Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Rumors and Unconfirmed Articles › [VC]GTX 1060 specifications leaked - faster than RX 480
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[VC]GTX 1060 specifications leaked - faster than RX 480 - Page 22  

post #211 of 735
Guys, just have no expectations from this smile.gif Hope you learned enough from RX480, and that's what I've been posting for a month and I got hated on the forum just for being real, with people not willing to accept my arguments.

Thing is, AMD had real stability issues lately, and bad, bad power consumption. Let's face it. Their mid-range products were fine, my R9 270X still does a decent job at 1080p@60Hz with almost all sliders maxed (no AA though). But that's for 180W TDP and 2x6pin connectors.

AMD maybe thought "Hey, if we don't put another 6pin here on the card people will think it won't use as much power" - "GO FOR IT!!! GLORY IDEA!" Just not the way to do it. My posts regarding the RX480 were that a single 6pin won't provide any OC headroom. And I'm not talking about the power draw issues. Thing is a card with one 6pin and a TDP of 150W won't provide any OC room, at least on the standard PCB, maybe some manufecturers will make a custom PCB with better power delivery and make the RX480 a better card, currently it's not that good but wait for non-refference versions.

Currently, in the mid-range segment I'm seeing 3 cards. GTX970, RX480 and R9 390. Same price, different architectures, almost the same performance. Say what you say but it some games AMD wins, in some NVidia does. That's the current case. And considering DX12, we really don't know wether developers will start using it tomorrow or in 5 years. Again, many gamers play same games for years now and don't care about DX12. Really, currently it's hard to decide between these 3 cards. All 3 can max-out almost any game at 1080p60Hz. End of story.

Another point is non-refference cards can deliver performance close or the same as the segment above. Good GTX970s clock to 1500MHz and deliver almost (or the same) perf as 980. 390 clocks less but delivers still good performance. For 480 we still need to see what they're going to make out of it, so not the right time to judge.

Judging by the latest 1080 and 1070, NVidia is giving us a good step-up from 9xx series with at least 20-30% more perf per model. If the same goes for 1060, we can expect another 970 but without VRAM issues (though 3.5GB is more "on paper" thing than it really is in reality). From what we've seen at 1080, their new models clock well. So if it overclocks as 1080 or 970, we can see it delivering the performance near 1070, or at least 5-10% less than that, which is still great. If it performs as near as 980 or a bit above and gives us OC room as I stated here, we'll see somewhere near GTX980Ti performance in Gigabytes G1 or Asus' Strix, Nitro series etc. If the price for those models is around 330$ in US or 350EUR in Europe, I think NVidia will do very well. People will pay the difference between RX480 and GTX1060 if they need that "little bit extra" to push the FPS.

My facts are based on current performance of 1xxx and 9xx models, and judging by what I thought about the RX480, this might be correct. Only thing I can't predict is the pricing. It's not going to be as cheap as RX480 but probably 50$/50EUR more.

The market is really in need of a good performing new 1080p card without any known issues for current models. Maybe the 390 holds the crown right now, but I doubt because of it's power requirement and OC ability. 970 does better in that so it's hard to tell.

All in all, in the next couple of days when RX480 non-refference versions come out, and the 1060 also with it, we'll see a bunch of options so everyone will be able to get what they need for 1080p.

RX480/GTX970/R9390/GTX1060 - probably will come to personal preference more than anything else.

And note that all my asuptions are for 1080p because that's the segment I'm monitoring and interested.

I wish you all low prices and high performance in future.
Stryker
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX8320 Gigabyte DS3P GTX970 G1 HyperX Fury 1866MHz 2x4GB 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
1TB Drive 850 Evo 250GB Kingston V300 120GB Wdrive DVDRW 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Cooler Master Nepton 240M Windows 8.1 LG 22EA53 Logitech G105 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Thermaltake SE 630W Cooler Master Storm Stryker CM Sentinel Advance 2 Cooler Master ControlRX 
Audio
XWave 5.1 100W 
  hide details  
Stryker
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX8320 Gigabyte DS3P GTX970 G1 HyperX Fury 1866MHz 2x4GB 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
1TB Drive 850 Evo 250GB Kingston V300 120GB Wdrive DVDRW 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Cooler Master Nepton 240M Windows 8.1 LG 22EA53 Logitech G105 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Thermaltake SE 630W Cooler Master Storm Stryker CM Sentinel Advance 2 Cooler Master ControlRX 
Audio
XWave 5.1 100W 
  hide details  
post #212 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by zealord View Post

It doesn't have half as many.

Also more shaders do scale well but don't scale 1:1

2000 shaders are not necessarily exactly twice as fast as 1000. It's more like 60% maybe.

Look at previous cards like GTX 680 -> Titan / Titan Black / 780 Ti. It's like 80% more shaders (cuda cores) but only 50% more performance.

or GTX 980 -> 980 Ti. it's like 50% more shaders but only 30~% more performance

Only time it's twice as fast is with AMD when it has sufficient rops to handle the core count.
Power Tower
(22 items)
 
SteamBox
(9 items)
 
Doge Miner
(7 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 1700X AX370-Gaming 5 AMD Radeon R9 200 Series G.Skill DDR4-2400 
RAMRAMRAMHard Drive
G.Skill DDR4-2400 G.Skill DDR4-2400 G.Skill DDR4-2400 Samsung 840 Pro 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
CX300 Crucial 480GB Toshiba 4TB Toshbia 4TB Western Digital Black 1TB 
CoolingOSMonitorMonitor
h110i Windows 10 42" LG TV 20" Digitizer ASUS 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Corsair Vengeance Mechanical Keyboard  850watt Vampire Gold Rated NZXT S340 Elite Corsair RGB FPS Mouse 
Mouse PadAudio
Borderlands Mousepad Realtek HD 
  hide details  
Power Tower
(22 items)
 
SteamBox
(9 items)
 
Doge Miner
(7 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 1700X AX370-Gaming 5 AMD Radeon R9 200 Series G.Skill DDR4-2400 
RAMRAMRAMHard Drive
G.Skill DDR4-2400 G.Skill DDR4-2400 G.Skill DDR4-2400 Samsung 840 Pro 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
CX300 Crucial 480GB Toshiba 4TB Toshbia 4TB Western Digital Black 1TB 
CoolingOSMonitorMonitor
h110i Windows 10 42" LG TV 20" Digitizer ASUS 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Corsair Vengeance Mechanical Keyboard  850watt Vampire Gold Rated NZXT S340 Elite Corsair RGB FPS Mouse 
Mouse PadAudio
Borderlands Mousepad Realtek HD 
  hide details  
post #213 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpeedyVT View Post

Only time it's twice as fast is with AMD when it has sufficient rops to handle the core count.
ROPs and bandwidth.

ROPs performance is sensitively tied with bandwidth usage, its quite demanding.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5261/amd-radeon-hd-7970-review/4
Quote:
Looking beyond the frontend and shader cores, we’ve seen a very interesting reorganization of the rest of the GPU as opposed to Cayman. Keeping in mind that AMD’s diagrams are logical diagrams rather than physical diagrams, the fact that the ROPs on Tahiti are not located near the L2 cache and memory controllers in the diagram is not an error. The ROPs have in fact been partially decoupled from the L2 cache and memory controllers, which is also why there are 8 ROP partitions but only 6 memory controllers. Traditionally the ROPs, L2 cache, and memory controllers have all been tightly integrated as ROP operations are extremely bandwidth intensive, making this a very unusual design for AMD to use.

As it turns out, there’s a very good reason that AMD went this route. ROP operations are extremely bandwidth intensive, so much so that even when pairing up ROPs with memory controllers, the ROPs are often still starved of memory bandwidth. With Cayman AMD was not able to reach their peak theoretical ROP throughput even in synthetic tests, never mind in real-world usage. With Tahiti AMD would need to improve their ROP throughput one way or another to keep pace with future games, but because of the low efficiency of their existing ROPs they didn’t need to add any more ROP hardware, they merely needed to improve the efficiency of what they already had.

The solution to that was rather counter-intuitive: decouple the ROPs from the memory controllers. By servicing the ROPs through a crossbar AMD can hold the number of ROPs constant at 32 while increasing the width of the memory bus by 50%. The end result is that the same number of ROPs perform better by having access to the additional bandwidth they need.

Edited by epic1337 - 7/1/16 at 9:21pm
post #214 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLeakStuff View Post

Nvidia got too much money to spew in development to always come on top.
AMD thought they were clever to go for low end and let Nvidia have high end alone.
BAM, here comes GTX 1060 out of the blue to challenge RX 480.
The card got like a week or two alone.

AMD need money badly to be able to survive, meaning being able to develop chips for all segments, low, midrange and high end, at the same time. One can also start to wonder why the HUGE efficiency lead of Pascal. Where does it come from? The architecture or 16nm?

The 1060 is still not going touch the 480 in p/p and the 1600MHz AIB 480's will be faster than the more expensive 1060's anyway. But you hang on tight to that power efficiency argument as that's all you really have left at the lower end. Don't know if you realize this yet but the 480 reference is absolutely flying off the shelves...
post #215 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by tashcz View Post

Guys, just have no expectations from this smile.gif Hope you learned enough from RX480, and that's what I've been posting for a month and I got hated on the forum just for being real, with people not willing to accept my arguments.

Thing is, AMD had real stability issues lately, and bad, bad power consumption. Let's face it. Their mid-range products were fine, my R9 270X still does a decent job at 1080p@60Hz with almost all sliders maxed (no AA though). But that's for 180W TDP and 2x6pin connectors.

My same thoughts exactly, and oddly enough I have an R9 270X as well.
I'm just glad I'm not buying a new graphics card right now, because it's actually entertaining to watch everyone hype up these new graphics cards and then freak out when a bunch of problems are discovered later.
post #216 of 735
The efficiency of Polaris is pretty bad, I won't lie. But I never have cared about power efficiency anyway (*looks at my overvolted SLI OG Titans)...
post #217 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by PooPipeBoy View Post

My same thoughts exactly, and oddly enough I have an R9 270X as well.
I'm just glad I'm not buying a new graphics card right now, because it's actually entertaining to watch everyone hype up these new graphics cards and then freak out when a bunch of problems are discovered later.

Thing is, my low-cost Powercolor R9 270X (It wasn't me that chose it, I got it at that time) started dying but probably due to my extreme overclocks and multiple thermal compound applying, and the Powercolor version of it is just not made for that. I'm in need of a mid-range GPU which I consider those that I mentioned. They're all good, but each one of them has a drawback right now, and we'll see if anything changes with the 1060. If it provides decent OC, decent power usage (not that I care, I just want it not to be to much since I'm going to OC), decent performance it can outperform all of these cards:

GTX970 - 2 years old, 3.5GB VRAM issue
R9 390 - high power consumption for that kind of performance, lower OC than above, MAYBE not as fast
RX480 - current versions have terrible power delivery, still probably not the best drivers, still has to prove itself, currently bad overclocking performance

If those things were different each one of them would be perfect. I'm looking at those three since here in Serbia they're almost the same price (280EUR (970 G1) -310EUR (RX480 8GB REF)). Still no 4GB versions of this card in my country.

So if GTX1060 solves all of this at a reasonably higher price it might win the segment for us who aim 60FPS on FHD monitors. But time will tell.
Stryker
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX8320 Gigabyte DS3P GTX970 G1 HyperX Fury 1866MHz 2x4GB 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
1TB Drive 850 Evo 250GB Kingston V300 120GB Wdrive DVDRW 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Cooler Master Nepton 240M Windows 8.1 LG 22EA53 Logitech G105 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Thermaltake SE 630W Cooler Master Storm Stryker CM Sentinel Advance 2 Cooler Master ControlRX 
Audio
XWave 5.1 100W 
  hide details  
Stryker
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX8320 Gigabyte DS3P GTX970 G1 HyperX Fury 1866MHz 2x4GB 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
1TB Drive 850 Evo 250GB Kingston V300 120GB Wdrive DVDRW 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Cooler Master Nepton 240M Windows 8.1 LG 22EA53 Logitech G105 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Thermaltake SE 630W Cooler Master Storm Stryker CM Sentinel Advance 2 Cooler Master ControlRX 
Audio
XWave 5.1 100W 
  hide details  
post #218 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Majin SSJ Eric View Post

The 1060 is still not going touch the 480 in p/p and the 1600MHz AIB 480's will be faster than the more expensive 1060's anyway. But you hang on tight to that power efficiency argument as that's all you really have left at the lower end. Don't know if you realize this yet but the 480 reference is absolutely flying off the shelves...

