-
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
- Thread starter dits
- Start date
This is nonsense.
Games are getting more and more demanding, and the 480 already struggles to play may titles at steady 60FPS with AA on even at 1080p. The various benchmarks and reviews have shown that you need to dial settings down considerably to get 60 FPS in the latest games.
Yes, you can use a 2016 £200 card to play a 2009 title at 100FPS, maybe.
But then fire up GTAV and watch that same card struggle to hit 40 FPS.
The goalposts are fluid and continually changing. The whole reason we can never have enough GPU horsepower is because the more we have, the harder devs will push them.
But a £250 GPU like the 480 is already struggling to deliver 60 FPS in 2015/2016 games.
I don't remember my GTX 460 having problems with the games around at that time. And that was a £150 card.
We're paying ever more money for mid-range cards, and they simply aren't keeping pace with the demands that modern games put on them.
You seriously comparing pricing of cards base on what Nvidia call them instead of the spec?
The 760 was at least a Kepler rebrand with only number cuda cores chopped comparing to the 670/680 and had the memory bus-size remained the same; nowadays the 60 cards Nvidia would nerf the performance further by not only reducing the number of cuda cores, but also chopping down the memory bus and as well? Forget inflation...you cannot compare the two, when what's offered offer are not even the same. Having the 6GB vram might benefit 0.5-1% of the games, but having the memory bus and memory bandwidth chopped would make performance lowered for 100% of the games.
I don't know about you, but a 256-bit 1060 4GB would be a better performing card than a 192-bit 1060 6GB in 99% of the games. The only reason why Nvidia is going with 192-bit 6GB is because the card suffer greatly performance hit at res above 1920, which they can still justify the higher price because of "extra memory", ensuring people that game at 2560 res or above would have to get a 1070 or 1080 if they don't want performance to tank too much.
The 1060 is relying solely on the GPU along with its new architecture to brute-force it, while its memory bandwidth is only the same as the 670 and 760 that was released years ago and with a further reduced bus size (to ensure more performance will be lost at 2560/4K res/DSR/Super-sampling).
Strictly speaking, the memory part of the "new 60 card" is not advancing- it going BACKWARD comparing to the 60 cards of the previous gens(unless someone want to call the 192-bit to 256-bit, 256-bit to 128-bit, then back to 192-bit advancement for the 60 cards).
^^Also this.
In past gens the 1060 might have been a 1040 or 1050 at best. Both companies are selling their rock-bottom **** GPUs as mid/high tier now. The kind of **** that should be in laptops.
Your line of thinking is cliched. The GTX 970 released almost two years ago is still a great card at 1080p. It still runs modern games at 60 fps with high settings. That's why AMD were to happy to release a card almost two years later at the same performance, and by most accounts its selling well. The reason these cards still perform is because we're at a point where the consoles are massively outperformed by mid range GPUs. Since the devs develop their graphics based on console capability, the goal posts aren't changing much at all given that the consoles have reached their peak already.
Complaining that you can't max settings in PC games with a mid range card is ludicrous. Many of the settings are simply there for future use or the highest end cards. Again, you need to compare the experience to consoles. You can pretty much always run console level graphics at 60 fps with a 970/480.
Caporegime
Custom cards 239 GBP, Including VAT.
http://videocardz.com/62049/nvidia-confirms-suggested-prices-for-geforce-gtx-1060
I hope that rings true here in the UK
Wasn't talking about max settings. There are plenty of games like Tomb Raider, GTAV, and more coming out daily, that a 480 will struggle to play at 40 FPS on High settings.
Anyone can reach the same conclusions by reading some reviews.
40-50FPS on High settings in recent games.
Sure it will do CS:GO at 200 FPS but then so will a stale muffin
Wasn't talking about max settings. There are plenty of games like Tomb Raider, GTAV, and more coming out daily, that a 480 will struggle to play at 40 FPS on High settings.
Anyone can reach the same conclusions by reading some reviews.
40-50FPS on High settings in recent games.
Sure it will do CS:GO at 200 FPS but then so will a stale muffin
RX480 Reference card on original launch drivers all at 1080p
i7 6700k @ 4.5
Doom @ Nightmare =Ave 97
Overwatch @ Epic =104
The Division @ Ultra =58
Hitman @ Ultra DX12 =72
Just Cause 3 @ Ultra =71
Fallout 4 @ Ultra =84
Arma 3 @ Ultra 8x FSAA =55
Last edited:
Unfortunately, when you play games you realise that benchmark numbers in reviews are mostly ******** and cant be taken as representative as to how the whole game will play.
I have played GTA V a lot on my 980 at max details at 1080p and 98 minimum and 107 average is utter bobbins taking the whole game into account. There are quite a few times when it will dip below 60.
