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 43  

post #421 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by headd View Post

i am impressed with GTX1060 performance.1070 is only 30% faster.
GTX970 was 60% faster than GTX960.It looks like GTX1070 is worst card in pascal family.It offers worst performance boost over predecessor.

No, 960 was just a turd
Dang
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 7820x @ 4.7ghz, 3.0ghz Mesh (from SL) X299 ASUS ROG Strix-E MSI Quicksilver 1070 8GB 32gb 3800mhz (Model F4-3600C16Q-32GTZKK) 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Intel 730 256gb SSD Intel 530 256gb SSD Seagate Barracuda 2TB HDD Seagate Barracuda 1TB HDD 
CoolingOSMonitorPower
Deepcool Captain 240EX White Windows 10 Pro AOC G2460PF 24” 144hz FreeSync EVGA 750w G2 
CaseMouseMouse PadOther
NZXT H440 Zowie EC1-A Huge Dr Pepper, Monster, and Vape 
  hide details  
Dang
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 7820x @ 4.7ghz, 3.0ghz Mesh (from SL) X299 ASUS ROG Strix-E MSI Quicksilver 1070 8GB 32gb 3800mhz (Model F4-3600C16Q-32GTZKK) 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Intel 730 256gb SSD Intel 530 256gb SSD Seagate Barracuda 2TB HDD Seagate Barracuda 1TB HDD 
CoolingOSMonitorPower
Deepcool Captain 240EX White Windows 10 Pro AOC G2460PF 24” 144hz FreeSync EVGA 750w G2 
CaseMouseMouse PadOther
NZXT H440 Zowie EC1-A Huge Dr Pepper, Monster, and Vape 
  hide details  
post #422 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuivamaa View Post

Apples to oranges? Different game selection between reviews.

Correct and expected objection.


Yet, 970 advantage over 290 is 5% in 380x review and 4% in Palit 1080 review. Go figure, 380 degraded in performance compared to 290!
post #423 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChevChelios View Post

hey you're that guy who hates 1070 with a passion

welcome back !
actually its 40%+ if the 1060 is indeed 8-9% faster than a 480

since 1070 is 50%+ faster than a ref 480
Firestrike score is around 30% more on GTX1070.
Also to match GTX980, 1060 must be 80-90% faster than GTX960.
1070 is only like 50-55% faster than GTX970
1080 is 60-70% faster than GTX980
SO yeah GTX1070 is worst card in pascal family.
post #424 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by headd View Post

Also to match GTX980, 1060 must be 80-90% faster than GTX960.
1070 is only like 50-55% faster than GTX970
1080 is 60-70% faster than GTX980
SO yeah GTX1070 is worst card in pascal family.
dis logic


and TPU chart shows 1070 is 50%+ faster in games than 480 .. so compared to 1060 it would be 40%+ faster
Edited by ChevChelios - 7/5/16 at 4:05pm
The Green Beast
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 3770K @ 4500 Mhz ASRock Z77 Pro3 Gigabyte GTX 1080 G1 Gaming Crucial Ballistix 2x8GB DDR3-1600 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
SSD Crucial M550 500GB SSD Samsung 850 Evo 1TB HDD Seagate 7200rpm 3TB Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO; Xilence X5 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 Pro 64-bit Acer Predator XB271HU 27" IPS Gsync 1440p 165Hz CM Storm QuickFire XT Cherry Red 800W modular 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Fractal Design Define R4 Black Logitech G900 Chaos Spectrum SteelSeries QcK+ 4mm SK Gaming Realtek On-board 
  hide details  
The Green Beast
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 3770K @ 4500 Mhz ASRock Z77 Pro3 Gigabyte GTX 1080 G1 Gaming Crucial Ballistix 2x8GB DDR3-1600 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
SSD Crucial M550 500GB SSD Samsung 850 Evo 1TB HDD Seagate 7200rpm 3TB Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO; Xilence X5 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 Pro 64-bit Acer Predator XB271HU 27" IPS Gsync 1440p 165Hz CM Storm QuickFire XT Cherry Red 800W modular 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Fractal Design Define R4 Black Logitech G900 Chaos Spectrum SteelSeries QcK+ 4mm SK Gaming Realtek On-board 
  hide details  
post #425 of 735
Still 1060 must be + 80-90% over GTX960 to match stock GTX980. rolleyes.gif (and Btw GTX1070 is 35% faster than GTX980 in games)
1080 is + 60-70% over GTX980
1070 is only 50-55% over GTX970

