# NVIDIA Announces the GeForce GTX 1060, 6 GB GDDR5, $249



## btarunr (Jul 7, 2016)

NVIDIA today announced its third desktop consumer graphics card based on the "Pascal" architecture, the GeForce GTX 1060. NVIDIA aims to strike a price-performance sweetspot, by pricing this card aggressively at US $249 (MSRP), with its reference "Founders Edition" variant priced at $299. To make sure two of these cards at $500 don't cannibalize the $599-699 GTX 1080, NVIDIA didn't even give this card 2-way SLI support. Retail availability of the cards will commence from 19th July, 2016. NVIDIA claims that the GTX 1060 performs on-par with the GeForce GTX 980 from the previous generation.

The GeForce GTX 1060 is based on the new 16 nm "GP106" silicon, the company's third ASIC based on this architecture after GP100 and GP104. It features 1,280 CUDA cores spread across ten streaming multiprocessors, 80 TMUs, 48 ROPs, and a 192-bit wide GDDR5 memory interface, holding 6 GB of memory. The card draws power from a single 6-pin PCIe power connector, as the GPU's TDP is rated at just 120W. The core is clocked up to 1.70 GHz, and the memory at 8 Gbps, at which it belts out 192 GB/s of memory bandwidth. Display outputs include three DisplayPorts 1.4, one HDMI 2.0b, and a DVI. 



 

 

 



*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## AlienIsGOD (Jul 7, 2016)

interesting card, lack of SLI will turn many away


----------



## Chaitanya (Jul 7, 2016)

Another price hike with early adopters tax for refrence cards.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jul 7, 2016)

I guarantee that MSRP doesn't see the light of day.  NVIDIA has set the "real" standard by their Founder's edition price, which is the $299 I figured they would release at.  

Whatever the performance, NVIDIA handed AMD a win with the 480 in this segment.  I can't say I'm surprised.


----------



## ZeppMan217 (Jul 7, 2016)

So yeah, non-ref 6GB at $300+. I don't think it really competes with RX480 at that price point.


----------



## PP Mguire (Jul 7, 2016)

Costs more and no SLI, stupid.


----------



## chaosmassive (Jul 7, 2016)

Thanks, but no thanks

with that price point, I dont see any advantage over RX 480 beside 8-10% performance increase
which can be achieve easily with RX 480 3rd party custom card, to top off that Nvidia disabled SLI for this card
to avoid cannibalize GTX 1080 card


----------



## bug (Jul 7, 2016)

AlienIsGOD said:


> interesting card, lack of SLI will turn many away



Considering SLI adoption is in the single digits, that's a creative use of "many" 
Anyway, when does the reviews NDA expire?

Edit: Nvm, it seems the NDA expires on the same day this is available (July 19). Damn it...


----------



## ZoneDymo (Jul 7, 2016)

so lets see, the RX480 was first said to cost 200 dollars, that became 220 dollars for the 8gb model.
In stores its actually 320 euro for me.

This thing at 300 dollars...guess that means it will be about 400+ euro for me...
and that for something that is about GTX980 performance.....nope sorry, that is just way too much.


----------



## proxuser (Jul 7, 2016)

i'm interested becuase of 249$ price tag. its enough if it's faster than 980 then everyone will be interested for sure. lets see.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jul 7, 2016)

proxuser said:


> i'm interested becuase of 249$ price tag. its enough if it's faster than 980 then everyone will be interested for sure. lets see.



Not a price tag.  It's the Manufacturer SUGGESTED Price.  See how that worked out on the 1070's and 1080's?  By NVIDIA listing the FE higher, for what will indubitably be an inferior card than AIB models, they have communicated to the AIB vendors where a reasonable price to charge actually is.


----------



## RejZoR (Jul 7, 2016)

NVIDIA is going to face quite some issues with GTX 2000 generation considering how high they go with the clocks now. AMD has them around the 1,2GHz mark this whole time while rivaling higher clocked GeForce cards. Meaning they have a headroom. I don't think NVIDIA will be able to push clocks beyond 2GHz by default without some radical changes, either with clocks or architecture. But that's still far away.