Maybe we should wait until we actually see some 1600MHz 480s before we say what the will or won't beat. They may turn out to be as much a unicorn as the MSRP 1080s.
post #219 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLeakStuff View Post

Nvidia got too much money to spew in development to always come on top.
AMD thought they were clever to go for low end and let Nvidia have high end alone.
BAM, here comes GTX 1060 out of the blue to challenge RX 480.
The card got like a week or two alone.

AMD need money badly to be able to survive, meaning being able to develop chips for all segments, low, midrange and high end, at the same time. One can also start to wonder why the HUGE efficiency lead of Pascal. Where does it come from? The architecture or 16nm?

So I will be able to buy a GTX 1060 within 2 weeks? Gotcha. I'm just gonna quote this for reference.
M06
(20 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX6300 Gigabyte 990FXA-UD5 XFX 7950 - 3GB G.Skill Sniper 8GB (2x4GB) DDR3 2133 CL9 @ 1733... 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
WD Blue 500GB WD Black 1.5TB Crucial M4 128GB (OS) LG ODD 
CoolingOSMonitorMonitor
Deepcool Lucifer v2 Win7 Ultimate 64 bit Acer X223w (1050) LG 22EN33 (1080) 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Sharkoon Tactix OCZ ModXstream Pro 700w Modular Corsair 300R CM Storm Xornet 
Mouse PadAudioAudioAudio
Steelseries Qck+ DOTA2 Edition Edifier e1100+  Sennheiser HD215 Plantronics Gamecom 307 
  hide details  
M06
(20 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX6300 Gigabyte 990FXA-UD5 XFX 7950 - 3GB G.Skill Sniper 8GB (2x4GB) DDR3 2133 CL9 @ 1733... 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
WD Blue 500GB WD Black 1.5TB Crucial M4 128GB (OS) LG ODD 
CoolingOSMonitorMonitor
Deepcool Lucifer v2 Win7 Ultimate 64 bit Acer X223w (1050) LG 22EN33 (1080) 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Sharkoon Tactix OCZ ModXstream Pro 700w Modular Corsair 300R CM Storm Xornet 
Mouse PadAudioAudioAudio
Steelseries Qck+ DOTA2 Edition Edifier e1100+  Sennheiser HD215 Plantronics Gamecom 307 
  hide details  
post #220 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by raghu78 View Post

Nvidia is going to continue and maybe even further extend its GPU market domination. Rx 480 is a PR nightmare worse than the ref R9 290X / R9 290 series. This is a debacle of epic proportions. reports of PCI-E slots dying

https://community.amd.com/thread/202410

AMD will not be able to recover from the negative PR around this launch. Nvidia is going to just laugh all the way to the bank with Pascal. The way AMD is going they might fold up within a year.

If it were nVidia, I would be concerned since they only shipped like 7 pascal cards to stores... biggrin.gif

But from the reports, AMD sold thousands RX 480 PER STORE.

I would expect yields for the GTX 1060 to be slightly better, so like 10 cards per country.

By the time they fill that order, the GTX 1080 Ti should be here.
Edited by umeng2002 - 7/1/16 at 10:46pm
AMD Box
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX-8320E @ 4.6 GHz +0.356250v offset Asus Sabertooth 990FX Rev1 eVGA GTX 970 SC ACX2.0 Patriot Viper Xtreme 2x4 GB 1600LL 8-9-8-24 1T 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Samsung 840 EVO WD Black 1 TB 32MB cache FALS WD Blue 1 TB 7200rpm EZEX Corsair H80i 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 x64 HP LP2475w Logitech Illuminated Corsair TX750  
CaseMouseAudio
You don't want to know Logitech G9x Creative Sound Blaster Z 
  hide details  
AMD Box
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX-8320E @ 4.6 GHz +0.356250v offset Asus Sabertooth 990FX Rev1 eVGA GTX 970 SC ACX2.0 Patriot Viper Xtreme 2x4 GB 1600LL 8-9-8-24 1T 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Samsung 840 EVO WD Black 1 TB 32MB cache FALS WD Blue 1 TB 7200rpm EZEX Corsair H80i 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 x64 HP LP2475w Logitech Illuminated Corsair TX750  
CaseMouseAudio
You don't want to know Logitech G9x Creative Sound Blaster Z 
  hide details  
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Rumors and Unconfirmed Articles
This thread is locked  
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Rumors and Unconfirmed Articles › [VC]GTX 1060 specifications leaked - faster than RX 480