1060 suggestion

[LPide]

So many brands offer 1060, not sure which to get for gaming and some photoshop. Suggestions?

 

[newtekie1]

As long as you get a 6GB version, you'll be fine with any of them.

 

[LPide]

But it’s almost $100 more!?!

 

[eidairaman1]

Save up, 3GB is not enough anymore.

 

[P4-630]

So many brands offer 1060, not sure which to get for gaming and some photoshop. Suggestions?

Any 6GB version.
Read some reviews if you care about temps/noise.

 

[cucker tarlson]

Any dual fan cooling solutions, 1060s are extremely power efficient. 3GB is borderline. Unless you know the games you'll be playing do not use more than 3GB, it is not recommended to get the cut down 1060.

 

[John Naylor]

Without knowing ya resolution, it's hard to say. Be aware that the 3GB and 6GB cards differ by more than the VRAM amounts ... the 6GB has about 10% more shaders and that gives the 6 GB version a 6 - 7% performance advantage. The amount of VRAM is of no impact at 1080p and 1440p . As you can see in TPUs reviews, if VRAM was a factor, we'd see a larger difference in performance between 1080p and 1440p as more pixels should require more VRAM ... however, this does not occur. The games in TPUs test suite show no signs of decreased performance until it gets to 4K.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1060_Gaming_X_3_GB/26.html
1080p - 6 Gb has 6% advantage over 3GB
1440p - 6 Gb has 6% advantage over 3GB
2160p - 6 Gb has 14% advantage over 3GB

How to decide ....

1. If you are using 1080p / 1440p, then decide if it's worth $100 for the extra shaders and the 7% performance increase you get from them. Again, TPUs test results VRAM amount has no significant impact at either resolution.

2. The VRAM does come into play at 4K and there is a performance difference as a result of the VRAM amounts ... however, if you have 4k, I doubt you'd be considering the 1060.

If money is no object, then the 6 GB would the obvious choice... then again, it it wasn't, you'd be getting a 1070 or better. But I find it hard to recommend paying 50% more for a 6% speed increase.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1060_Gaming_X_3_GB/

 

[Jeffredo]

I had a single fan EVGA GTX 1060 SC. It was a touch on the loud side when gaming. I'd probably avoid the single fan models based on that experience. Probably any dual fan model would be fine.

 

[Vayra86]

Avoid the 3GB, the 6GB is a well rounded card that will behave consistently regardless of the game you play.

The 3GB is NOT consistent. Even at 1080p. It will have enough horsepower but lack the VRAM for a stutter free experience at high IQ settings. This is a fact today, and it will only get worse as time goes on. This doesn't show too well in reviews because they round-up a large (or small) list of games and take averages.

 

[eidairaman1]

Avoid the 3GB, the 6GB is a well rounded card that will behave consistently regardless of the game you play.

The 3GB is NOT consistent. Even at 1080p. It will have enough horsepower but lack the VRAM for a stutter free experience at high IQ settings. This is a fact today, and it will only get worse as time goes on. This doesn't show too well in reviews because they round-up a large (or small) list of games and take averages.

Idk why they even bother have anything less that 4GB anymore

 

[John Naylor]

Idk why they even bother have anything less that 4GB anymore

Cost and yield primarily .... vendors tend to focus more on measured at the time impacts than perceived "future" impacts. I like the old days when VRAM needs were simpler to determine.

VRAM = H Res x V res x 32 bit color / 8 .... now w/ all the fltering and shaders, I guess it's beyond a simple calculation.

TPUs test results for example, show that, with popular games of the time of the 1060s release, the 3GB models and 6 GB models showed the same % impact on fps. Obviously this is due to the different amount of shaders otherwise we'd see a wider spread in the performance difference at 1440p than we do at 1080p. Instead we see the same 6%, and no impact seen till 4k where the difference grows to 14%. I have not seen test result showing an impact at 1080p w/ 3 GB (again, other than the shader impact) unless ya doing something weird or game is a poor console port.