----------



## ViperXTR (Jul 7, 2016)

its impossible to see this at 249 usd price tag, probably around 340-400 usd, thats 1070 territory already (gigabyte 1070 at 399)


----------



## m1dg3t (Jul 7, 2016)

nVidia;  Charging you more, giving you less. 

Why TPU doesn't post about 1070/80 not working with VR headsets? Gotta keep those 'cookies' coming in i guess...


----------



## m1dg3t (Jul 7, 2016)

RejZoR said:


> NVIDIA is going to face quite some issues with GTX 2000 generation considering how high they go with the clocks now. AMD has them around the 1,2GHz mark this whole time while rivaling higher clocked GeForce cards. Meaning they have a headroom. I don't think NVIDIA will be able to push clocks beyond 2GHz by default without some radical changes, either with clocks or architecture. But that's still far away.



Very astute of you. What you think gonna happen when they try to reintroduce compute functions going forward? LOLOLOLOLOL


----------



## RejZoR (Jul 7, 2016)

m1dg3t said:


> nVidia;  Charging you more, giving you less.
> 
> Why TPU doesn't post about 1070/80 not working with VR headsets? Gotta keep those 'cookies' coming in i guess...



Psssssssssh, don't interrupt all the outrage directed at the RX480 PCIe thing...


----------



## bug (Jul 7, 2016)

RejZoR said:


> NVIDIA is going to face quite some issues with GTX 2000 generation considering how high they go with the clocks now. AMD has them around the 1,2GHz mark this whole time while rivaling higher clocked GeForce cards. Meaning they have a headroom. I don't think NVIDIA will be able to push clocks beyond 2GHz by default without some radical changes, either with clocks or architecture. But that's still far away.



That's totally the problem and not the fact the GloFo's 14nm doesn't scale to higher frequencies, leaving AMD unable to compete at the high-end today.
You absolutely know that because Nvidia has hit high frequencies now, they'll be in trouble next year.


----------



## Bansaku (Jul 7, 2016)

No SLI = My money is going to AMD!


----------



## alucasa (Jul 7, 2016)

Don't care about SLI. I can see the point for SLI for 1070 and higher but for 1060? Meh.

I will buy it early 2017. Price should be normal by then. I won't be using this for gaming. I just need CUDA cores.


----------



## ZoneDymo (Jul 7, 2016)

alucasa said:


> Don't care about SLI. I can see the point for SLI for 1070 and higher but for 1060? Meh.
> 
> I will buy in early 2017. Price should be normal by then.



Why would there be a point for the 1070 and not for the 1060?


----------



## ironwolf (Jul 7, 2016)

Either the coffee hasn't kicked in yet this morning or there was no mention of the rumored 3 GB version?


----------



## bug (Jul 7, 2016)

ZoneDymo said:


> Why would there be a point for the 1070 and not for the 1060?


Because the power you'd get from SLId 1060s is better provided by a single 1080. The power of SLId 1080s has no substitute today.


----------



## R00kie (Jul 7, 2016)

Card without the cooler, it seems that if you take the cooler off, you take the power connector off as well.


----------



## efikkan (Jul 7, 2016)

chaosmassive said:


> Thanks, but no thanks
> 
> with that price point, I dont see any advantage over RX 480 beside 8-10% performance increase
> which can be achieve easily with RX 480 3rd party custom card, to top off that Nvidia disabled SLI for this card
> to avoid cannibalize GTX 1080 card


Now, let's see. GTX 1060 offers:
- Better performance
- Better performance per dollar
- Better efficiency
- Lower power draw
- Possibly higher overclocking headroom.

Which sane person would prefer an RX 480?


----------



## ShurikN (Jul 7, 2016)

Custom (for ex. Sapphire Nitro) RX480s will come out the same time as Founders Edition 1060. Which will have a $20 premium over reference cards. Also the price gouging should stabilize a bit. Not a very smart move by NV to release FE first (or at all if you ask me).



efikkan said:


> - Better performance
> - Better performance per dollar



Based on what?


----------



## Fluffmeister (Jul 7, 2016)

bug said:


> Because the power you'd get from SLId 1060s is better provided by a single 1080. The power of SLId 1080s has no substitute today.



And that's still gonna cost $500-$600 for two 1060's.

