Yep. 1070 at 2000+/9200, i5 4690k at 4.5ghz, 16gb ram running in a hadron air itx rig for a 65" 4k set.
ITX does not mean lower performance these days.
Hell, people have closed loop cpu and gpu itx rigs.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
GeForce GTX 1060 announced - July 19, 6GB, $249 MSRP/$299 Founder's
- Thread starter Guess Who
- Start date
Yep. 1070 at 2000+/9200, i5 4690k at 4.5ghz, 16gb ram running in a hadron air itx rig for a 65" 4k set.
ITX does not mean lower performance these days.
Hell, people have closed loop cpu and gpu itx rigs.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
I would warn anyone away from buying the $300 Founders (reference) 1060 after an image of the PCB leaked:
http://www.overclock.net/t/1605250/tpu-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1060-founders-edition-pcb-pictured/0_20
This looks really cheap, especially compared to the 480. A few worrying design choices we can see for people who may not be familiar with PCB design:
- 3-phase VRM power delivery (Left of GPU. 480 has 6-phases. These dictate power delivery/overclock)
- 6-pin power stuck to the cooler (replacing the cooler will be a nightmare)
- 2 slots for VRAM memory modules are empty. Either this was originally meant to feature 8GB memory but NV rush changed plans to release a cheaper product to combat the 480, or there will be a 1060 Ti in the future with 8GB and they are just using the same PCB for both).
Nvidia charging a premium for this is slightly scandalous. This card hasn't got the usual Nvidia polish for whatever reason.
For comparison, here is the 480s reference PCB, which is apparently a cheaper product ($240):
You can see the 6 VRMs to left of GPU (and 8x 1GB GDDR5 VRM modules).
I would not touch a reference Funders edition with a barge pole at this point. They are charging a premium for a PCB that would be suitable for a $150 graphics card.
I'm hoping the custom cards are released on the same day so I can choose a card with a non-budget PCB.
http://www.overclock.net/t/1605250/tpu-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1060-founders-edition-pcb-pictured/0_20
This looks really cheap, especially compared to the 480. A few worrying design choices we can see for people who may not be familiar with PCB design:
- 3-phase VRM power delivery (Left of GPU. 480 has 6-phases. These dictate power delivery/overclock)
- 6-pin power stuck to the cooler (replacing the cooler will be a nightmare)
- 2 slots for VRAM memory modules are empty. Either this was originally meant to feature 8GB memory but NV rush changed plans to release a cheaper product to combat the 480, or there will be a 1060 Ti in the future with 8GB and they are just using the same PCB for both).
Nvidia charging a premium for this is slightly scandalous. This card hasn't got the usual Nvidia polish for whatever reason.
For comparison, here is the 480s reference PCB, which is apparently a cheaper product ($240):
You can see the 6 VRMs to left of GPU (and 8x 1GB GDDR5 VRM modules).
I would not touch a reference Funders edition with a barge pole at this point. They are charging a premium for a PCB that would be suitable for a $150 graphics card.
I'm hoping the custom cards are released on the same day so I can choose a card with a non-budget PCB.
Meh... having options is never a bad thing. I wouldn't personally bother with SLI/Crossfire either in its current state because its benefits are just too variable, but if someone else sees value in it then there's nothing wrong with that. PC is an open platform and limiting options/removing features is surely a negative.
dr_rus
Member
There's like five countries on the planet which will be able to do that.
I also expect that custom cards PCBs will be the same for the most part. It's a middle range card, they'll cut as much costs off it as they can. It's also perfectly fine with just three power phases since it's not a Polaris 10 GPU (for which 6 phases is a bit too much).
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
It appears very barebones for a $300 product. I've heard rumours that originally this was meant to be a 980+ tier card but when AMD released the aggressively priced 480 (and knowing they have the even cheaper 470/460 coming) it came as a bit of a surprise so Nvidia rushed forward their only product in this lower segment that was scheduled for this quarter.
The state of the PCB with slits for more VRAM is very strange and hints the PCB was originally meant to house more memory but for whatever reason (cost cutting) 8gb memory was shelved for 192-bit bus (and 6gb).
dr_rus
Member
Who cares how it appears if it works as intended and doesn't break in a month?
It's possible that NV planned a faster card against 480 based on a cut down GP104 with a full 256 bit bus but after they found out the performance level of 480 they've decided to scrap that and went with a GP106 card instead. That could explain the missing memory chips on that PCB. Another possibility is that this PCB is also compatible with a GP107 which have a 128 bit bus.
