RX480 vs GTX1060

[danlightbulb]

I thought it was worth having a dedicated thread for this comparison, since there doesn't seem to be one in the last 10 pages on this part of the forum, and I think things may have settled down a little now since the launches.

My observation is that on initial release the GTX1060 was considered to be overpriced. However this appears to be changing, possibly due to supply availability, and the two sets of cards now appear to be almost identical on price, within a range of about £50 from bottom end to top end.

There are some reviews about, and in general the GTX1060 is the faster card right now on most existing games. But within the forums there is a general view that the RX480 will have better longevity due to DX12 and Vulkan, and it's higher VRAM and continued driver support. How real are those perceived benefits going forward? For example, a brand new game I'm going to be buying is planet coaster, which has been developed on DX11. It might be that we don't see much DX12 for several years and by then new cards will be out anyway.

It's pretty clear that the GTX1060 runs cooler and potentially quieter depending on the card's cooler.

I also think there is opportunity to discuss some of the other AIB cards in more detail as the Sapphire RX480 has its own thread but none of the others do.

And finally, should having Gsnyc or freesync influence the decision you make at this price? If you have say a freesync monitor would it be a totally stupid choice not to go for the RX480, and vice versa?


So. Pro's and con's. I appreciate a consensus won't be reached and some favour red and some favour green.

 

[Jamesyboyjim]

Its an annoying position to be in, you could grab the currently slightly faster 1060 which is also much more efficient, or grab the 480 which is a bit slower but will allegedly improve in time and if the market moves towards dx12, will be considerably faster.

Trouble is none of us know! Personally for me I have no intension of changing my 1080p screen and want a new card to last me a good few years so the whole gsync / freesync debate doesn't come into it for me, I just want the fastest card in this price range so I feel your pain!

 

[JediFragger]

1060 for me this gen

 

[Zhuni]

first i went 1060 but swapped out for 480. Don't think you can go wrong with either. The nitro does look the sex though

 

[awaybreaktoday]

Major rumour:

Next generation ATI top end cards reported to be 25% faster than Pascal Titan X, retail price expected to be $600.

 

[old gamer]

cant see much in it, if you have a freesync/gsync it makes perfect sense to me to buy a gpu to pair up with a sync monitor

 

[philo-sofa]

Major rumour:

Next generation ATI top end cards reported to be 25% faster than Pascal Titan X, retail price expected to be $600.

TBH I'm waiting for S3's next-gen, rumor mill has it that will take the market by storm.

 

[Seanspeed]

If you are the type to upgrade every 1-2 years, go GTX1060.

If you are the type to upgrade every 3-5 years, go RX480.

Dont really think you can wrong with either, though.

 

[JediFragger]

Major rumour:

Next generation ATI top end cards reported to be 25% faster than Pascal Titan X, retail price expected to be $600.

Let's hope so!! We all need a Hawaii-type architecture to kick some nVidia butt again

 

[Daaaveee]

1060 for me, simply because of G Sync being such a big game changer Of course there is Freesync too but after trying both I prefer NVidia's offering despite the cost premium.

 

[HardStyler3]

custom rx 480 is 5% within custom gtx 1060 so if thats not hard for you
it should be no problem also freesync is godlike

+ dx12 and future

 

[motiv]

I see the 3gb 1060 is out. Is this comparable to the 4gb 480?

 

[Palladan]

I don't think there's anything between the 2 cards at all. So long as you balance you needs, wants and budget correctly you won't go wrong.

Having a Freesync monitor is quite a big factor when choosing for me so I went for the Nitro+OC 480 and am very happy with it.

 

[Jamesyboyjim]

1060 for me, simply because of G Sync being such a big game changer Of course there is Freesync too but after trying both I prefer NVidia's offering despite the cost premium.

What's the difference then? I was under the impression they did the same thing?

 

[Panos]

I see the 3gb 1060 is out. Is this comparable to the 4gb 480?

Not the same gpu as the 6gb version. Is cut down chip.
Even comparison against 470 might not favour it

 

[Seanspeed]

What's the difference then? I was under the impression they did the same thing?

Mostly. Freesync range varies from monitor to monitor, though. Most of them lose Freesync functionality if the game dips below 48fps. Some have minimums of 40hz and some 30hz and the tech can *technically* go even lower, but still - the way many monitors have it implemented limit its usefulness.

Gsync always works down to 30fps. And being that 30-60fps is probably where variable refresh rates have the most impact, it's kind of important. That said, Freesync monitors with a 40hz minimum are also not bad. Anything less than 40fps and you're probably not gonna be that happy anyways.

Freesync also lacks the ability to run in Windowed mode, whereas Gsync can.

 

[jbh110tdi]

if my 970 plays up again im going to drop some cash on a 1060...

Ive been half tempted to try and get a 2nd hand 980ti in a few weeks and give my lad my 970 thats just been replaced a week ago under warranty ( for the 3rd time ) but I have considered getting a 1060 and then give him this once I get a 980ti and selling the 970

 

[HardStyler3]

Mostly. Freesync range varies from monitor to monitor, though. Most of them lose Freesync functionality if the game dips below 48fps. Some have minimums of 40hz and some 30hz and the tech can *technically* go even lower, but still - the way many monitors have it implemented limit its usefulness.

Gsync always works down to 30fps. And being that 30-60fps is probably where variable refresh rates have the most impact, it's kind of important. That said, Freesync monitors with a 40hz minimum are also not bad. Anything less than 40fps and you're probably not gonna be that happy anyways.

Freesync also lacks the ability to run in Windowed mode, whereas Gsync can.

this is not anymore since many driver versions freesync works until 20 fps now with frame doubling the same thing nvidia does with g-sync

 

[Rroff]

Major rumour:

Next generation ATI top end cards reported to be 25% faster than Pascal Titan X, retail price expected to be $600.

If it isn't AMD are doing something wrong - nVidia is taking the mick trickling out performance levels with Pascal.

 

[melmac]

What's the difference then? I was under the impression they did the same thing?

For Freesync as long as the high range is more than 2.5 times the low range then there is no difference between freesync and gsync.

Saying that, sub 40fps is still sub 40fps in either solution. If you are framerate sensitive then you should try and keep your frame rate over 40 no matter what sync tech you have.

40-90 is where both sync techs work best.