Either the prices are high, or people just see the lack of SLI and go mental regardless.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jul 7, 2016)

Require reviews.

SLI isn't a concern for many.  Moving forward is a DX12 multi GPU environment with MS recent announcement.  Crossfire and SLI will lose relevance once DX12 gets hold.  That aside, I guess it's a personal thing - I left dual cards after 5850's, 7970's and finally 780ti's.  I know there are plenty of people that would rather pay for a 1070 than 2 of these. 

One thing that will draw equal praise an ire is the power draw.  If the 1060 is frugal with power it will go into more OEM's because of it.  When I had 5850's, the power draw of Fermi was always being laughed at.  Now of course, things are very different, power draw isn't relevant.....


----------



## ZoneDymo (Jul 7, 2016)

efikkan said:


> Now, let's see. GTX 1060 offers:
> - Better performance
> - Better performance per dollar
> - Better efficiency
> ...



well the "performance per dollar" argument is quite up for debate still....


----------



## alucasa (Jul 7, 2016)

ZoneDymo said:


> Why would there be a point for the 1070 and not for the 1060?



Buying a single 1080 would be a far better solution than buying two 1060. You should know that since you've been here since 2009.

There is also an argument of buying 2nd 1060 later to SLI but there are issues to that also.


----------



## ZoneDymo (Jul 7, 2016)

bug said:


> Because the power you'd get from SLId 1060s is better provided by a single 1080. The power of SLId 1080s has no substitute today.



sure, but I was asking for sli'd 1070, surely with that logic SLI on the 1070 is equally pointless.


----------



## qisoed (Jul 7, 2016)

Nice card for those who wants to play high or better in 1920x1080 / 1920x1200.

But I think its good for nvidia to not give SLI feature for 1060, its not just keep their higher product market being taken but also to make the market healthy. So for those who wants multi gpu can run for AMD 480 and those who needs only single gpu can put 1060 on the list


----------



## GhostRyder (Jul 7, 2016)

No 3gb edition, well that is a good thing to me because I thought for that performance segment its getting a little on the low end.  I am not sure if I am surprised by the fact the Founders Edition is on this card but its seems ridiculous seeing as how the premium nets you less than before since this cooler looks much cheaper than the other two.  Not sure about the removal of SLI still on the 1060 cards, seems like something I still see around though I doubt its going to hurt much in the long run.

Meh, guess we will just have to see.  Hopefully they AIB's make some of those "Cheaper" plastic blowers available soon for those wanting the cheaper end of the spectrum.


----------



## bug (Jul 7, 2016)

ZoneDymo said:


> sure, but I was asking for sli'd 1070, surely with that logic SLI on the 1070 is equally pointless.


And you can't make the connection with the logic laid down in front of you? Let me spell it out for you (literally): there's no substitute for SLId 1070s either.


----------



## GC_PaNzerFIN (Jul 7, 2016)

ZoneDymo said:


> sure, but I was asking for sli'd 1070, surely with that logic SLI on the 1070 is equally pointless.


2x GTX 1070 should end up faster than GTX 1080 whenever SLi works. There is no single GPU equivalent available = SLI may be acceptable. 

There is absolutely no reason to SLi 2x GTX 1060 to do what, end up slower than GTX 1080 unless SLI scaling is 100%?


----------



## efikkan (Jul 7, 2016)

ShurikN said:


> Based on what?


MSRP of $239 vs $249.


----------



## ZoneDymo (Jul 7, 2016)

bug said:


> And you can't make the connection with the logic laid down in front of you? Let me spell it out for you (literally): there's no substitute for SLId 1070s either.



no but their will be when the GTX1080Ti is out....


----------



## Fluffmeister (Jul 7, 2016)

ZoneDymo said:


> no but their will be when the GTX1080Ti is out....



Well duh, of course. But i suspect the GTX 1170 will beat that for less money.

And the cycle continues.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jul 7, 2016)

ZoneDymo said:


> no but their will be when the GTX1080Ti is out....



I'm backing you up on the front that sli (and crossfire) is pointless for gaming anyway.  It's too much of a lottery to spend several hundred dollars on a card that a game might not support in sli.  It's the new lottery and the odds are getting worse each game release.  Only dev's adopting multi-gpu in DX12 will alter that slide and that doesn't require a bridge.