Oracle Dragon
Member
It will be great when we can get some hard numbers on this thing and then I can finally ditch my 560Ti and get either the 1060 or the 480. I prefer to get the NV solution as I want the other NV options (Shadowplay, GeForce Experience, etc) but the games come first IMO.
Speaking of games... when did SLI become so crappy? Or is it just my rose tinted nostalgia glasses? I remember shelling out big bucks for Voodoo2 SLI (glorious 1024x768 Unreal!) and I remember it working perfectly in everything. Was it actually a total flake fest and I just can't recall?
Speaking of games... when did SLI become so crappy? Or is it just my rose tinted nostalgia glasses? I remember shelling out big bucks for Voodoo2 SLI (glorious 1024x768 Unreal!) and I remember it working perfectly in everything. Was it actually a total flake fest and I just can't recall?
Last_colossi
Member
I would warn anyone away from buying the $300 Founders (reference) 1060 after an image of the PCB leaked:
http://www.overclock.net/t/1605250/tpu-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1060-founders-edition-pcb-pictured/0_20
This looks really cheap, especially compared to the 480. A few worrying design choices we can see for people who may not be familiar with PCB design:
- 3-phase VRM power delivery (Left of GPU. 480 has 6-phases. These dictate power delivery/overclock)
- 6-pin power stuck to the cooler (replacing the cooler will be a nightmare)
- 2 slots for VRAM memory modules are empty. Either this was originally meant to feature 8GB memory but NV rush changed plans to release a cheaper product to combat the 480, or there will be a 1060 Ti in the future with 8GB and they are just using the same PCB for both).
Nvidia charging a premium for this is slightly scandalous. This card hasn't got the usual Nvidia polish for whatever reason.
For comparison, here is the 480s reference PCB, which is apparently a cheaper product ($240):
You can see the 6 VRMs to left of GPU (and 8x 1GB GDDR5 VRM modules).
I would not touch a reference Funders edition with a barge pole at this point. They are charging a premium for a PCB that would be suitable for a $150 graphics card.
I'm hoping the custom cards are released on the same day so I can choose a card with a non-budget PCB.
Keep in mind that the RX 480 has a TDP of 150w and this 1060 has a TDP of 120w and taking PCIE power draw into account we could see the 1060 consuming far less power than the RX 480, thus eliminating the need for anything more than a 3-phase VRM.
Also the 1060 is using a 192-bit memory interface so it can only use RAM in chunks of 1.5GB which is why it'll be releasing with 3GB & 6GB of RAM respectively.
In the end you may be right, but for now I suggest everyone just wait a little longer before making assumptions as benchmarks & reviews are just around the corner.
Yeah, and this move does seem kind of antagonistic to those that can and would do this.
But... by the time I was having issues with the 560 Ti it started to have issues with games that were running OK otherwise, or at least that was the case with the Witcher 3. And I suspect getting a newer cars, even just a side step like 750 Ti, would yield better results or at least reliable performance.
Isn't this more or less the same as the GTX 950 circuit board but with more VRAM memory modules?
If the Pascal chip uses less power, it would make sense for Nvidia to cut costs and use a circuit board from a previous gen with lower TDP to match.
This thing is going to last 3 to 4 years atleast. Its such a balanced card with a good amount of GPU, a lot of RAM and paired with a good CPU is gonna go far. Bandwidth seems a bit small but i'm guessing they have really stepped up their compression algorithms
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
Yes but first of all, the 960, although a very mediocre product (I'm using one right now) never cost $300. It was a low-priced card launched at $199.That's what you'd expect from that card.
Secondly, the issue here is not just the 3-phase VRMs, it's the 6-pin power housed on the cooler, presumably connected to the PCB via an extender. Look where the extender connects to the PCB in the top right of the board.
Look where the 6-pin input is positioned on the cooler at the end:
This was why I asked when I first saw it, why was the cooler so long compared to the PCB? This will just make replacing the cooler or putting one of these under water a nightmare as you'd need some kind of extender to connect a six-pin to the circuit board.
The other strange thing is the 2 empty slots for VRAM modules. Makes you question if this card was originally designed differently to what is being released on the 19th.
In any case, the custom PCB cards should negate all of this and be excellent cards. I just think you would be silly to fall for Nvidia's marketing tricks here, charging a premium $300 for a product built like this.
EDIT: Sorry I thought you said 960 instead of 950. In which case, that's even worse. 950 is a bottom-tier card.
Adry9
Member
Oh man, if this are true that would be great.
(Poor AMD though)
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
Rise of the Tomb Raider FPS figures are funny.