What card is worst and offer worst performance gain?
post #426 of 735
Quote:
What card is worst
only the 960 is turd

all the others are good cards thumb.gif


Quote:
Still 1060 must be + 80-90% over GTX960 to match stock GTX980
you seem awfully convinced that 1060 has to match 980 for some weird reason
The Green Beast
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 3770K @ 4500 Mhz ASRock Z77 Pro3 Gigabyte GTX 1080 G1 Gaming Crucial Ballistix 2x8GB DDR3-1600 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
SSD Crucial M550 500GB SSD Samsung 850 Evo 1TB HDD Seagate 7200rpm 3TB Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO; Xilence X5 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 Pro 64-bit Acer Predator XB271HU 27" IPS Gsync 1440p 165Hz CM Storm QuickFire XT Cherry Red 800W modular 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Fractal Design Define R4 Black Logitech G900 Chaos Spectrum SteelSeries QcK+ 4mm SK Gaming Realtek On-board 
  hide details  
The Green Beast
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 3770K @ 4500 Mhz ASRock Z77 Pro3 Gigabyte GTX 1080 G1 Gaming Crucial Ballistix 2x8GB DDR3-1600 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
SSD Crucial M550 500GB SSD Samsung 850 Evo 1TB HDD Seagate 7200rpm 3TB Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO; Xilence X5 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 Pro 64-bit Acer Predator XB271HU 27" IPS Gsync 1440p 165Hz CM Storm QuickFire XT Cherry Red 800W modular 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Fractal Design Define R4 Black Logitech G900 Chaos Spectrum SteelSeries QcK+ 4mm SK Gaming Realtek On-board 
  hide details  
post #427 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChevChelios View Post

only the 960 is turd

all the others are good cards thumb.gif
you seem awfully convinced that 1060 has to match 980 for some weird reason

Let's be honest, 1060 will most probably be more expensive than rx480 in retail. It better match 980 then.
post #428 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChevChelios View Post

you seem awfully convinced that 1060 has to match 980 for some weird reason
Because GTX980 is 8-10% faster than rx480?
post #429 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111 View Post

My predictions have been accurate so far on Polaris.

It's partners word on the matter and I suspect partners don't want you to buy reference cards but instead want you to buy their versions and derivatives of the rx 480. The margins are better for them.

Cards did get a frequency boost. The stock clocks of cards like tonga were 1000mhz and these usually overclocked to 1150mhz or so with a none reference cooler.Having cards now clock at 1266 and overclock to 1400 is a boost over last gen. You might want to dub it the tajoh GCN clockspeed penalty but the GCN penalty is very real as seen from GCN to GCN4 nowadays. On 28nm, GCN's clocks got worse even those the process that each GPU was made on was an more advanced and higher clocking node then the previous version of GCN. Add in Nvidia was using the same technology and process and continued to improve clocks, and it adds more evidence to my hypothesis.

It isn't just the process that determines frequency, it's the architecture as well.

1450mhz FIJI when running on ln2 should have been a redflag about the frequency potential of GCN as well as the frequencies maxwell was reaching under ln2. It real evidence as is the current clocks and overclocks of Polaris.

This guy is ranked number 4 on hwbot so he knows what he's talking about. This card was hard modded and overvolted to levels beyond safe for air cooling and even 24/7 water cooling. Aib partner cards should get really any better considering they are not going to go as balls out as this guy did.

In reviews, using the stock cooler, overclocks vary only 50mhz between the best and worst which is about 4% which means binning won't play a crazy difference. The sooner we can squash the 1.6ghz rumors, the less hype that is built up, which is better at this point.
Rumors, are what lead to the trainwreck of hype that was the rx 480. Actual evidence was already present on how polaris was going to perform but fanboys believing the most optimistic rumors were true vastly raised polaris' expectations.

The highest overclocked rx480 in reviews was the one in Guru3d and this was 1375mhz. The worst clocked ones were 1325mhz. This is only a 4 percent difference. What this means is the silicon lottery isn't going to be playing a big role.

What Dauer said was he expect most samples to overclock to 1400mhz for AIB which is safe. What he expect from better samples is 1450mhz for safe clocks. This agrees with the 4% variance as above.