----------



## HD64G (Jul 7, 2016)

efikkan said:


> Now, let's see. GTX 1060 offers:
> - Better performance
> - Better performance per dollar
> - Better efficiency
> ...



Which sane person wouldn't prefer a GPU (RX480) over another (1060) that:
1) Isn't even reviewed yet
2) We don't know its availability when it is to be sold
3) It will be sold $50 over the normal price for weeks
4) It forbids SLI
5) It will be more expensive in its stock form than oced and much better cooled custom RX480s

Only fanboys.

That opinion might change if and when it will be widely available in big quantities for $249 and if proved to be over 10% average (W1z's review %) faster than ref RX480 at 1080P which is the resotution it matters to this sale price lvl buyers more than any other.


----------



## medi01 (Jul 7, 2016)

efikkan said:


> MSRP of $239 vs $249.


Yeah, just like 379$ 1070 has materialized.



ZoneDymo said:


> well the "performance per dollar" argument is quite up for debate still....


So, by the way, is "better performance", especially in about 6 month from now.


----------



## GC_PaNzerFIN (Jul 7, 2016)

ZoneDymo said:


> no but their will be when the GTX1080Ti is out....



You can't buy a GTX 1080 Ti, not now and I suspect for a while now.
You absolutely can buy a GTX 1080 now, and when GTX 1060s are available. 

See the difference?


----------



## Prima.Vera (Jul 7, 2016)

I don't believe that this card will be faster than my 780Ti. I refuse to belive that!


----------



## chaosmassive (Jul 7, 2016)

efikkan said:


> Now, let's see. GTX 1060 offers:
> - Better performance
> - Better performance per dollar
> 
> ...



as I said, GTX 1060 offer better performance over RX 480, but like what? 10%? is this justified for 250?
and there is no way 3rd party card which offer overclocking out of card will set in Nvidia MRSP
thats two points above somehow dont make any sense to Perf/Dollar that you claimed better than RX 480
mind to elaborate your calculation?


----------



## Fluffmeister (Jul 7, 2016)

gdallsk said:


> Card without the cooler, it seems that if you take the cooler off, you take the power connector off as well.



Ahhh it's tiny, could well be a margin monster for the green team.


----------



## GhostRyder (Jul 7, 2016)

What matters is the performance and its overclocking, that's what people are going to see at the end since you include boost 3.0 and such (Especially with how easy it is to overclock these cards now a days).  The people screaming that power consumption is the end all about this card need to buy a Prius or a Leaf and call it a day because that's going to save you more money than the difference in the two cards power wise (RX 480 vs GTX 1060).  The only thing that slightly holds it back is the lack of SLI but even then its one of those "Meh" arguments because its a very slim market for people buying two lower end cards instead of one high (Buying a single 1070 would be much more logical) so its only matters to those who buy one now and might want another one down the road instead of replacing the card.

Its going to be a good card, but once we have reviews actually placing it 10% above (If that's where it lands) then we can judge the pricing for ourselves.  The dual MSRP thing will hold it back, but I will bet it will get close to the lower MSRP with some of the plastic edition coolers like on the 1070 and 1080.


----------



## bug (Jul 7, 2016)

medi01 said:


> Yeah, just like 379$ 1070 has materialized.



Unlike the $239 RX480: http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&IsNodeId=1&N=100007709 601203818


----------



## Assimilator (Jul 7, 2016)

Will be interesting to see how this puppy clocks; 2+ GHz at under 150W total power usage should definitely be doable if GP106 follows in its bigger brothers' steps. GTX 980 performance in a much smaller footprint and much lower power usage is exactly what AMD failed to deliver with RX 480, but this card looks to do it.

I reckon we'll see a 256bit 8GB 1060 Ti sooner or later, considering those empty memory spots. The board's PCB is the shortest I've ever seen, which means cooling might be a problem, but also that some enterprising AIBs might design and release a half-height version. GTX 980 performance in a HTPC, yes please!

I don't think we'll see GTX 1060 at $249 now, but if NVIDIA decide to release a Ti version, it'll be a different story.


