Not a good idea, Nvidia.
This card will have faster than GTX 970 performance yet has less VRAM than even that one's problematic 3.5 GB + 512 MB. We're in the second half of 2016, almost two full years after the GTX 970 launch (September 18, 2014), going with a mid-range card that is faster than a GTX 970 but has less VRAM is not a good choice.
Even for 1080p gaming, which is what the 1060 will be doing most of the time most likely, it's not a good choice. People who buy mid-range GPUs don't have the money to replace their cards every year, so looking a year and then two into the future, this is definitely not a good idea.
Also, a card that in addition to less VRAM also has less stream processors and texture units should have something more in its name to give off that it isn't only a card with less VRAM. GTX 1060 LE or GTX 1050 Ti would be more honest names.
Originally Posted by MrTOOSHORT
The budget 3gb 1060 doesn't have enough vram for some 1080p titles. Had a 780ti that slowed to crawl after a few minutes in tomb raider on the kids machine(1080p). Checked gpuz , vram was maxed out. 1060 > 780ti. Sold off the kingpin 780ti for $200 last week. If not for the 3gb of vram , card would have been perfect for him.
Yes, a midrange card in the second half of 2016 should have at least 4 GB of VRAM.