We know right away your predictions are incorrect in that you claim with each revision of GCN, the clocks got slower. Except here with the newest iteration of GCN with Polaris they improved their clockspeeds by 20%. Then even you claim up to 1450MHz clocks are possible. That brings us to a total of around 38% clockspeed increase from last gen. So, not only did the process have something to do with it, they almost reached their baseline target of 40% increase in clockspeeds from switching to 14nm.

I really doubt AIB partners would flat out lie to a member of the press so he in turn flat out lies to the public. Doesn't seem to make that much sense. Sure companies like to promote their products but 1480MHz-1600MHz is a flat out lie according to you. So, obviously this wouldn't benefit the AIB partners or the press to be saying this type of stuff if it wasn't at least slightly accurate.

So regardless of your supposed clockspeed penalty, we automatically know with Polaris that this is not true. Because again, their baseline target is 40%, and @ 1450MHz you would be @ 38% from 1050MHz. While most AMD cards can do 1100-1150 we will use 1050 because its what every card is capable of. So while yes it isn't just the process and of course the architecture itself has something to do with it. We see 1425MHz possible on Air already with reference PCB.

I'm not doubting that the guy doesn't know what he is doing, but K|NGP|N tends to break all of his records running cards modded similarly, but again typically they are not reference cards that he is able to break his records with. He is using his own custom cards to do this level of overclocking. Which proves again, that even though the card was hard modded and overvolted it is still a stock PCB card. If max overclocks were able to be reached under LN2 with reference cards, why would there ever be a need for a K|NGP|N Edition, Lightning, Classified, HoF, etc. Why would K|NGP|N prefer to use his own cards?

We also see quite a variance in overclocks with the reference card (we have numbers ranging from 1330-1480MHz), which indeed indicates that binning is important and basically all cards made the cut from AMD (probably why there is a power issue with the reference cards). This means AIB cards will come with factory overclocks so the binning will be quite different.

So in the end if it indeed clocks to 1450MHz that means they increased their clockspeeds by almost 40% which was the baseline target with 14nm, and again this is with 4th Generation GCN, so there was no regression in clockspeed (as you insist and continually repeat). And of course we know AMD is going to have revisions of these cards:



Which means again, it is most likely NOT GCN that is limiting the clockspeeds entirely, it is most likely a manner of manufacturing process maturity. Which means, as the process gets more mature, they will be able to hit their full 40-50% clockspeed improvement targets.
Edited by BiG StroOnZ - 7/5/16 at 6:59pm
post #430 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiG StroOnZ View Post

My only problem with these conservative clocks is that it doesn't line up with the clockspeed gains that are to be received from going to 14nm from 28nm. If it only clocks to 1400-1450MHz there is a serious problem with AMD's 14nm card here. As 14nm explicitly states 40-50% improvement in clockspeed compared to 28nm:



We know AMD is able to bin up to 1050MHz with their last gen cards. So you use that as a baseline number to figure out where a 14nm card would end up with 40-50% improvement in clockspeed.

So that would put us at 1470MHz to 1575MHz.

Now we know these 14nm and 16nm processes are capable of offering their clockspeed promises because here is what 16nm has to say about clockspeed improvements:



Also 40% improvement in clockspeed. And as we see with Pascal 1080, 1070, and now 1060 NVIDIA indefinitely has increased their clockspeeds by at least 40% compared to previous gen. As a matter a fact they were able to go over 40% in the end as we can see with 2200MHz clockspeeds provided by Pascal.

So basically if the 480 or any future AMD products cannot clock high, it is a problem with the 14nm process that they are using and perhaps it is because it is not as mature as 16nm is. In that 16nm was able to immediately provide the clockspeed advantage as promised and shown by NVIDIA with Pascal. Whereas we are still waiting around to see where 14nm will end up, because the 480 reference was so power limited.

Well to be fair, the GCN architecture has been very lackluster in clock potential since its launch (and clock speeds have steadily declined since the 7970). That said, I do agree that 14nm should allow for higher clocks than we are currently seeing but we are also limited by the fact that only reference boards have been launched and tested so far so we really can't say for sure what the absolute clock speed potential of P10 is as of yet...

The flip side of this lower clock speed potential than Nvidia's Maxwell and Pascal architectures is that generally GCN scales much better with higher clocks, so even though the ultimate speed may be lower than Nvidia, the performance for each MHz is higher...
Edited by Majin SSJ Eric - 7/5/16 at 7:08pm
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