• 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

TheVoice said:
I know this is an enthusiast's forum, but even by those lofty standards the 480 can't seriously be considered a "low-end" GPU.

Having been interested in the 4GB 480 but initially put-off by the power issues and lack of availability, I'm now watching the 1060 closely but I get the impression it's going to be significantly more expensive and I'll probably end up with a 480 anyway.
Click to expand...

Share a similar view but was not worried about the power issue thing which has now apparently been sorted. The 6GB vs 8GB is likely not an issue for 1080p although more games are going beyond 4GB. So if cranking up the settings and visual aids matters to you then keep this in mind. Nvidia certainly still hold the better power usage though even if AMD have improved and I think it may be a hard decision when comparing the best AIB for both.

My own biggest concern is futureproof for DX12 performance for upcoming games. To me this is vital and may turn out to be one of the factors.
Read this regards one of the devs comments for BF1 and future titles

Eurogamer have this recent video comparing console versions to all PC settings from Low-Ultra. Seems the consoles are a mix between Low/Medium only. So the expected performance of RX480 or GTX1060 will not be an issue to really enjoy this title or others at 1080p. Instead delightfully do so achieving the benefits in the increased visual effects and frames.

Seems people calling these cards low end are perhaps being a tad PC Elite minded and you can see some of the visual differences below if lowering settings while not ideal gives some perspective.

According to the video DX12 is not yet implemented in the PC Alpha.
Also no mention if HDR tone mapping is going to be implemented for 2017 compatible monitors and current UHD Premium TVs.

Best case example for PC
bqvkidhh.png

hGWIiYvh.png

urlryMNh.png

anXL13ch.png

mAUmEBOh.png
 
Last edited:
docsonic said:
Not a huge amount of difference I agree:
Click to expand...
I must be useless at them "spot the difference" games because I can't see any difference between them two ultra settings & low settings screen shots..

Edit: If you look really close you can just about make out that his arm & the gun handle looks sharper in the ultra screenshot
 
Last edited:
All I can see is that the building in the middle left side of the screenshot is more detailed, but I don't think I'd have noticed if I wasn't trying to spot the differences.
 
The gun has much better representation of the metal and light glinting off it.
Although on a high res display the extra sharpness in general for the whole scene of course would be more apparent.

Yet that kinda explains why if some games have super high res texture options that are beyond what a 1080p display can muster then it may be a bit of a waste to use them compared to getting additional frame performance. Each game will differ but this idea that all resolutions (1080p) must use max settings across the board in games is questionable at best.

HDR will bring much more realistic and natural lighting that people may notice more than just texture detailing. Monitors/displays with better 10 bit panels going beyond 1000 and 2000 nits when displaying HDR supported games will make more impact towards image quality than just displays with higher resolutions. It also will not have the performance impact neither to help bring a more enjoyable and visual experience.

Thankfully Nvidia are full on-board with HDR
Most Recent Nvidia Blog
Recent Tomb Raider Article

Anyone that has a 9 or 10 series Nvidia card with perhaps an HDR based 4K display can download the SDK that contains sample images.
For more technical curious folks they can read the "White Paper" both linked in above.

7Siz1Y7h.png
 
Last edited:
Do you think these NDA's or Embargo's are a necessary thing? Surely they can't get away with releasing card benchmarks and stuff just a hours/day from product release?
 
bru said:
.
All the people out there gaming quit happily on intel and AMD APU's would disagree with you. :)
Click to expand...

...I know a fair few of those people and they most certainly are not happy and would absolutely buy a GPU if they had the money. Due to 480 prices, one of those folks is looking to the 470, in the hopes that it will be in their budget.

FoxEye said:
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.
Click to expand...
FoxEye said:
The truth is you're getting £240 - £350 (390x/970 OC models) performance for £250 - £300.
Click to expand...
FoxEye said:
The xx60 cards should be £180 - £200 (max) in my book, and £250 is just more than I'm willing to pay.
...
The 480 for me is a nothing card. Not fast enough to be a keeper, not cheap enough to be a stop gap. A 1060 @ £250 will have the same problem for me.
Click to expand...

Preach the truth, except that last paragraph is more opinion, but an opinion shared by many nonetheless. As someone else said, these are supposed to be the mainstream 'budget' cards. Well they most certainly aren't at budget pricing.

Seanspeed said:
Factor in the predicted continual drop of pound vs dollar and retailers will have to cover their margins with higher pricing.
Click to expand...
DPB said:
Again, you can blame the pound for that. The 560 was $200 and the 560 Ti $250 (same as the 1060). The only difference now is that the exchange rate now is 1.29 rather than 1.6.

Prices aren't going to get any better here unless the pound goes up again.
Click to expand...

I remember 560tis going for £160-200 back in the day. Let's not bring politics into this but the currency has less to do with it:

Case-in-point: the 1070 and 1080 both launched before all that £ stuff happened. And they launched at appauling prices. I remember last year the Asus Strix 970 could be found for £300 max. Now we have the Asus Strix 1070 for £490... that's almost £200 more!

You guys are also forgetting things when it comes to currency value changes: cost of goods go up, but people's wages must go up too, in order to compensate. It would be silly if it cost thousands of Japanese yen to buy a GPU, yet a person living over there got paid in £ numbers for their wages. Everything must be balanced. And that's just it... I've heard nothing about increase in wages to compensate. I personally haven't had my rates changed so it's only the prices increasing:

TLDR we're getting shafted.

After the 1060 launches, I'll watch the benchmarks, roll my eyes at the inevitable prices and just not bother with graphics cards and discussion for a good while. It's far too volatile and depressing. everywhere I go people bring up politics (when will VAT go away?) and folks try to justify absurd increases in pricing. The only interesting thing that might happen is a reasonably priced 3GB version... but that's as likely as price drops on the 1070s and 1080s.

Peace out folks.
 
We have to get shafted to be honest. Brexit really well and truly screwed us over; if it wasn't bad enough that we take the dollar rate, convert it to pounds and add 20% for VAT on top, we've now got the worst £/$ rate in decades and it's come at the worst possible time for a PC enthusiast.
If this were a decade ago (anywhere from this time in 2006 until late 2008) we'd likely be having a laugh at how cheap the prices are for the performance, because we'd be getting anywhere from $1.8-$2.05 per single pound... but now we're below 1.3 and things aren't improving anytime soon.
I won't go into anything political beyond stating that the brexit has, for the immediate and short term at least, screwed us all over for our upgrade hobbies...but that hasn't stopped every single new GPU being bought in the 1000s :D
 
Usually same in most games. Going from high to ultra never usually looks much different. Very hard to tell however you will see a noticeable frame drop from high to ultra. Makes you think is the performance sacrifice worth hardly any IQ improvement? IMO no. But as always there is people who want "MAX" settings just because it makes them feel better when they can max a game and it's still playable. Personally as long as the game looks great and i get high FPS to make it very smooth game play the overall experience for me is better this way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom