Support NeoGAF

[QuantumSquid]

If you're aiming for 1080p/High settings/60fps-or-so, the 1060 will be a solid value. I dunno about it lasting 3.5 years, that's down to your own personal preferences and testicular fortitude.

I too have an i5-3570K and just a few weeks ago, 8GB of RAM. In terms of CPU, I'm about to overclock after a little less than 4 years of ownership running @ stock, and you should too. It's going to be a while until the 3570K poses a bottleneck for systems. As for RAM, I got 8 more cheaply on Reddit's HardwardSwap, but you should be fine whether you get more or not.

Don't be afraid to ask questions fam, lots of folk willing to answer and help out!

OT: My issue with this whole thing is, the 1060 is attractive, even as a 970 owner, simply because if upcoming games need more than 3.5GB of VRAM (Battlefield 1, Gears of War 4, Forza Horizon 3, ETC), I'm going to get throttled. That scares me. Even if the 1060 is just a step above my 970, games will have access to the full 6GB of unadulterated VRAM.

Decisions, decisions.

I'm in the same position as you. If I can sell my 970 for a cool $200, then it would only cost me $50-60 to pick up a 1060. It wouldn't be one of the super nice ones with the fancy coolers (think MSI Aero or MSI Armor instead of MSI Gaming X) but it would still probably perform the same considering I'm not much of an overclocker.

 

[Chris R]

Maybe this thing will be available before I can purchase a 1080 :<

 

[SneakyStephan]

OT: My issue with this whole thing is, the 1060 is attractive, even as a 970 owner, simply because if upcoming games need more than 3.5GB of VRAM (Battlefield 1, Gears of War 4, Forza Horizon 3, ETC), I'm going to get throttled. That scares me. Even if the 1060 is just a step above my 970, games will have access to the full 6GB of unadulterated VRAM.

Decisions, decisions.

There is no point buying a 1060 until that throttling actually starts to happen.

And by that time the prices for these gpus might be way lower than today.

This gen looks to be a repeat of last gen (28nm) , the midrange stuff starts at like 500 dollars (even more this time) , the low end stuff starts at 200+

A year into the 28nm gen the low end stuff was down to 120-150 and the midrange stuff was down to 350

And since there is actually some direct competition in this low end market I'm hopeful that prices will steadily drop over the next year.
As yields improve and demand drops prices will go down down down

 

[vasametropolis]

I so wanted to switch to AMD because NVIDIA has really rubbed me the wrong way, but... with expected stock performance above the 980 (sailing past stock RX 480) and over clock headroom up to 2Ghz... that's going to be a difference worth buying to me. Starting at about the price of a RX 480 8GB too.

6GB is definitely enough VRAM probably for quite a while. NVIDIA has also always done more with less.

I'm not too sure about the impact of the smaller bus width, or NVIDIA's DX12 or Vulkan performance though.

I'm on a 670, so either way it's going to be a tasty upgrade.

 

[dr_rus]

NVIDIA Unveils the GeForce GTX 1060

 

[phant0m]

1060 - 1080p and some 1440p
1070 - 1440p and some 4K
1080 - 4K 30fps
1080 Ti - 4k 30 + possible 60fps
Titan - 4k 60fps.

For what games? My 670 ran 2013-era games at 1440p/60

Looking at a 1070 to run 4K....and maybe a 1060 if it's really equal to a 980. I'd be happy with 4K/30 on med/high settings.

 

[LostMyNarbles]

So if this is comparable to the GTX 980 then how much more powerful is the 1070 going to end up being? Somebody I know is looking to buy a new GPU and they came asking me for advice about which one to buy. I recommended the 1070 because it seems like a great option performance wise for the price you pay, but this now seems like it might be a better choice given that they do not do a lot of gaming.

 

[Xyphie]

Hopefully you can get 1900-2000 MHz core clocks like its bigger siblings, if you can it's going to be a big value was RX480 has basically no OC headroom. Reference PCB looks weak though, only has 3+1 phases.

 

[Caayn]

So if this is comparable to the GTX 980 then how much more powerful is the 1070 going to end up being? Somebody I know is looking to buy a new GPU and they came asking me for advice about which one to buy. I recommended the 1070 because it seems like a great option performance wise for the price you pay, but this now seems like it might be a better choice given that they do not do a lot of gaming.

Why would you recommend a $450+ GPU for someone that doesn't game a lot?

The RX480 and most likely this 1060(depending on the actual price) will be a lot better suited for him/her.

 

[Cerbero]

Man, being a 970 owner on a 1440p monitor with the current 1070's prices sucks, really hating this new generation of cards right now.

 

[OBias]

I bought a r9 290 a year ago. I play in 1080p. Would this be a good card to grab?

GTX 1070 is the better card to grab in your situation.

 

[DPB]

So if this is comparable to the GTX 980 then how much more powerful is the 1070 going to end up being? Somebody I know is looking to buy a new GPU and they came asking me for advice about which one to buy. I recommended the 1070 because it seems like a great option performance wise for the price you pay, but this now seems like it might be a better choice given that they do not do a lot of gaming.

Assuming it does equal the 980, then a 1070 is about 35% faster.

 

[dr_rus]

So if this is comparable to the GTX 980 then how much more powerful is the 1070 going to end up being? Somebody I know is looking to buy a new GPU and they came asking me for advice about which one to buy. I recommended the 1070 because it seems like a great option performance wise for the price you pay, but this now seems like it might be a better choice given that they do not do a lot of gaming.

Stock 1070 is 35-40% faster than a stock 980.

 

[Osiris]

Hello my new GPU!

This will make a fine upgrade from my GTX 950!

(Sorry AMD, maybe next time around?)

 

[Diprosalic]

Is this 600 units of graphics better than my 460? If so i'm interested.

 

[OBias]

Looks very interesting. Now I need more benchmarks and the real prices in my country.

 

[PFD]

There's a founders edition for the fucking 1060? Hahaha

 

[mieumieu]

I will buy this one to replace my 750Ti.
Hopefully it can last a long time with 1080p gaming needs.
The VRAM size is great news~

 

[LostMyNarbles]

Why would you recommend a $450+ GPU for someone that doesn't game a lot?

The RX480 and most likely this 1060(depending on the actual price) will be a lot better suited for him/her.

I didn't specifically recommend it. I recommended him to get something like a 960/950, but regardless that he doesn't game a lot on it he still wanted something that was really good just not top of the line expensive. So I crossed out the 1080 and anything possibly above it and settled on the 1070. Also, he didn't want to switch to AMD and given what a disaster the 480 launched has looked to be I wouldn't want to be recommending it either.

Assuming it does equal the 980, then a 1070 is about 35% faster.

Thanks!

Stock 1070 is 35-40% faster than a stock 980.

Thank you.

 

[Ricky Ricardo]

If you can live with going from ultra->very high textures, you should be fine at 1080p/60 for a year or two. A 970 with a good cooler can overclock ~200mhz no problem, which pushes it right up to the edge of 980 performance. At that point we'll be talking about the 1160/580 and that should be a real jump.

Been about that 1080p60/HighSettings life for a while now. Ultra ain't worth mah frames.

There is no point buying a 1060 until that throttling actually starts to happen.

And by that time the prices for these gpus might be way lower than today.

This gen looks to be a repeat of last gen (28nm) , the midrange stuff starts at like 500 dollars (even more this time) , the low end stuff starts at 200+

A year into the 28nm gen the low end stuff was down to 120-150 and the midrange stuff was down to 350

And since there is actually some direct competition in this low end market I'm hopeful that prices will steadily drop over the next year.
As yields improve and demand drops prices will go down down down

This is solid, reasonable advice. +Rep

Is this 600 units of graphics better than my 460? If so i'm interested.

 

[Dinky Dino]

I'd wait until benchmarks to see the difference and also looking at dx12 benches as well.

As for me I'm still snagging the first affordable HBM2 card I see. Hopefully the 490 packs it.

 

[BLACK AMERICAN PSYCHO]

gaming on a 750ti right now,this is going to be a huge jump for me. Also RIP rx480 IF I can actually find this for 250$.

 

[Widge]

Everyone keeps saying that the reference card is terrible but everything I've seen on review sites puts it volume/heat at a really respectable level.

 

[Jimrpg]

If you're aiming for 1080p/High settings/60fps-or-so, the 1060 will be a solid value. I dunno about it lasting 3.5 years, that's down to your own personal preferences and testicular fortitude.

I too have an i5-3570K and just a few weeks ago, 8GB of RAM. In terms of CPU, I'm about to overclock after a little less than 4 years of ownership running @ stock, and you should too. It's going to be a while until the 3570K poses a bottleneck for systems. As for RAM, I got 8 more cheaply on Reddit's HardwardSwap, but you should be fine whether you get more or not.

Don't be afraid to ask questions fam, lots of folk willing to answer and help out!

OT: My issue with this whole thing is, the 1060 is attractive, even as a 970 owner, simply because if upcoming games need more than 3.5GB of VRAM (Battlefield 1, Gears of War 4, Forza Horizon 3, ETC), I'm going to get throttled. That scares me. Even if the 1060 is just a step above my 970, games will have access to the full 6GB of unadulterated VRAM.

Decisions, decisions.

A 970 -> 1060 would be a sidegrade, waste of time. Go for a 1070.

 

[FanarnarBoi]

As a 2GB GTX 950 owner, I'm pretty much sold on this. I was previously humming and hawing over the 1070, but this is pretty much perfect for my needs.

 

[Josman]

RX 480 still seems like a pretty good deal to me, a $50 difference is not small for the Market these are aiming for, will wait for benchmarks on this one.

 

[MuchoMalo]

Eh, let's not get ahead of ourselves. Even as a "limited run" FEs will still likely be the first cards on the market and even if there will be some AIB editions for preorder on the same day they are likely to be OC ones priced similarly to FEs level.

Don't forget that the launch was pulled forward by more than a month compared to what they've planned. This is likely mean that most AIBs aren't ready with their custom versions yet and they won't be available on 19th - at least widely.

It's already confirmed that the FE will only be sold through Nvidia directly and that all AIB cards will be custom.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10474/nvidia-announces-geforce-gtx-1060-july-19

For the July 19th launch, much like their higher end cards NVIDIA is going to be launching with two designs and two price points. Officially the GTX 1060 starts at $249; this will be for partner custom cards, and I expect this will be for the usual single/dual fan open air cooler designs that we saw with the GTX 960. Meanwhile at $299 NVIDIA is launching a Founders Edition card, which implements a full blower.

However this is where the similarities end. Unlike the GTX 1080/1070 launch, the 19th is a hard launch for both the GTX 1060FE and for partner custom cards, and NVIDIA is expecting the bulk of the cards sold to be these custom cards. In this sense the GTX 1060 launch is more akin to the GTX 960 launch, as NVIDIA has more often than not opted to pass on producing reference cards for their mainstream cards.

In fact NVIDIA&#8217;s partners won&#8217;t even be selling the GTX 1060FE; the card will only be available through NVIDIA&#8217;s website. NVIIDA is calling the GTX 1060FE a &#8220;special limited edition&#8221; card, and though the company isn&#8217;t commenting on the matter, I strongly suspect that the GTX 1060FE is a limited run that NVIDIA will only be selling for a couple of months or so. NVIDIA has done similar things in the past, though ultimately when they curtain production is entirely up to them. I do wonder how NVIIDA&#8217;s partners feel about the company competing with them in the etail market, but with NVIDIA charging a significant $50/20% price premium, the partners have a lot of room to play with and improve on the NVIDIA reference design.

Many people won't even know that the FE exists, since it won't be on shelves or online storefronts. I suspect that most cards will use the reference PCB, but every card you see other than the ones on Nvidia's site will use a custom cooler.

eeh what.. GTX 1070 is almost twice as fast as a 290 at stock clocks in 1440p
unless you are talking about some very specific game??

edit : 50%-90% faster in most games

"this" refers to the 1060, as it's the topic of the thread. I'm calling BS on 90% though.

 

[SneakyStephan]

NVIDIA Unveils the GeForce GTX 1060

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2015-vga-charts/compare,3664.html?prod[7350]=on&prod[7265]=on&prod[7378]=on

This compares a reference 960 to a reference 980 and an AIB 980

1.7-1.9x performance from those nvidia graphs (why can't they properly label them, assholes<.<) seems to about match up to the toms comparison across many games

 

[Lil'DigiOp]

How is it gouging? Their enthusiast-level $400 outperforms the previous gen's top-end $650 card. And now their mid-range card $250 performs on par with previous gens $500 card. Both come with RAM upgrades, better efficiency, and likely improved DX12 support.

I havent checked lately but aren't AIB 1070's still going for like 450+?

That's not really "affordable" despite inherent value. Nvidia is gouging with this "FE" nonsense that only seems to make the price higher with no added benefits.

 

[Ac30]

A 1060 boosting to 2Ghz over stock 1700 would be approximately a 17% clock speed gain, correct? And in the best case these scale directly with performance? If so, if AUB 480s OC to ~1450mhZ, a ~15% boost, wouldn't the performance gain be near the same, even though the core speed increases by less? if that's the case, it doesn't OC any worse than Nvidia's card, but it's fantastic for Nvidia in that they can plaster 2Ghz everywhere (which is impressive in itself for sure).

 

[ISee]

Pascal isn't comparable to Maxwell in pure flops, the efficiency is up again.

But you're of course correct in saying that 1060 isn't a worthy upgrade for 970 and 980 owners. Hence why it's 1060 - it's supposed to be a solid upgrade for the owners of 960 cards and anything below them.

Actually it's not. The efficiency is around the same level, maybe a bit better but far away from being significant.
I even remember reading that a 980Ti overclocked to 2ghz (of course that's not doable under normal conditions) was able to slightly beat a 1080 at ~2ghz. And that's maybe even plausible because of the slightly higher shader count.

Let's take a look at some 980Ti v 1080 benchmarks (shader count is similar):
(Source pcgh.de, they list 1080 clock speeds separately for each game)

AC:Unity
1080 @ ~1800mhz: 71.4fps
980Ti @ 1430mhz (-20% clockspeed): 61fps (-15% performance)

The Witcher 3:
1080 @ ~1650mhz: 75.2fps
980Ti @ 1430mhz (-13% clockspeed): 67.4fps (-11% performance)

Crysis 3:
1080 @ ~1650mhz: 95 fps
980Ti @ 1430mhz (-13% clockspeed): 86.8fps (-9% performance)

GTA V:
1080@ ~1785mhz: 82,9 fps
980Ti @ 1430mhz: (-20% clockspeed) : 75.1 fps (-10% performance)

Dragon Age Inquisition:
1080@ ~1730mhz:: 75.7fps
980Ti @ 1430mhz (-17% clockspeed): 67.5 fps (-11% performance)

The Division
1080 @ ~ 1665mhz : 70.7fps
980Ti @ 1430mhz (-14% clockspeed): 64.6fps (-9% performance)

ROTTR
1080@ ~1690mhz: 60.4fps
980Ti @ 1430mhz (-15% clockspeed): 54.9fps (-10% performance)

We all know that +10% in clock speed doesn't boost performance by 10%.
For my 980 I'm getting + ~17% performance for a 21% increase in clock speed (1216mhz-->1480mhz, s). That's a factor of 0.81

Let's do the same for the 1080 v 980 Ti

AC:Unity = 0.75
Witcher 3 = 0.84
Crysis 3 = 0.69
GTA V = 0.5
DA:I = 0.65
Division = 0.64
ROTTR = 0.67

Average = 0.68.
980 factor = 0.81.


Overall the 1080 is of course the better card. In the end only real world max. performance matters. But the efficiency didn't improve, at least it's not as huge as going from keplar to maxwell.

 

[Durante]

That's ~20-30 USD less than I expected for the 6GB version -- which also seems to be the only version, which makes sense really. 3GB would have been a bad choice.

 

[DPB]

RX 480 still seems like a pretty good deal to me, a $50 difference is not small for the Market these are aiming for, will wait for benchmarks on this one.

Unfortunately, there seems to be very low availability of the 4GB 480 now. I can't find it in stock anywhere in the UK, and some sites have even removed their listings. It seems like that $199 price tag was mostly for marketing purposes.

 

[brotkasten]

I hope there will be some more sites that are going to bench the card with an actual mid-range CPU for a change. I only know of Computerbase.de who tests some titles with a 2500k, which is great.

I understand that you want to eliminate the CPU bottleneck as much as possible to show off the real GPU performance. But some benchmarks with an i3-6100 or i5 would be appreciated. No one is buying an i7 6700k to explicitly pair it with a 1060 or RX480.

 

[Nielm]

Is it worth sending back the GTX 970 I bought for £230.00 to get the GTX 1060 instead?

 

[capitalCORN]

Actually it's not. The efficiency is around the same level, maybe a bit better but far away from being significant.
I even remember reading that a 980Ti overclocked to 2ghz (of course that's not doable under normal conditions) was able to slightly beat a 1080 at ~2ghz. And that's maybe even plausible because of the slightly higher shader count.

Let's take a look at some benchmarks:
I

Thank god for my miracle 980ti. Got a cheap refurb and clocks to 1500/8000 without touching voltage, and holds under overnight stress!

 

[DPB]

I hope there will be some more sites that are going to bench the card with an actual mid-range CPU for a change. I only know of Computerbase.de who tests some titles with a 2500k, which is great.

I understand that you want to eliminate the CPU bottleneck as much as possible to show off the real GPU performance. But some benchmarks with an i3-6100 or i5 would be appreciated. No one is buying an i7 6700k to explicitly pair it with a 1060 or RX480.

This annoys me too, I'd like to see English sites actually test real world performance. The few that do are European, as well as Computerbase there's pclab.pl and purepc.pl.

 

[SCB3]

a Nice logical competitor/update to the 980 from the looks of things, I am in the market for a new GPU in a few month since my 290x died so I'm be keeping an eye on this

 

[PdotMichael]

If you're aiming for 1080p/High settings/60fps-or-so, the 1060 will be a solid value. I dunno about it lasting 3.5 years, that's down to your own personal preferences and testicular fortitude.

I too have an i5-3570K and just a few weeks ago, 8GB of RAM. In terms of CPU, I'm about to overclock after a little less than 4 years of ownership running @ stock, and you should too. It's going to be a while until the 3570K poses a bottleneck for systems. As for RAM, I got 8 more cheaply on Reddit's HardwardSwap, but you should be fine whether you get more or not.

Don't be afraid to ask questions fam, lots of folk willing to answer and help out!

OT: My issue with this whole thing is, the 1060 is attractive, even as a 970 owner, simply because if upcoming games need more than 3.5GB of VRAM (Battlefield 1, Gears of War 4, Forza Horizon 3, ETC), I'm going to get throttled. That scares me. Even if the 1060 is just a step above my 970, games will have access to the full 6GB of unadulterated VRAM.

Decisions, decisions.

Rule of the thumb

Don't futureproof your PC. If games really suffer because of the RAM issue then you can buy a better card like a gen later than the 1060.

 

[LelouchZero]

If you're aiming for 1080p/High settings/60fps-or-so, the 1060 will be a solid value. I dunno about it lasting 3.5 years, that's down to your own personal preferences and testicular fortitude.

I too have an i5-3570K and just a few weeks ago, 8GB of RAM. In terms of CPU, I'm about to overclock after a little less than 4 years of ownership running @ stock, and you should too. It's going to be a while until the 3570K poses a bottleneck for systems. As for RAM, I got 8 more cheaply on Reddit's HardwardSwap, but you should be fine whether you get more or not.

Don't be afraid to ask questions fam, lots of folk willing to answer and help out!

OT: My issue with this whole thing is, the 1060 is attractive, even as a 970 owner, simply because if upcoming games need more than 3.5GB of VRAM (Battlefield 1, Gears of War 4, Forza Horizon 3, ETC), I'm going to get throttled. That scares me. Even if the 1060 is just a step above my 970, games will have access to the full 6GB of unadulterated VRAM.

Decisions, decisions.

Just drop the texture quality setting.

If your GPU runs out of VRAM then reducing the texture quality setting by a notch is almost always the solution, you'll still be able to play the games with higher graphical settings elsewhere, it's just the texture quality setting that will be lowered.

Moving from a GTX 970 to a GTX 1060 may offer you around a 20% boost in performance, and even more in VR games which take advantage of Pascal's capabilities, alongside 2.5GB/3GB of more VRAM.

It's up-to you really if it's worth upgrading to it, but it's not really a significant upgrade.

Rule of the thumb

Don't futureproof your PC. If games really suffer because of the RAM issue then you can buy a better card like a gen later than the 1060.

I agree, and if the VRAM becomes an issue in most cases all you need to do is drop the texture quality settings.

I don't agree with what you said about future-proofing though, a solid setup with good choices in hardware can last you a long time and be worth it in the long run.

It's just that some people take the wrong paths in an attempt to future-proof, technology is always moving forward so future-proofing can be deemed futile, but you can future-proof some things such as PSUs, CPUs, Cases and even RAM, however attempting to future-proof your system with a GPU isn't really a good idea.

 

[VolticArchangel]

That's a great price given the performance matches what they claim.

But, are they gonna completely ignore the extremely low end market though (and the eSports crowd) or a 1050Ti could be down the road to match the RX470?

 

[Nzyme32]

Haha nice!

