So GTX 1060 is the best price/perf card it seems?

[hertz9753]

The GTX 1060 doesn't support SLI.

 

[ratirt]

Well cash is always a problem when buying Vide cards. I'm waiting to see what will come out with both AMD and NVIDIA. wanna make a good choice and not rush to buy anything now. RX 480 is tempting for me but honestly i'd expect a bit more from the card. 1060 as you said is good. all the new cards are good but I really wanna see what's going to show up on the market soon. Do be honest I bought my 670 3 weeks ago or so to switch from my old 460 so that I have some fps boost in games. That will give me a chance to play games with decent performance while waiting for new cards. really exited about it though. I got to say that i'm happy with my 670 so if you have 1060 I'm sure you will do just fine

 

[Assimilator]

I got my 1060 yesterday.

Overall, I'm not overwhelmed. I was expecting much better performance than my 280X+7870XT crossfire, especially as the second card on my crossfire setup was running at x4.

The scores on the 1060 are only slightly improved (10 368 vs. 9 512 in Firestrike), but the power savings an low heat output are really good.

It's pretty shitty that there is no SLI capability. SLI would give any system using one, awesome upgrade potential and I'm also a little annoyed with the lack of analog signal as I'll have to shell out an extra $15 for a DP>VGA adapter

If I had the choice between a 480 and 1060, I think I would have gone the 480 route with a plan to crossfire a year later when I get a bigger screen

Why are you complaining that the card doesn't have SLI and analog output? Did you (a) not do the research before buying, or (b) just complaining for the sake of complaining?

And seriously, you still have an analog monitor? You should've dumped that long before you bought a graphics card that doesn't support it. I mean yeah, I get it still works, but so does steam power.

 

[hertz9753]

Why are you complaining that the card doesn't have SLI and analog output? Did you (a) not do the research before buying, or (b) just complaining for the sake of complaining?

And seriously, you still have an analog monitor? You should've dumped that long before you bought a graphics card that doesn't support it. I mean yeah, I get it still works, but so does steam power.

Maybe that member meant DVI. Don't be so quick to jump on a fellow member, give them a chance to explain. Some people can't get the best things where they live.

Don't ask what I have and it is not in my specs.

 

[silkstone]

Why are you complaining that the card doesn't have SLI and analog output? Did you (a) not do the research before buying, or (b) just complaining for the sake of complaining?

And seriously, you still have an analog monitor? You should've dumped that long before you bought a graphics card that doesn't support it. I mean yeah, I get it still works, but so does steam power.

Pointing out the negative side of something isn't complaining, especially when I also point out the positive and say that overall I'm happy, just not overwhelmed.

Nor am I saying the 480 is better than the 1060 or Vice-versa, I'm just discussing things that may affect people's decision whether to upgrade or not.

If I were in the US and had a choice between a 480@$200 and a 1060@$250, I may have chosen differently as I think the 480 would give a slightly better price/performance ratio though the 1060 is certainly a stronger card.

My old VGA monitor is my second screen. No need to upgrade it as it does what I need it do. My main display is a 23" IPS with better connectors. Lack of analog is only an annoyance, nothing more. The 480 also lacks analog afaik.

 

[P4-630]

The 480 also lacks analog afaik

Yeah thats right, all new card from now on seem to only supports DVI-D IF they have a DVI connector at all...

 

[AlienIsGOD]

Pointing out the negative side of something isn't complaining, especially when I also point out the positive and say that overall I'm happy, just not overwhelmed.

Nor am I saying the 480 is better than the 1060 or Vice-versa, I'm just discussing things that may affect people's decision whether to upgrade or not.

If I were in the US and had a choice between a 480@$200 and a 1060@$250, I may have chosen differently as I think the 480 would give a slightly better price/performance ratio though the 1060 is certainly a stronger card.

My old VGA monitor is my second screen. No need to upgrade it as it does what I need it do. My main display is a 23" IPS with better connectors. Lack of analog is only an annoyance, nothing more. The 480 also lacks analog afaik.

yup, 3 DP and 1 HDMI

 

[FireFox]

Maybe that member meant DVI. Don't be so quick to jump on a fellow member, give them a chance to explain. Some people can't get the best things where they live.

+1

 

[terroralpha]

@Knoxx29

Those benchmarks are so different from what I've seen, that I have to call Bravo Sierra on the tester.
This suggests the work of a paid shill.

do you guys smell that? i smell... butt hurt.

his GTX 1080 result, 62FPS @1440p with ultra settings is the same number that others (like hardware unboxed) were getting. as for the RX480, i've seen numbers range from 60 to 66 FPS. might have to do with heat issues reducing the boost clock due to two very power hungry cards sitting next to each other and reducing. i had this problem with GTX 470s and HD 6970s.

in any case, even if the RX480 CF did manage to squeak out an extra 2 FPS, i still wouldn't use it. i have grown to hate multi GPU set ups. especially crossfire. the microstutter drives me crazy. i'll spend whatever money i have to so that I can actually enjoy the games i'm playing. below is an image that illustrated my point perfectly. i don't understand how people put up with this crap...

 

[Flogger23m]

Almost two years after the GTX 970 we get the 1060:

- $80 cheaper
- similar performance, give or take
- only 2GB more of VRAM

Not a good value at all really. Best option is to spend $450-470 to get a 1070, but now we're in an entirely different price range compare to the GTX 970 at launch. The mid range this generation is absolutely terrible, from both Nvidia and AMD. We need a good performing card at around $250, much like the HD 6950.

 

[xorbe]

If you consider than the 4GB 960 started at $250, then the 1060 seems like a stellar deal. I think it's "price compression" for the entry gaming cards. But, I also see the 970 angle -- basically $80 less, lower wattage, bit more vram.

From the top down, compared to past ... you can see the price creep. Sort of how Civic DX disappeared, LX and EX held the price line, and then new EX-L/EX-T upped the pricing overall.

$500 480 - TiXP $1200
$350 470 - 1080 $600-720
$170 460 - 1070 $400-450
$130 450 - 1060 $250-300

 

[Flogger23m]

Its a decent card if you haven't upgraded in years, but a bit slow otherwise. My GTX 970 is starting to show its age in newer titles and can't max some games out at 1080 with 60 frame rates (Rise of the Tomb Raider ect.). Which means the 1060 will have the same shortcomings. And keep in mind they're doing the Founders Edition nonsense with it to, so realistically, you're probably going to have to fork over $280-90 for a decent cooler going by current newegg prices. I paid $350 for my GTX 970, MSI 4G Gaming. A higher end model. Getting similar for a 1060 is $290 at the moment. Considering that, the price gap is even closer; $60.

For late 2016, at $280-90, I don't think the 1060 has the performance it needs. The higher end models need to be closer to $220 IMO. Performance wise it is more on par with a GTX 560/660, yet commands the price of a 560ti/660ti.

 

[swirl09]

I've had a few days to play around with an EVGA SC model and I love it! It's nice and small, very cool, and is handling 1080p nicely indeed!

Comparing it to a 2 year old 970 is understandable. But, while it's not a big jump in performance, it is closer to a 980 (the 1060 model I got for £259 beats it in every way). The lack of SLI doesn't annoy me personally, and I'm sure nvidia left it off for 1 simple reason, it would kill the 1080 and actually in scenarios where scaling was strong it would be trading blows with a Titan x, so of course they don't want that. But, I never liked SLI and this card is only for a side rig anyway.

It's my new fav card atm.

 

[eidairaman1]

Pointing out the negative side of something isn't complaining, especially when I also point out the positive and say that overall I'm happy, just not overwhelmed.

Nor am I saying the 480 is better than the 1060 or Vice-versa, I'm just discussing things that may affect people's decision whether to upgrade or not.

If I were in the US and had a choice between a 480@$200 and a 1060@$250, I may have chosen differently as I think the 480 would give a slightly better price/performance ratio though the 1060 is certainly a stronger card.

My old VGA monitor is my second screen. No need to upgrade it as it does what I need it do. My main display is a 23" IPS with better connectors. Lack of analog is only an annoyance, nothing more. The 480 also lacks analog afaik.