1080p - 3 GB min
1440p - 6 GB
2160p - 11 GB (still curious as to why this wasn't 12)

I haven't seen many tests done however with 10xx series ... Alienbabeltech broke the story open with thier analysis of 45 or so games when everyone was clamoring for 4GB 770s instead of 2 GB models. Their tests were done at 5760 x 1080 and they could show a measureable difference in only a handful of games. Problem was, in every instance where there was a difference, the games were unplayable in either case ... Not really satisfied if an extra 2 GB gets me from 12 to 16 fps. The most interesting part tho was when they tested max payne, it wouldn't install on the 2 GB card at 5760, but it did w/ 4 GB... however, when they switched back to the 2 GB, having fooled the install program, it ran and the same fps and image quality.

This was consistent with the previous gen tests and later gen test for 6xx and 9xx

Video Card Performance: 2GB vs 4GB Memory - Puget Custom Computers
Gigabyte GeForce GTX 960 G1 Gaming 4GB review - VRAM Analysis 2GB vs 4GB - Alien Isolation

It's unfortunate that, as yet, no tool exists that measures VRAM usage, only VRAM allocation. During the install at the selected resolution, the install program allocates a certain % of VRAM to be made available to the game. Think of it like acredit card ... when you apply for acard, they look at your credit score and say, Ah, this dude's good for $5k, let's allocate him $5,000 worth of credit. That doesn't mean you use it. And when you apply for car loan, the credit report doesn't show that you owe %500 on that card, it shows and they make a decision on the allocation of $5,000. The article here again goes into this in great detail, again showing, that even at 4k / highest settings, they could not show a performance difference over 4 GB of RAM except when the game was unplayable in either case. Do a web site for the article on extremetech entitled : "Is 4GB of VRAM Enough" ... forum won't let me paste in the link.

Also if we need 4 GB for 1080P, then with 4k = 4 x 1080p ... then 16GB wouldn't be warranted for 4k. However, I agree with you in that next generation, we'll likely see vendors targeting 4Gb on entry level (1080p) systems ... I'm thinking

1080p - 4 GB min
1440p - 8 GB
2160p - 16 GB

Tho cost may cause that 16GB to be cut down a bit.

 

[newtekie1]

I like the old days when VRAM needs were simpler to determine.

VRAM = H Res x V res x 32 bit color / 8 .... now w/ all the fltering and shaders, I guess it's beyond a simple calculation.

It was nice when the VRAM was used just as a frame buffer to house the currently rendering frame. But now it is used as a texture storage, in fact most of the VRAM is used for texture storage at this point.

IMO, 3GB is still enough for 1080p. Hell, I'm perfectly happy using my 1060 6GB on 1440p. I mean, if 3GB was really a big hindrance to 1080p, we'd see cards like the RX 470 4GB beating the 1060 3GB in 1080p tests, and that doesn't happen. The only time the RX 470 beats the GTX1060 3GB is also when it beats the GTX1060 6GB.

The problem with the GTX1060 is the lower shader count. It kills about 10% of the performance compared to the GTX1060 6GB. That's why I'd go with the 6GB version over the 3GB for 1080p.

 

[Vayra86]

@John Naylor You will find all of my advice on rigs is tailored to be as cost effective as can be while not losing performance you'd want at time of purchase or within a reasonable time frame afterwards (1,5 - 2 years). I really like your open mind and analytic take on this though, so here's some more of my 2$

Its very easy to mistake the 3GB versus 6GB discussion for something else though, why not get the 3GB because of the price gap. Because in this case, the price gap's there for a very good reason.

The most cost effective systems (over time) are those with great balance in components. For a GPU, this is paramount. Having a well balanced, 'full' GPU matters ever more the longer you keep it. Its part of the reason that Nvidia's x70's and x80's keep their resale value so well - they are well rounded, well engineered, reliable products. Balanced, and efficient products too. Efficiency works both ways though: when the core has no oomph, your VRAM is most likely also full, or you are edging up against a saturated bus.

Unfortunately, within Nvidia's product stack, the further you go down, usually starting at x60/x60ti, the more they start screwing around with that VRAM. Asymmetrical layouts, where only parts of the GPU can access part of the VRAM directly, are extremely damaging to performance in the long run. Similarly, a lack of VRAM, will stutter every game that hits that ceiling, but a lack of VRAM *combined* with a tight bus (=1060 3GB in a nutshell) is a recipe for a very short GPU life, or a much less enjoyable one. Already today I can provide several titles where 3GB won't cut it, while the core could push it. TW:Warhammer is a good example.