----------



## efikkan (Jul 7, 2016)

HD64G said:


> Which sane person wouldn't prefer a GPU (RX480) over another (1060) that:
> 1) Isn't even reveiwed yet


Fair enough, but we got clear indications.



HD64G said:


> 2) We don't know it's availability when it is to be sold


Availability of RX 480 isn't that great either, especially the custom versions that everyone wants.



HD64G said:


> 3) It will be sold $50 over the normal price for weeks


So is RX 480.



HD64G said:


> 4) It forbids SLI


Doesn't matter for this price segment.



HD64G said:


> 5) It will be more expensive in its stock form than oced and much better cooled custom RX480s


That's not true.



chaosmassive said:


> as I said, GTX 1060 offer better performance over RX 480, but like what? 10%? is this justified for 250?
> and there is no way 3rd party card which offer overclocking out of card will set in Nvidia MRSP
> thats two points above somehow dont make any sense to Perf/Dollar that you claimed better than RX 480
> mind to elaborate your calculation?


As mentioned, $239 vs $249.


----------



## rruff (Jul 7, 2016)

rtwjunkie said:


> Not a price tag.  It's the Manufacturer SUGGESTED Price.  See how that worked out on the 1070's and 1080's?  By NVIDIA listing the FE higher, for what will indubitably be an inferior card than AIB models, they have communicated to the AIB vendors where a reasonable price to charge actually is.



I really don't care what MSRPs are and how much early adopters get raped. In the US, Nov is the time to buy computer components and I expect to see many opportunities to buy 8GB 480s and 6GB 1060s for less than $200.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jul 7, 2016)

efikkan said:


> As mentioned, $239 vs $249.



I have to say, NVIDIA was very effective with their $249 shell game.  Throw that out there as the SUGGESTED price, all while with a wink saying to vendors: "Look what we're charging for the reference model".  Everyone then goes around repeating $249 as if it is the actual price.


----------



## yogurt_21 (Jul 7, 2016)

ZoneDymo said:


> well the "performance per dollar" argument is quite up for debate still....


no debate, at 50% more price it needs 50% more performance. It's simply not going to happen. So performance per dollar is not going to be the 1060's thing, not unless for some reason the vendors don't pull a 1070/1080 and actually release it at 249$ and it somehow comes in 25% faster overall. Still not going to happen. 

sure if you ignore the 4GB 480 and ONLY compare to the 8GB variant and you can somehow find one at the 249$ price...then it will have better performance per dollar... but ignoring the 199$ 4GB variant is stupid and you won't find a 249$ 1060 for some time. 

so I'm a go with completely false that the 1060 will have better performance per dollar at launch than the 480. 

should still be a decent card, lack of sli hurts a bit though.


----------



## efikkan (Jul 7, 2016)

rtwjunkie said:


> I have to say, NVIDIA was very effective with their $249 shell game.  Throw that out there as the SUGGESTED price, all while with a wink saying to vendors: "Look what we're charging for the reference model".  Everyone then goes around repeating $249 as if it is the actual price.


Basically every product in recent times has "launched" way above MSRP. Then after a while the price stabilizes as stores starts competing with good stockpiles. Somehow "everyone" seems to forget this every time.


----------



## bug (Jul 7, 2016)

rtwjunkie said:


> I have to say, NVIDIA was very effective with their $249 shell game.  Throw that out there as the SUGGESTED price, all while with a wink saying to vendors: "Look what we're charging for the reference model".  Everyone then goes around repeating $249 as if it is the actual price.


Cards above MSRP have always been with us. And the decision to buy has always been the same: do you like what you're getting for the amount you're paying or not?
The rest is just talk.
The silver lining is that, unlike the 1070 and 1080, the 1060 actually has competition and that should keep the price in check.


----------



## yogurt_21 (Jul 7, 2016)

efikkan said:


> Basically every product in recent times has "launched" way above MSRP. Then after a while the price stabilizes as stores starts competing with good stockpiles. Somehow "everyone" seems to forget this every time.


dude we already showed the 480 at EXACT MSRP COSTS for sale everywhere. So FALSE







pretty much sums up everything you've said in this thread.


----------



## chaosmassive (Jul 7, 2016)

efikkan said:


> Availability of RX 480 isn't that great either, especially the custom versions that everyone wants.