Last edited:
Perhaps reduce settings if you have a 4GB card that is getting swamped at max settings
The point is the RX480 just like the 1060 will be a good card for 1080p gamers for easily a good couple of years. Talk of 40 ish frames with newish titles like a console is utter rubbish and he refers to only high settings. Please guys do some checking before spouting nonsense. The figures are what they are for averages.
Look at the scores for Ultra settings and those are more suited for 2K or even 4K. Ultra is not really meant by the devs for 1080p IIRC anyways. Sure consoles use med-high in most cases as often highlighted on Eurogamer comparisons of PC-Console releases but these cards are awesome for around £250.
Chances are the 1060 will beat the RX480 in several games but likewise especially in DX12 the 1060 could be slower.
Overall they could be closer than some expect and a hard choice for some to decide between.
Last edited:
Perhaps reduce settings if you have a 4GB card that is getting swamped
The point is the RX480 just like the 1060 will be a good card for 1080p gamers for easily a good couple of years. Talk of 40 ish frames with newish titles like a console is utter rubbish and he refers to only high settings. Please guys do some checking before spouting nonsense. The figures are what they are for averages.
Look at the scores for Ultra settings and those are more suited for 2K or even 4K. Ultra is not really meant by the devs for 1080p IIRC anyways. Sure consoles use med-high in most cases as often highlighted on Eurogamer comparisons of PC-Console releases but these cards are awesome for around £250.
Chances are the 1060 will beat the RX480 in several games but likewise especially in DX12 the 1060 will be slower.
Overall they could be closer than some expect and a hard choice for some to decide between.
I've watched a few vids of actual 480 gameplay footage with FPS counters on.
Dips down to 25FPS in GTAV (yeah, 25!).
Lots of dips to 40 FPS in Tomb Raider.
The Division struggling to get above 45 anywhere.
On an 8GB card, btw. That's £250's worth of GPU.
My point is in years gone by if you spent £250 on a GPU you got almost the fastest card of that gen, and games of the correct era did not kick them in the nuts (except, you know, Crysis).
These days £250 on a 4th/5th tier GPU does not even get you 60 FPS. Not today, and certainly not tomorrow.
I notice you say "high settings" are too good for a mid-range card at 1080p. So you're saying £250 should get you medium settings at 1080p? Boy, your expectations are LOW....! Too low.
Lets cut to the chase really you want to criticise the RX480 YET AGAIN.
Suppose for some they stick to what they are good at.
If we compare cards like the 970/980 with mature drivers to a just released card then obviously some titles will need updates to resolve issues. It happens get over it and AMD have a history of improving game title frame-rate performance as many are aware.
You clearly have an agenda and issue with your flamming. You cant even accept that both the 1060 and RX480 are going to be the two best cards available in the £200-£300 bracket and the most future proof being err the newest they should be.
Making stuff up exaggerating to defend your biast opinion, good for you...
I can easily show you a video of a 1070 @ 1440p in GTA going from over 70 down to under 40 so clearly it happens in that title dependant on the settings quite a lot and not just to one card.
As for the Med/High/Ultra, joe average consumer on 1080p. The point being referred is that many people during gaming will not see much differences in them. Yet as you know the effect on framerates can be costly. People want to use the highest settings they can, they have the choice but I seen ZERO reviews highlighting many problems such in your claim aimed solely at the RX480.
Lots of available video examples showcase the "visual settings benefits" issue on many PC titles.
(Language Warning!)
Many other PC examples available here
Witcher 3 1080p Ultra (480 & 970 OC Comparison)
Not a problem for a budget gamer at all is it and certainly a lot better than what they would get on console.
Suppose for some they stick to what they are good at.
If we compare cards like the 970/980 with mature drivers to a just released card then obviously some titles will need updates to resolve issues. It happens get over it and AMD have a history of improving game title frame-rate performance as many are aware.
You clearly have an agenda and issue with your flamming. You cant even accept that both the 1060 and RX480 are going to be the two best cards available in the £200-£300 bracket and the most future proof being err the newest they should be.
Making stuff up exaggerating to defend your biast opinion, good for you...
I can easily show you a video of a 1070 @ 1440p in GTA going from over 70 down to under 40 so clearly it happens in that title dependant on the settings quite a lot and not just to one card.
As for the Med/High/Ultra, joe average consumer on 1080p. The point being referred is that many people during gaming will not see much differences in them. Yet as you know the effect on framerates can be costly. People want to use the highest settings they can, they have the choice but I seen ZERO reviews highlighting many problems such in your claim aimed solely at the RX480.
Lots of available video examples showcase the "visual settings benefits" issue on many PC titles.
(Language Warning!)