480 somehow loses 20fps compared to review site benchmarks. Actually, it's not somehow, it's Gameworks
480 somehow loses 20fps compared to review site benchmarks. Actually, it's not somehow, it's Gameworks
Rise of the Tomb Raider FPS figures are funny.
480 somehow loses 20fps compared to review site benchmarks. Actually, it's not somehow, it's Gameworks
Only Gameworks features in RotTR are HBAO+ (that works on AMD cards too) and VXAO (i don't even know if this works on AMD cards). Now we don't know what settings they are used but somebody with 480 could try to run benchmark with those two settings on and report back.
dr_rus
Member
DX11 results are also interesting because they show that NV was balancing the card by its lower performance margin - the card is supposed to be on 480's level even in titles which are known to favor Radeons like SWBF, The Division, etc.
It's more likely that they tested the game with Purehair on max settings or something. Which should give AMD cards a boost if anything.
Edit: actually, scratch that - they're testing using SSAA 2x which should explain the lower results perfectly fine.
Rise of the Tomb Raider FPS figures are funny.
480 somehow loses 20fps compared to review site benchmarks. Actually, it's not somehow, it's Gameworks
It's more likely that they tested the game with Purehair on max settings or something. Which should give AMD cards a boost if anything.
Edit: actually, scratch that - they're testing using SSAA 2x which should explain the lower results perfectly fine.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
^^^ Sorry I meant hairworks.
What do you mean by this? They are not as far ahead in DX11?
What do you mean by this? They are not as far ahead in DX11?
Cute Dragon Here
Member
I think he meant that NVIDIA has made the GTX 1060's performance to be improved compared to the RX 480, and especially to the 960, in games that Radeons tend to run better at in DX11 mode.
But RotTR doesn't use HairWorks
It is called PureHair and it is based on AMD TressFX technology as far as i know. Crystal Dynamics used TressFX as base and then developed their own solution for RotTR.roadrunn3r
Member
This seems way faster than what I was expecting. Now to wait for real official benchmarks but it relative performance remains the same, the 1060 is worth roughly 20% more value wise.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
You can't put any stock in these performance comparisons as the titles, settings and even clockspeeds are cherry-picked so that the Nvidia card is ahead on everything.
AMD did the same with the Fury X with pre-release benches showing it ahead of the 980 Ti and we know now that wasn't the case at all at launch.
I would imagine that the 1060 is on average 5-10% faster in DX11 titles. Well it should be as it's more expensive and has 2GB less memory.
AMD did the same with the Fury X with pre-release benches showing it ahead of the 980 Ti and we know now that wasn't the case at all at launch.
I would imagine that the 1060 is on average 5-10% faster in DX11 titles. Well it should be as it's more expensive and has 2GB less memory.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
But RotTR doesn't use HairWorks
Whatever Hairworks, Purehair, Careworks, it all has a large performance impact on AMD cards.
dr_rus
Member
Yep, as Noivern said, I meant that this shows that NV have used the lower baseline for 1060's performance balancing. 960 was slower than 380 in those DX11 titles, this seems to not be the case with 1060 vs 480. I was expecting this with Pascal as it was pretty clear that the reason some Maxwell cards were slower than 300 series was in their launch times. Now NV have covered that deficit.
But Purehair is AMD's own TressFX. Why would it have a bigger performance impact on AMD cards?
But is that developers fault or AMD fault if techs is not tied to manufacturer (like Hairworks is).
Aztechnology
Member
Something is really off here. These benchmarks don't even closely resemble the performance we were seeing from many reviewers across different sites for the 480.
These results are like they underclocked the base 480 in many of these titles. Or used a really weak CPU or something. Something doesn't add up.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
Sorry I'm mistaken. I'm thinking of Witcher 3 Hairworks and subsequent performance hit
In any case FPS in RotTR is very low on 480.
dr_rus
Member
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Reviewers Guide Leaked
July 19th 6AM PST confirmed as the reviews embargo time.
July 19th 6AM PST confirmed as the reviews embargo time.
roadrunn3r
Member
Yea as I said, wasn't really expecting this kind of a difference. Could be the testing methods or else and I'm too lazy to go check if I can find how the 480 performs in other benchmarks on the same titles even though other components may differ. We'll know soon enough however.
edit: I'm an idiot, those slides are from Nvidia's reviewer's guide...
Cute Dragon Here
Member
Gadzooks, so the 2 GHz overclock result was on a reference card with a sane temperature?
This bodes well for AIB cards.
Yeah, the $300 Founders Edition pricing is clearly a bad deal (especially for a blower cooler), but $249 - $279 for the 6GB model would be a fair one, and that's kind of the range I expect AIBs to hit. It looks like some manufacturers are also making 3GB cards, which will probably push the price down even further to 4GB RX 480 territory.
Aztechnology
Member
Ehhh. Just like the 1070/1080 it seems like Nvidia really seems to have restricted what you can do in that department. All the Pascal cards seem to OC in the same range even the AIB's the difference is temperature, noise and features.
Here's from Guru3D about the Pascal cards. This is an excerpt specifically from the MSI Gaming X 8G 1070 review.
Guru3D said:
It seems to hold true for pretty much all their reviews and what I've been hearing in general.
Langdon Alger
Banned
I thought the 1060 was supposed to be as powerful as a 980. So, according to this, a 980 can't run Rise of the TR at 60 fps at 1080p? Man.
Cute Dragon Here
Member
One would argue that that alone is the thing for going AIB instead of FE.
It's the 2xSSAA that's the killer there, I think.
Moral Panic
Member
2xSSAA
Langdon Alger
Banned
Ah, I see. I didn't think 2x AA was was that big of a hit, but maybe I'm confusing SSAA with those other kinds of AA, like FXAA or MSAA. I...don't know much about computer.
LordOfChaos
Member
I'd stay away from the Founders Edition because they're gouging and the coolers aren't as good as third party anyways, but some of these points don't make sense.
AMDs VRMs were for some reason very overdesigned, they could supply 600A, and even at 120C a crazy 240A continuous. That's each of them. AMD got around the overwatting problem by not using some and routing all the power through four or three iirc.
2 slots empty - it's a 192 bit bus. That makes you bound to capacities and a half - 1.5GB, 3GB, 6GB, and eventually 12GB. The extra pads were likely just economies of making a board (perhaps reusable with GP107 ), the 1060 as a 192 bit product was always going to have 3GB or 6GB.
And in any case, even if the memory bit width was cut down to compare costs to the 480 - if the end performance is still better for not much cost over the 8GB, who cares? Why does that make it "cheap" when it's still the better card?
Power connector, yeah that's a slight bummer.
SomedayTheFire
Member
SSAA is super sampling right? basically doubles the res and shrinks it down to your monitor size right?
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
You're right and honestly, what do you expect with Nvidia's own tests.
Just a quick compare with TechPowerUp, whom I trust, gives much better FPS for the 480 (TPU test all games with highest quality settings unless otherwise stated):
GTAV:
TPU 480 FPS (very high settings as well) :
1080p - 66.2fps
1440p - 48.6
Nvdia slides 480 FPS:
1080p - 45.1
1440p - 32.1
Witcher 3
TPU 480 FPS (Hairworks disabled):
1080p - 50.3
1440p - 37.7
Nvdia slides 480 FPS:
1080p - 47.9
1440p - 36.1
Aztechnology
Member
The 480 can though apparently. I really do not understand what is going on with this Nvidia pamflet benchmarks.
Aztechnology
Member
Right and places like Guru3D, Ars Technica Anandtech etc have even higher results. Maybe due to better processors I don't know. But there's massive discrepancies.
Look at Gamer Nexus or Guru3D's GTAV test with similar settings for instance they are both in 80's. So it makes me wonder what CPU they tested the games on. I guess I shouldn't be surprised though, it is direct from the company after all.
However it does suggest that they thought that they would need a 256 bit bus. Why bother routing traces which aren't going to be needed?
One could argue that they're sharing it with some lower end power product with a 128 bit bus, but then that would use an even smaller bus, i.e. use 4 memory modules.
SomedayTheFire
Member
Nvidia say they tested with an i7-5960X
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
Videocardz are not as bad. But WCCFTECH lead everyone down the garden path with the 480 with a string of lies and made-up crap. Off the top of my head - '480 only draws 100W whilst gaming', '480 overclocks up to 1500Mhz' (not making the distinction this is the custom cards, and even then, it may be lies still), and 'performance in between 980 and Fury'. Never again.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
Again, people finding ways to make excuses for them.
3-phase VRMs is the absolute bare minimum you would put on a cheap card let alone a $300 one that Nvidia is trying to swindle. I'm not an expert but It's not just about power-delivery with the VRMs, it's also voltage regulation, which is important for overclocking and stability.
Listen, there's no way you can convince anyone to buy one of these when much better 1060s with better engineering will be on the market soon. We need to put our finger up at Nvidia trying to charge a premium for the bare minimum.