Yeah,
RX 480 launched earlier than GTX 1060 still suffer from "low-supply" pricing
doesn't that make GTX 1060 also go through that pricing phase too right after launch?




efikkan said:


> That's not true.



because?



efikkan said:


> As mentioned, $239 vs $249.



you comparing AMD reference card pricing? ok
funny things is, you comparing AMD reference card price versus Nvidia retail card
Nvidia reference card priced at 299, mind you


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Jul 7, 2016)

bug said:


> Cards above MSRP have always been with us. And the decision to buy has always been the same: do you like what you're getting for the amount you're paying or not?
> The rest is just talk.
> The silver lining is that, unlike the 1070 and 1080, the 1060 actually has competition and that should keep the price in check.



But its not. At these prices the GTX 1060 is being released to go head to head with the RX 480. It current is sitting right at 25% more for each of the variants but Nvidia's own chart "claims" a 15% performance improvement. To me, unless the cart was under estimating the card and everything will fall in line; or they are just charging more because they can which is kinda a dick move.

MSRP
RX480 vs. GTX 1060 = 
$199 vs. $249 = 25% price premium
$239 vs. $300 = 26% price premium


----------



## Crap Daddy (Jul 7, 2016)

I expected a higher MSRP. By pricing it in the 480 custom (the only 480s worth the money) ballpark, NVidia clearly wants to spoil AMD's party in the only segment where they have a new card. It's worth mentioning that it appears to be also a slightly faster, cooler, more power effcient card but that remains to be seen after the reviews.


----------



## efikkan (Jul 7, 2016)

chaosmassive said:


> efikkan said:
> 
> 
> > HD64G said:
> ...


- GTX 1060 has a lower TDP and better efficiency, RX 480 can't beat that.
- The difference in MSRP is $10



chaosmassive said:


> Yeah,
> RX 480 launched earlier than GTX 1060 still suffer from "low-supply" pricing
> doesn't that make GTX 1060 also go through that pricing phase too right after launch?


So why does it matter for Nvidia and not for AMD?



chaosmassive said:


> you comparing AMD reference card pricing? ok
> funny things is, you comparing AMD reference card price versus Nvidia retail card
> Nvidia reference card priced at 299, mind you


Like every sane person I'm comparing MSRP, not the exclusive founders edition. If you cherry-pick like that then you're awfully biased.


----------



## Casecutter (Jul 7, 2016)

HD64G said:


> faster than ref RX480 at 1080P



Ah, I think spending anything north of $250 today, and it being about 1080p is setting the bar really low!

If the GTX1060 can really keep up to GTX 980 it has to entertain similar frame pacing and 99th percentile @ 1440p. That's where we must expect this product to logically distinguish itself.  It should provide great 1440p for those who have or intend to buy into 1440p G-Sync panels.


----------



## chief-gunney (Jul 7, 2016)

rtwjunkie said:


> I have to say, NVIDIA was very effective with their $249 shell game.  Throw that out there as the SUGGESTED price, all while with a wink saying to vendors: "Look what we're charging for the reference model".  Everyone then goes around repeating $249 as if it is the actual price.



Absolutely! There is no $249 GTX 1060 and there won't be. This whole tactic by Nvidia for the 10 series is really annoying, by suggesting that AIB partners sell their better cards for less than the reference!
ASUS, Gigabyte and MSI don't appear to be having anything to do with it.
That said, It looks like a good performing card for $300.

I'll be getting an RX480 partner card and Freesync monitor because I want to support AMD  and their push to keep the price/performance down. Nvidia just seem intent on driving it up.


----------



## RejZoR (Jul 7, 2016)

Lol, people bitching over availability of RX480's. At that price ($229), regardless of how many stacks of them were provided, they were gone in an instant. That's why you can't buy them anymore for now. NVIDIA can say it'll be $249 while at the same time selling FE for $299. And people somehow believe GTX 1060 with aftermarket coolers will be cheaper. They behave like GTX 1070/1080 hasn't been released and no one has seen how things work for those...


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jul 7, 2016)

efikkan said:


> Like every sane person I'm comparing MSRP, not the exclusive founders edition. If you cherry-pick like that then you're awfully biased.