Many other PC examples available here
Witcher 3 1080p Ultra (480 & 970 OC Comparison)
Not a problem for a budget gamer at all is it and certainly a lot better than what they would get on console.
Last edited:
Get off your AMD fanboy horse. It's getting really old. If the 1060 is £270+ and just a tiny bit faster than the 480 I will criticise that too.
The video you embedded shows a *massive* difference in GTAV between "normal" and "high" settings. If you can't see the difference, you need to go to Specsavers. Normal looked awful, frankly.
Struggling to do "high" settings above 40FPS in the latest games is a massive problem. If the 480 struggles, just imagine how bad a 470 will be. Would you honestly recommend a £150 470 to anyone, knowing that it's going to be a naff card even at 1080p, capable of only low-medium settings?
Honestly, this gen is so much a letdown. We were supposed to get a nice speed bump and honestly, we didn't. We got drip fed a tiny % boost, for a whole bucketload more money than normal. Pathetic.
Associate
I watched an interview with a guy from Saphire after 480 was launched and the guy was saying such dumb things it astonished me. Stuff like Ultra is only for benchmarks and screenshots, no one plays like that ( apparently .... ). With that kind of attitude no wonder the results are low quality.
here's the link : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1N-rjhS_cJg, watch around 45'.
Last edited:
It's pretty much a given that it will be £250 - £280, will give a maximum improvement over the 480 of 15%, while in some cases be marginally faster.
Tiny speed boost? We are letting last year's high end performance (£400-£500) spec cards for (£200 - £300) in my opinion that's a massive boost, compare the GTX960 with the RX 480.... Huge boost.
Both camps set out to get us today's recommend specs for vr at a price that a lot more people will go for an and around the £250 mark they have definitely done that (compared to last year's £400 ish)
By the way has there been any solid dates for the 1060 being in stores? Amd did nail supply with the 480 launch... Wonder if nvida can do the same
Show me a comparison video of a 480 matching a 980ti. It isn't happening. Even Gibbo said it would never happen, and it's his job to sell these cards
The truth is you're getting £240 - £350 (390x/970 OC models) performance for £250 - £300.
Doesn't sound so good now, does it?
Seriously, you show me a comaprison videos where the 480 matches a 980ti in more than a couple AMD optimised games, and I'll eat my words.
Until then, don't tell us we're getting "£500 GPU perf for £250" coz it aint true (at all).
e: Clarification. The 480s give £240 - £350 perf because perf is dependent on game used. In some games it just matches a 970, in others it matches a 970 OC model/390x. Still, saying "£400 - £500 GPU perf" is wholly inaccurate, I think almost all will agree.
Last edited:
Associate
Agree with FoxEye. So much bull going on here at the moment. You get what you pay for and with the AMD 480 is a mid range card. Basically AMD's older performance for £100 less. That is it.
The big problem is that the 480 is still power hungry, loud and hot as usual.
Now hopefully that will change with vendor 480's but then expect to eat into that £100 saving for what, last generation performance ?????
The big problem is that the 480 is still power hungry, loud and hot as usual.
Now hopefully that will change with vendor 480's but then expect to eat into that £100 saving for what, last generation performance ?????
Show me a comparison video of a 480 matching a 980ti. It isn't happening. Even Gibbo said it would never happen, and it's his job to sell these cards
The truth is you're getting £240 - £350 (390x/970 OC models) performance for £250 - £300.
Doesn't sound so good now, does it?
Seriously, you show me a comaprison videos where the 480 matches a 980ti in more than a couple AMD optimised games, and I'll eat my words.
Until then, don't tell us we're getting "£500 GPU perf for £250" coz it aint true (at all).
e: Clarification. The 480s give £240 - £350 perf because perf is dependent on game used. In some games it just matches a 970, in others it matches a 970 OC model/390x. Still, saying "£400 - £500 GPU perf" is wholly inaccurate, I think almost all will agree.
My £400 - £500 was based on 980 (non Ti launch prices) as the GTX 1060 will be aiming for that (as this is the 1060 thread) and the AIB 480 cards will be hot on the 980s heals in all probability.
You can't really compare either of the 1060 or 480 with the 970 because of the memory size on the 970 being 4gb. Tho the 390x is a good comparison that i think was just shy of £400 in the early days as it was priced to undercut the 980 (could be wrong there tho)
At the end of the day you could argue this till for days, from how I'm seeing this (also taking into account the sorry state of the pound) this is a good performance jump and kind of on par for what I expected
Soldato
Nearly £300 for just about 2014 980 performance, that is ****.
Associate
I wonder, is there anyone on these forums taking you seriously? All you post is complaints and just post the same thing in every discussion. Gets old really quickly ...