• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

GTX 1060 Vs RX 480 - head to head showdown

+ 10% faster in DX11
+ significantly lower power consumption

- 10% more expensive
- significantly worse DX12/Vulcan performance
- less VRAM
- no SLI

1060 is good, if you spared more money, than the cost of an RX480, but cannot afford an 1070, you live in a region with high electricity cost, you only play DX11 games, you want the best performance for the money and you don't mind replacing the card next summer.
 
Last edited:
Mauller said:
I wouldn't blame Brexit, The prices in Europe are no better if not worse than ours. It appears that there is far less stock of the 1060 compared to the Rx480 for launch, even with the AIB models thrown in.

I think they had to launch with AIB models just to have enough stock.
Click to expand...
Going by your sig, it seems obvious you'll defend that.

Gibbo has made it abundantly clear that Brexit is affecting prices of new GPU's here. Significantly.

Believe what you need to, though.
 
The best default option if people are unsure - the 1060.
Assuming most will go for the 6GB version - IMO that's enough memory at this level.

I still can't believe the best AMD have at the moment is a card to swap blows with a lower end/lower mid-range Nvidia card :(. Nice to see there is another option at this level though.
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
LMAO,hardware enthusiasts on forums think sub £300 cards are low end.
Click to expand...

Cards which can do 1440 at high quality settings are not exactly low end and I wouldn't put 1060 or rx 480 in this category. What is low end? No idea to be honest, 970 is not low end either. Maybe my old 660 TI is low end these days :)
 
nitram100 said:
AMD need to pull their finger out, Nvidia are gonna have the monopoly soon.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say that, AMD are still in the game, but I do think the 480 was their chance to really take things back, but the performance target set was simply way too easy for Nvidia to cover. As soon as reviews for the 480 came out, I knew damn well that Nvidia would be able to compete with it just fine.

AMD need to produce a 'clear winner' in some segment. The whole point of the 480 seemed to be aimed at that idea, going for the larger market audience, but the 480 simply isn't fast enough to be a proper winner. I think they prioritized TPU efficiency just a bit too much, when they should really have put more emphasis on performance with their new architecture. Makes me think they were worrying more about producing an architecture viable for consoles and laptops rather than enthusiast desktop gamers.
 
Seanspeed said:
I wouldn't say that, AMD are still in the game, but I do think the 480 was their chance to really take things back, but the performance target set was simply way too easy for Nvidia to cover. As soon as reviews for the 480 came out, I knew damn well that Nvidia would be able to compete with it just fine.

AMD need to produce a 'clear winner' in some segment. The whole point of the 480 seemed to be aimed at that idea, going for the larger market audience, but the 480 simply isn't fast enough to be a proper winner. I think they prioritized TPU efficiency just a bit too much, when they should really have put more emphasis on performance with their new architecture. Makes me think they were worrying more about producing an architecture viable for consoles and laptops rather than enthusiast desktop gamers.
Click to expand...

I think AMD expected the new process to allow much higher clocks but so far it's been a bit poor. From the overclocks we've seen, the card can go past to 1500MHz+ when water cooled. If any of the custom 480's can reach close to 1500MHz on air then it should be a no brainer for most people in this market segment.

Hopefully we will see some benchmarks for the Nitro, Red Devil, etc soon.
 
sothur said:
+ 10% faster in DX11
+ significantly lower power consumption

- 10% more expensive
- significantly worse DX12/Vulcan performance
- less VRAM
- no SLI

1060 is good, if you spared more money, than the cost of an RX480, but cannot afford an 1070, you live in a region with high electricity cost, you only play DX11 games, you want the best performance for the money and you don't mind replacing the card next summer.
Click to expand...

:D :D :D

Got to say this post made me laugh like a loon. Talk about damned with faint praise. :D
 
Seanspeed said:
I wouldn't say that, AMD are still in the game, but I do think the 480 was their chance to really take things back, but the performance target set was simply way too easy for Nvidia to cover. As soon as reviews for the 480 came out, I knew damn well that Nvidia would be able to compete with it just fine.

AMD need to produce a 'clear winner' in some segment. The whole point of the 480 seemed to be aimed at that idea, going for the larger market audience, but the 480 simply isn't fast enough to be a proper winner. I think they prioritized TPU efficiency just a bit too much, when they should really have put more emphasis on performance with their new architecture. Makes me think they were worrying more about producing an architecture viable for consoles and laptops rather than enthusiast desktop gamers.
Click to expand...

The RX480 seems like a clear winner to me.

The reference 1060 is running above its stated boost clock in order to look good compared to the reference 480, essentially competing with its own AIB cards (no wonder they were released altogether; there was no room left for improvement). Even then, it loses decisively in DX12, and has just a 10% edge in DX11. And this is as good as it gets for it.

When the 480 partner cards start releasing next week, you'll see what's what. It looks like they will be tied in DX11. No need to say anything about DX12 as the 480 is already so much better that it's embarrassing.

In any case, if you're going to keep a card for more than 8 months, the 480 is your best option.
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
LMAO,hardware enthusiasts on forums think sub £300 cards are low end.
Click to expand...

It's all relative and we see things differently.
Given many think the 1080 is a mid-range card, which I disagree with at this moment in time, where does that put the 50% cheaper 1060? It's either lower-mid or low end.

Note that by low end I mean for gaming. I have a 730 which I don't class at all as it's useful for gaming - not even low end :D.

The 1060 moving forward is about the lowest you'd want to go in performance for the next few years of gaming? That's what I think anyway.
 
Last edited:
Lol @ the Nvidia benchmarks being used in the OP.

Guru3D summed it up nicely,

we do recommend you to look at the Radeon RX 480 as well if you are keen in pricing and budget. Their 4 GB model simply is 50 bucks cheaper while perf wise it's all more or less the same.
Click to expand...

Anyway must not read GPU sub section, I can feel the toxicity again :P
 
I certainly will and wasn't it you telling me to lighten up? :p

Edit:

I was close but spot on really and I returned to my sense of humour and banter. Harmless indeed :D

TheRealDeal said:
What happened to that good sense of humor and love a bit of banter you keep telling us about. Harmless fun tbh.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom