review, which included updated numbers for all cards based on new drivers. My impressions have only slightly changed, but the GTX 1070 is a better performer than I had expected.

DISCLAIMER 1: Numbers below are based on 1080p (the resolution targeted for the RX 480 and GTX 1060). Scaling (performance gains) will be higher for 1440p and 4k.

DISCLAIMER 2: Numbers are speculative since we don't have RX 480 numbers yet. It will be fun to revisit this when we do.

DISCLAIMER 3: This isn't meant to be a direct comparison between the RX 480 (x60 competitor) and the 1070, but rather, to show if/how the performance gap between the x60 and x70 may have narrowed.

First, let's state the obvious. The GTX 1070 is a replacement for the market previously served by the GTX 970 and the R9 390. The RX 480 is a replacement for the market previously served by the GTX 960 and the R9 380. The GTX 970 was 64% faster than the GTX 960, and the R9 390 was 55% faster than the R9 380, using the above chart (1080p). So, we should see a similar gap in performance between the GTX 1070 and the RX 480. However, Nvidia priced the GTX 1070 higher ($379 vs/ last gen's $329 for the 970/390), while AMD retained the $199/$229 pricing of the 960/380 2/4GB cards. As a result, we should expect a larger performance gap commensurate with that price.

Because the RX 480 is not part of that review, we'll use the card it is often compared with as being near equal, the R9 390x.

For AMD, going from the R9 380 to the RX 480 (R9 390x) means a gain of roughly 67% in performance. That is an obscene generation-over-generation gain.

For Nvidia, going from the GTX 970 to the GTX 1070 means a gain of roughly 56%. This is also an obscene generational gain in performance.

If we compare them directly, the GTX 1070 is roughly 43% faster than the RX 480 (R9 390x). If these numbers are even close to correct, then AMD has effectively narrowed the gap between Nvidia x60 and x70 parts more than expected. They probably under priced the RX 480. If we applied the same $50 price increase that Nvidia did, the RX 480 should be selling at $249/$279 for 4/8GB. They would still be an adequate value, and a huge generational gain, but it's doubtful if they would cannibalize sales of the GTX 1070 for budget-minder buyers. But at $199/$229, this card is an absolute steal.

And this is where the GTX 1060 comes in. Based on the 1070/1080 price increases over the 970/980, I expected a potential GTX 1060 to be offered at $249/$279 if they had two memory configurations. But I also expected a sizeable performance gap between the 1060/1070, more in tune with the 960/970 gap. Nvidia cannot release a card like this. No sane person would buy it. The RX 480 (again, caveat, IF my numbers are close to correct) has narrowed the gap more than expected. Nvidia will have to price aggressively, and have a narrower gap between x60 and x70 than they did last generation.

 

[Sirste]

I am looking forward to the 480 or perhaps the 470 for such a thing exists and the 1060 being just as good I hope as the 480.

I've been selling my 3 older unused cards and then I will sell my 670 ftw which is still perfectly fine for me atm and upgrade once these new cards come out and like mentioned grab a brand new amd 470/480 or gtx1060 or go used route although less likely cheap used 970 fitting a $100-150 price I would assume they will be at soon considering you can buy them new still for $225 or so on sale

Thoughts and opinions thanks!

My free budget of selling these 4 cards is likely around $300 or more so I'd like to get a 4gb memory card for sure and pocket rest of $$$ towards other upgrades I don't really need current card is 2gb.