GTX 1060 To Be Announced on 7th July ?

[Cern]

Only a week for the 1060 announcement.

None of them will do 1440p at max settings, so of course it just depends how much you're willing to dial settings back from max.

I'm fine with dialling back to High rather than Ultra. As long as I can get 60 fps @ 1440p on High I'm happy.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Looking at pure "shader processor" count :-

the 960 retail had 1024 vs the 970's 1664, this is 61% of the 970.

now running the same thing on 1070 (with its 1920 processor count) gives us :-

1920 * 0.61 = 1171.

Im gunna make a wild guess of a processor count for the 1060 of around 1280 to make it slightly better than the rx-480


NOTE i know very well that the shader processor isnt 1:1 with the overall performance of a card or haw gpu arch scales .... just musing and getting a ballpark idea

Leaks have pointed to 1280 shaders.

 

[Tropicocity]

it depends if they have a 1060 Ti in the works if not I'd fuly expect the 1060 to beat the 480 and offer close to if not 980 performance with 6gb Vram for £250 that would be a good card 980 or beating performance with the Vram to back it up (y)

^Agreed. 1060 will almost certainly be around the 980 performance, anything less and it'd be near pointless

 

[PhoenixUK]

it depends if they have a 1060 Ti in the works if not I'd fuly expect the 1060 to beat the 480 and offer close to if not 980 performance with 6gb Vram for £250 that would be a good card 980 or beating performance with the Vram to back it up (y)

Would it ? So 480 which is 5-10% off 980, most of the time you won't notice the difference, at £180 is a bad buy, but a 3-5% quicker card (1060) in 2 months time will be a great card at £250?

Logic.

 

[Cern]

^Agreed. 1060 will almost certainly be around the 980 performance, anything less and it'd be near pointless

But how will the 1060 achieve 980 performance if the rumoured 1280 CUDA cores and 192-bit bus are correct?

 

[D.P.]

But how will the 1060 achieve 980 performance if the rumoured 1280 CUDA cores and 192-bit bus are correct?

Architecture improvements and clock speed.

The 1080 is considerably faster than the TitanX with far less sharers and a 256bit interface.

 

[Cern]

Architecture improvements and clock speed.

The 1080 is considerably faster than the TitanX with far less sharers and a 256bit interface.

Ok, understood. So if the 1060 positions itself somewhere between the 970 and the 980 as rumoured then the 6GB version should be a pretty solid 1440p performer?

 

[FoxEye]

Would it ? So 480 which is 5-10% off 980, most of the time you won't notice the difference, at £180 is a bad buy, but a 3-5% quicker card (1060) in 2 months time will be a great card at £250?

Logic.

Going forward, AMD are only producing 8gb 480s. The prices start at £240.

£250 is only 4.2% money. If the 1060 is 3-5% faster as you say, then it's exactly the same perf/$.

Logic

 

[D.P.]

Ok, understood. So if the 1060 positions itself somewhere between the 970 and the 980 as rumoured then the 6GB version should be a pretty solid 1440p performer?

Not with all options turned to ultra but pretty good, look at the 980 reviews to get an idea.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Not with all options turned to ultra but pretty good, look at the 980 reviews to get an idea.

It will be quite interesting to see the GTX1060 against the reference and non-reference RX480 cards.

6GB should be plenty for the resolutions the card is targetting.

 

[ICDP]

Going forward, AMD are only producing 8gb 480s. The prices start at £240.

£250 is only 4.2% money. If the 1060 is 3-5% faster as you say, then it's exactly the same perf/$.

Logic

Are you being deliberately disingenuous? The cheapest RX 480 8GB costs £219 on this very site, not £240.

I'm not impressed RX 480 is barely matching an R9 390 that could be purchased for ~£240 for the past year but lets not start making up prices to suit your agenda.

The RX 480 is a definite better purchase right now than any GTX 970 considering it has twice the VRAM and far superior DX12 performance. RX 480 is 30% faster at 1440p in DX12 over GTX970 and 10% faster than a GTX980. Weather you like it or not DX12 is going to become far more widespread in the future and it is always wise to future proof your GPU purchases. Especially and mainstream level where consumers tend to keep their GPUs a lot longer.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...9-radeon-rx480-8gb-performance-review-24.html

 

[Dave2150]

Looks cool, but don't expect it to do more than trade blows with the 480 imo.

It will most likely annihilate it.

480 = 970 performance.

 

[sand_dune]

It will most likely annihilate it.

480 = 970 performance.

No it's not. 480 at least runs all games without stutter while 970 can't do that due to 3.5 ram.

480 is clearly ahead in new titles by average of 25%

So yes 970 is somewhat mighty in old titles.