And, since this is the recent examples of NVIDIA we have to go on, are the AIB's selling at MSRP for 1070 and 1080?  Or are they actually selling closer to the FE prices?  So yeah...


----------



## Bytales (Jul 7, 2016)

ZoneDymo said:


> well the "performance per dollar" argument is quite up for debate still....



Ownerswith freesync Monitors that wouldt want to leave the Card mining when offline, oh, and that 8gb is better than 6, not to mention, as a whole, the 480x is cheaper, and crossfire ready.


----------



## bug (Jul 7, 2016)

TheLaughingMan said:


> But its not. At these prices the GTX 1060 is being released to go head to head with the RX 480. It current is sitting right at 25% more for each of the variants but Nvidia's own chart "claims" a 15% performance improvement. To me, unless the cart was under estimating the card and everything will fall in line; or they are just charging more because they can which is kinda a dick move.
> 
> MSRP
> RX480 vs. GTX 1060 =
> ...


Not sure what you're talking about. There's only one 1060 SKU announced today at $249 MSRP. That's the 6GB variant, nothing was said about anything else.


----------



## chaosmassive (Jul 7, 2016)

efikkan said:


> So why does it matter for Nvidia and not for AMD?



because nvidia card inherently pricier than AMD card, thats make their price even higher



efikkan said:


> Like every sane person I'm comparing MSRP, not the exclusive founders edition. If you cherry-pick like that then you're awfully biased.



let me get this straight, FE is fancy name for reference card basically, this card freshly minted by Nvidia itself not 3rd party brand cooler gimmick
and I comparing apple to apple comparison, because this two card constructed by AMD/Nvidia itself
so its fair that I comparing their pricing based on what they said
Nvidia = FE(reference) = 299
AMD = reference = 239

and wow, you are really got caught up by "Exclusive FE" thingy, arent you?


----------



## Assimilator (Jul 7, 2016)

Bytales said:


> Ownerswith freesync Monitors that wouldt want to leave the Card mining when offline, oh, and that 8gb is better than 6, not to mention, as a whole, the 480x is cheaper, and crossfire ready.



LOL. Nobody uses GPUs for mining anymore; at least, nobody who actually wants to make money.


----------



## bug (Jul 7, 2016)

RejZoR said:


> Lol, people bitching over availability of RX480's. At that price ($229), regardless of how many stacks of them were provided, they were gone in an instant. That's why you can't buy them anymore for now. NVIDIA can say it'll be $249 while at the same time selling FE for $299. And people somehow believe GTX 1060 with aftermarket coolers will be cheaper. They behave like GTX 1070/1080 hasn't been released and no one has seen how things work for those...


No dude, it's the same as Nvidia: you can find them in stock, just not at MSRP.
See here: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01GTYIEG2/?tag=tec06d-20
and here: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00WJOU7DA/?tag=tec06d-20


----------



## PP Mguire (Jul 7, 2016)

rtwjunkie said:


> Not a price tag.  It's the Manufacturer SUGGESTED Price.  See how that worked out on the 1070's and 1080's?  By NVIDIA listing the FE higher, for what will indubitably be an inferior card than AIB models, they have communicated to the AIB vendors where a reasonable price to charge actually is.


Won't really matter after the dust settles. I mean, I bought my 980s in 2014 for $609 a pop and by the time I bought Titan X's in March they could be had for 450 a piece. Pricing will always be higher on launch. We'll see the 1070 pricing get closer to that MSRP soon enough, same for 1080 and 1060.


----------



## Air (Jul 7, 2016)

Well, i guess now its pretty clear that the heatsink is indeed WAY bigger than R480X, and with a lower TDP. I guess this will mostly likely be a fairly quiet blower cooler. No backplat is a bummer though.

When will reviews be avaliable?


----------



## Fluffmeister (Jul 7, 2016)

Assimilator said:


> LOL. Nobody uses GPUs for mining anymore; at least, nobody who actually wants to make money.



This guy was: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1433925.msg15438599#msg15438599

Eek.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jul 7, 2016)

bug said:


> No dude, it's the same as Nvidia: you can find them in stock, just not at MSRP.
> See here: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01GTYIEG2/?tag=tec06d-20
> and here: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00WJOU7DA/?tag=tec06d-20



 You DO realize you are quoting Amazon Marketplace sellers prices, right?