Slowly being phased out. Im using a Dp to vga adapter on my monitor

 

[medi01]

however we are looking at reference vs reference here

At announced price levels:

470 (4Gb, 179$) > 480 (4Gb, 199$) > 1060 (249$) > 480 (8Gb, 239$) > 1070 (379$) > 1060 (Fools Edition, 299$)

 

[Vayra86]

At announced price levels:

470 (4Gb, 179$) > 480 (4Gb, 199$) > 1060 (249$) > 480 (8Gb, 239$) > 1070 (379$) > 1060 (Fools Edition, 299$)

This graph shows how and to what extent the price/perf of x60 is always total and utter junk.

Stay away from Nvidia's x60 - either opt for the 'ti' x50 if you want bang for buck, or move up to x70. It's always been that way...

 

[the54thvoid]

This graph shows how and to what extent the price/perf of x60 is always total and utter junk.

Umm, it's sandwiched between the 4GB and 8GB 470's and 480's. Also depends what game suite was used for that graph. You could look at Nvidia-centric titles and it would be better or AMD-centric and be worse.
I find it better to avoid looking at perf/dollar and instead look at your own budget/requirements and choose a card that fits that.
Can't wait to see how Deus Ex affects each vendor.

 

[Recon-UK]

do you guys smell that? i smell... butt hurt.

his GTX 1080 result, 62FPS @1440p with ultra settings is the same number that others (like hardware unboxed) were getting. as for the RX480, i've seen numbers range from 60 to 66 FPS. might have to do with heat issues reducing the boost clock due to two very power hungry cards sitting next to each other and reducing. i had this problem with GTX 470s and HD 6970s.

in any case, even if the RX480 CF did manage to squeak out an extra 2 FPS, i still wouldn't use it. i have grown to hate multi GPU set ups. especially crossfire. the microstutter drives me crazy. i'll spend whatever money i have to so that I can actually enjoy the games i'm playing. below is an image that illustrated my point perfectly. i don't understand how people put up with this crap...

Except GTX 470 and 6970 don't boost, they have a fixed 3D clock.

 

[medi01]

5.2billion transistors same TDP

Anandtech (total power consumption, measured at power socket)
1060 - 264w
480 - 301w, 1060 + 37w
1070 - 307w, 480 + 6w
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10540/the-geforce-gtx-1060-founders-edition-asus-strix-review/16

That differs a lot from what others measure. Diff to what TPU is posting is 17w for 480 and 1070 also consumes 32w less at TPU than at Anandtech, for some reason.

 

[Vayra86]

Umm, it's sandwiched between the 4GB and 8GB 470's and 480's. Also depends what game suite was used for that graph. You could look at Nvidia-centric titles and it would be better or AMD-centric and be worse.
I find it better to avoid looking at perf/dollar and instead look at your own budget/requirements and choose a card that fits that.
Can't wait to see how Deus Ex affects each vendor.

Eh... how are you reading that chart? Everything from 1070 on down is the worst price/perf (highest dollar per FPS), and the x60's along with the currently vastly overpriced 1070 are leading that pack. AMD places an (ancient) 390 in there and all other offerings are much better perf/dollar. Also I don't see a 1060 for sale at 249 bucks, do you?

 

[the54thvoid]

Eh... how are you reading that chart? Everything from 1070 on down is the worst price/perf (highest dollar per FPS), and the x60's along with the currently vastly overpriced 1070 are leading that pack. AMD places an (ancient) 390 in there and all other offerings are much better perf/dollar. Also I don't see a 1060 for sale at 249 bucks, do you?

Ah, apologies. I thought you meant 1060. To be fair, if we're discussing current gen, why even consider a 960.

 

[Recon-UK]

Ah, apologies. I thought you meant 1060. To be fair, if we're discussing current gen, why even consider a 960.

It get's mauled by a stock 670 so that should say enough.

 

[rtwjunkie]

It get's mauled by a stock 670 so that should say enough.

Are you sure you want to stick with that story? W1zzard's reviews show different.

 

[Recon-UK]

Granted different games used.

 

[hertz9753]

The GTX 670 is the tarded older brother of the GTX 770.