Been waiting on the 1070 but the prices are still unreasonable and not dropping yet. I've moved from a temporary GTX 560 to a temporary GTX 960 I got for just £60 through some hilarious luck. Now I can take my time on deciding whether to go with the GTX 1060 or GTX 1070

 

[ISee]

a Nice logical competitor/update to the 980 from the looks of things, I am in the market for a new GPU in a few month since my 290x died so I'm be keeping an eye on this

Competitor: Yes
Update: No. More VRAM is of course nice, but performance wise... it's (probably) not worth it at all. I'm actually still waiting for 1080 price drops or magical RX 490 performance. Whatever comes first...

Thank god for my miracle 980ti. Got a cheap refurb and clocks to 1500/8000 without touching voltage, and holds under overnight stress!

That's indeed a very special card

 

[SneakyStephan]

Is it worth sending back the GTX 970 I bought for £230.00 to get the GTX 1060 instead?

Very likely yes.

4GB vs 8GB, 15 percent less performance, 150w vs 120w

It'll depend on supply really, they're launching the AIB vendor cards from day one this time (instead of just FE bullshit) and the AIB vendors aren't carrying FE cards, so you'll be able to get a gpu with a non-reference cooler from day one.

IF supply is there from day one, if not it'll take a few weeks to get one at a decent price

If you already have some remotely capable gpu to hold you over for a few weeks then you should send back the gtx 970

I hope there will be some more sites that are going to bench the card with an actual mid-range CPU for a change. I only know of Computerbase.de who tests some titles with a 2500k, which is great.

I understand that you want to eliminate the CPU bottleneck as much as possible to show off the real GPU performance. But some benchmarks with an i3-6100 or i5 would be appreciated. No one is buying an i7 6700k to explicitly pair it with a 1060 or RX480.

It's a shame that these review sites aren't actually attempting to give meaningful context for the people in the market for these cards.. (budget gamers)

Most of them don't have a decent i5 or better, a lot of them will be stuck with potato cpus like an fx or an i3 or pentium

If you have that kind of low end cpu an amd gpu should not even be a consideration for you because you're cpu bottlenecked in shitloads of games on a 60hz 1080p monitor. The cpu overhead from amd's dx11 drivers will kill your framepacing.
If you have a good cpu then that isn't much of a factor (only in some games, like fallout or arma or mmos), but for the kind of budget gamer these cards are aiming at a lot of them are going to be screwing themselves.

I was stuck with the amd gpu + low end cpu wombo combo till last year and it's just awful.

The worst thing is that if any site actually does attempt to do this they'll probably get a thousand emails from brand warriors telling them to kill themselves :\

 

[Widge]

It's already confirmed that the FE will only be sold through Nvidia directly

Wow, ok that is one decision done for me then.

 

[Mrbob]

Newegg reference cards

Price 449$

Newegg AIB with custom clocks/coolers


Lowest card is 399$, second 419$ then it goes up from there with at least 7 cards being over 440$.

When the original MSRP was quoted at 379$. There's one card that's within 20$ of being the MSRP.

One.

Custom cards typically go for higher than msrp. 399 is a good price for the gigabyte card since it offers more. Nvidia did screw things up with the FE yet these cards are less than the FE price, why I said 1060 AIB will range mostly between 270 and 300. There will probably be some that are more than 300 but these will be heavily customized.

Oh wow. I hadn't followed 1070s that much, because $380 was more than I want to spend.

But holy crap this shit is all $430, $450 and above?

$380 was a myth wasn't it.

$250 for 1060 will be myth as well, won't it?

Oh well I'll play the waiting game like I always do. I'll take a 480 or a 1060 for a reasonable price if that happens sometime in the next couple of months.

Hard to say. I think 1060 supply is going to be better if AIB cards will be there on day one. I would expect the median price to be 269 or 279.

 

[DMTripper]

Looks like I'm boarding the 1060 hype train :-D

 

[Warnen]

Fuck these "founder editions".

 

[belmonkey]

The 480 looked tempting, but I'm quite interested in this 1060 now since the price seems good for a 6GB Nvidia card (with probably more oompf). Would be a great improvement over my 750 ti and make my modded Skyrim experience much better.

 

[FLAguy954]

Well the early leaked benchmarks have it being pretty much exactly a GTX 980 in performance, so it should be generally faster than a 480 at stock which is closer to a GTX 970.

You're slightly off with your wording. The 480 at stock matches an OCd 970 and is usually within ~5% of a stock 980. Tom's Hardware relative performance chart has the stock 980 5% ahead of the 480 and the 970 about 5% behind it.

Also add in the aftermarket 480s and you'll get 980 performance out of AMD card as well (plus more VRAM).