It' has nothing on 480 same as 980, looking forward.

 

[D1craig]

It had better smash a 970, yes.

For me, up to £250.

It's not the price of the 480 that really irks, it's that they've failed to move on from 290 perf for three years now.

Everybody says it's a 380 replacement, but that only holds true if the price of the 4gb version holds at £180 ish.

But what about the 8GB version? Surely that's not a 380 replacement since the price is £240 (AIB will be higher!).

The 8GB version at £240+ must be a 290 replacement, yes? But it's the same perf. So I really don't get what AMD were thinking - specifically with the 8GB version.

The 1060 does need to smash the 970, yes. Let's hope it does, and stays under £250.

£240 is the most expensive rx480 the cheapest is £220 ish. so £40 difference

the 1070 and 1080 are 970 and 980 replacements and they are more than £100 more expensive.

 

[ICDP]

It will most likely annihilate it.

480 = 970 performance.

It trades blows with 970 in DX11 and soundly beats it in DX12.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...9-radeon-rx480-8gb-performance-review-24.html

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/RX_480/24.html

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_radeon_r9_rx_480_8gb_review,36.html

I was hoping for 390X level performance with decent overclocking and overall am calling it a failure at it's price and perf level (8GB version). Though to say it's overall equal to 970 is a bit... well... ********. Especially when we consider the significant gap in DX12 performance.

4GB version is a much better purchase than any GTX970 IMHO considering DX12 performance.

 

[Dave2150]

It trades blows with 970 in DX11 and soundly beats it in DX12.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...9-radeon-rx480-8gb-performance-review-24.html

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/RX_480/24.html

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_radeon_r9_rx_480_8gb_review,36.html

I was hoping for 390X level performance with decent overclocking and overall am calling it a failure at it's price and perf level (8GB version). Though to say it's overall equal to 970 is a bit... well... ********. Especially when we consider the significant gap in DX12 performance.

4GB version is a much better purchase than any GTX970 IMHO considering DX12 performance.

Who cares about DX12 at the moment? There's what 2 or 3 games out maximum, most of which run worse than their DX11 equivalents?

By the time DX12 is commonplace, we'll be on the next generation of GPU's. DX11 performance is far more important in the next year.

 

[ICDP]

Who cares about DX12 at the moment? There's what 2 or 3 games out maximum, most of which run worse than their DX11 equivalents?

By the time DX12 is commonplace, we'll be on the next generation of GPU's. DX11 performance is far more important in the next year.

Lol, so you read the reviews I linked to then

5 different DX12 games tested in 2x reviews. Techpowerup don't test DX12. Not to mention RX 480 matches or beats 970 in DX11 as well at stock, so it's not like DX11 performance sucks as you imply.

There are currently 13 DX12 games released with 9 (confirmed) in development. This includes AAA titles, which is not bad considering DX12 has been out less than a year. Here is a sample of DX12 games released or in development.

Rise of the Tomb Raider
Gears of War Ultimate Edition
Hitman
Forza Motorsport 6: Apex
Total War: Warhammer
Deus Ex: Mankind Divided
Star Citizen
Watch Dogs 2
Battlefield 1

You keep convincing yourself DX12 is not relevant, especially at the $200 - $250 price point where mainstream consumers are likely to keep their GPUs for 2-3 years. Not everyone can afford to upgrade their $600 GPU every year.

 

[Chipper500]

Hype lawl

 

[FoxEye]

Hype lawl

You've got to admire their stubbornness

"overclocking to 1500 will save the 480"
"AIB cards with more power will save the 480"
"Magic drivers will save the 480"
"DX12 will save the 480"

Instead of looking at what AMD delivered, there is/was endless "it'll get better, just you wait" talk.

Perhaps they're just trying to suppress their own disappointment

 

[SiDeards73]

You've got to admire their stubbornness

"overclocking to 1500 will save the 480"
"AIB cards with more power will save the 480"
"Magic drivers will save the 480"
"DX12 will save the 480"

Instead of looking at what AMD delivered, there is/was endless "it'll get better, just you wait" talk.

Perhaps they're just trying to suppress their own disappointment

I find it hilarious that you go on and on about the 480, which is a card that was to replace the 380, neither of which were to compete with the 970, yet the 480 does compete with not only the 970 but the 980.

And yes the AIB Cards will probably be a lot better than the shoddy reference 480, im not going to defend the current state of the 480 as its a shambles, but its not like its not salvagable for the AIB's.

I expect a properly designed and cooled 480 will be quite an improvement, much cooler and potentially able to clock a bit higher and deliver more performance, from the ghetto modded 480s and OC'd ones that have been seen on the internet, the performance when clocked a bit higher is actually quite respectable.