Its always difficult to gauge performance 'in a year or two' because you have to decide something today, but history so far has proven me right. VRAM is always *ALWAYS* the limiting factor with an Nvidia GPU. I could have still used my old GTX 780ti (!) if it weren't for its 3GB VRAM.

@newtekie1 hits the nail on the head when it comes to the biggest change over the past five years in terms of VRAM usage: streaming game worlds and content. Engines are now tailored for consoles that carry 6GB of usable VRAM. That alone is a perfect argument to never get too far below that, because its the new mainstream.

Now consider what'll happen with the release of the updated consoles that are pushing fake 4K; assets in games will have to scale up in detail level, texture quality will be bumped up, etc. This is once again going to tax VRAM, and its happening as we speak. With that knowledge, grabbing a 3GB GPU is just tossing away money.

Unfortunately as you say John, you can't just calculate this with simple math any longer. To state 4K needs 16GB is just simply not true and probably won't be for quite some time. I think for the next 3-4 years, 6-8GB will be sufficient for virtually everything, with 8GB recommended for 4K. Assets and textures usually don't scale in size with resolution, you just see less of the detail at lower res. I can run 4K textured Skyrim on my 1080p rig no problem!

 

[LPide]

Thanks guys, this is very helpful. Went with the Zotac 1060 AMP Edition, 6GB.

 

[Toothless]

Thanks guys, this is very helpful. Went with the Zotac 1060 AMP Edition, 6GB.

Please tell us you got a decent deal for it.

 

[LPide]

yeah, i got it off a buddy...if not i hear that people are paying more than sticker price. is that true?

 

[rtwjunkie]

yeah, i got it off a buddy...if not i hear that people are paying more than sticker price. is that true?

I have rarely been able to find even 3GB models in stock for less than $100 over what the 6GB sold for 6 months ago.

 

[Toothless]

yeah, i got it off a buddy...if not i hear that people are paying more than sticker price. is that true?

$100 shy of what I paid for my 1080TI. Prices suck pretty badly.

 

[silentbogo]

I'd wait for prices to fall mid-spring. Got my EVGA GTX1060 6GB for $289 between the first and the second deficit spike of last year.

And on topic: if your chassis allows you - get a full-size card with dual fan cooling solution. I was restricted to ITX, so I made a mistake of going EVGA over slightly cheaper Zotac or MSI. The fan on this thing is very loud (especially at stock). Had to drop the power limit to 75-80% with a slight overclock for gaming to keep the RPM and temperatures at acceptable levels.
At stock it would go as high as 75C with >70% fan speed at full load, which is an equivalent of a small charter jet standing in my bedroom. Now it's barely 65C with 50% RPM, even though it works nearly 10% faster.

 

[Toothless]

I'd wait for prices to fall mid-spring. Got my EVGA GTX1060 6GB for $289 between the first and the second deficit spike of last year.

And on topic: if your chassis allows you - get a full-size card with dual fan cooling solution. I was restricted to ITX, so I made a mistake of going EVGA over slightly cheaper Zotac or MSI. The fan on this thing is very loud (especially at stock). Had to drop the power limit to 75-80% with a slight overclock for gaming to keep the RPM and temperatures at acceptable levels.
At stock it would go as high as 75C with >70% fan speed at full load, which is an equivalent of a small charter jet standing in my bedroom. Now it's barely 65C with 50% RPM, even though it works nearly 10% faster.

He's already got the card.

yeah, i got it off a buddy...

 

[ExV6k]

Interesting topic! Really liked the detailed explanation, but does it mean I messed up when I bought a 3GB 1060 since I play at 1440x900@85Hz?

 

[StrayKAT]

I'd only get the 3GB if you wanted to play 3yr (or more) old games. Like you just wanted to catch up on the last several years. Which is still great, if that's what you want. You can run plenty of modern stuff fine @1080p with 6GB though.

 

[jaggerwild]

$700 for a $300 dollar card, nothing wrong there!!!

 

[Arjai]

Even at $509, it seems TOO much for what you get. $300? I might bite, might.

 

[Toothless]

Interesting topic! Really liked the detailed explanation, but does it mean I messed up when I bought a 3GB 1060 since I play at 1440x900@85Hz?

No.