----------



## efikkan (Jul 7, 2016)

chaosmassive said:


> because nvidia card inherently pricier than AMD card, thats make their price even higher


Both AMD and Nvidia have somewhat limited supplies which are overpriced at launch.



chaosmassive said:


> let me get this straight, FE is fancy name for reference card basically, this card freshly minted by Nvidia itself not 3rd party brand cooler gimmick
> and I comparing apple to apple comparison, because this two card constructed by AMD/Nvidia itself
> so its fair that I comparing their pricing based on what they said
> Nvidia = FE(reference) = 299
> ...


No, you are just a desperate fanboy trying to make AMD look good.

Founders Edition is an exclusive over the base MSRP. If you compare "apples to apples" it's $239 vs $249, every sane person knows that. End of discussion.


----------



## chaosmassive (Jul 7, 2016)

efikkan said:


> Both AMD and Nvidia have somewhat limited supplies which are overpriced at launch.
> 
> 
> No, you are just a desperate fanboy trying to make AMD look good.
> ...


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jul 7, 2016)

efikkan said:


> Founders Edition is an exclusive over the base MSRP.



LMFAO!!!!!!!

You, Sir, have been SUCKERED!!!!


----------



## RejZoR (Jul 7, 2016)

So, all the garbage reference designs from the past were actually "Founders Editions". XD I never thought people were this stupid. NVIDIA confirmed they actually are.


----------



## chaosmassive (Jul 7, 2016)

RejZoR said:


> So, all the garbage reference designs from the past were actually "Founders Editions". XD I never thought people were this stupid. NVIDIA confirmed they actually are.



you forget add "Exclusive" sir


----------



## GC_PaNzerFIN (Jul 7, 2016)

Assimilator said:


> LOL. Nobody uses GPUs for mining anymore; at least, nobody who actually wants to make money.


I don't know what this guy does, but looks awfully like mining. 108 GTX 1080/1070 GPUs! 

https://www.chiphell.com/thread-1612953-1-1.html


----------



## Siman00 (Jul 7, 2016)

ZoneDymo said:


> so lets see, the RX480 was first said to cost 200 dollars, that became 220 dollars for the 8gb model.
> In stores its actually 320 euro for me.
> 
> This thing at 300 dollars...guess that means it will be about 400+ euro for me...
> and that for something that is about GTX980 performance.....nope sorry, that is just way too much.



Lol now you know why britian is leaving the eu. Gotta love that vat tax. Complain to your government not amd or nvidia.


----------



## GhostRyder (Jul 7, 2016)

efikkan said:


> Both AMD and Nvidia have somewhat limited supplies which are overpriced at launch.
> 
> 
> No, you are just a desperate fanboy trying to make AMD look good.
> ...


OMG, I am laughing so hard right now.  

You can only compare that *if* there are cards priced at that price point.  On AMD's side there are cards from $199 - $239 so its fine.  On the other hand the 1060 is not out so we can't say but based off history is another thing.  


RejZoR said:


> So, all the garbage reference designs from the past were actually "Founders Editions". XD I never thought people were this stupid. NVIDIA confirmed they actually are.


I never knew I was part of an exclusive club, I just thought I was cheap!


----------



## Nergal (Jul 7, 2016)

So when you buy a 1060 FE, you will pay 50% more than a Rx480 ref(4GB which can be flashed to 8GB) for 10% speed increase? 

Also; disabling the SLI is just admitting that 1060(SLI) or Rx480(CF) are just too dangerous for the 1080. Why else disable it?

NVIDIA wanted to release this card in a few months, getting people to buy more expensive 1070´s in the meanwhile. Luckly AMD pulled one over NVIDIA this time. Them NVIDIA guys really are all in it for the money it seems. While I agree money earning is nothing dirty; NVIDIA is really walking on a moral border. Just imagine if a pharmaceutical firm would do this. (Yeah, we´re not going to sell this pill that saves 50% of those who are sick and only costs a 1/5th of the price. Instead, we will only sell the one that saves 100% for the full price)

Releasing better things only when forced by competitors......It´s a far cry from trying to put the best product as fast as possible on the market. More instead, only the ones that will bring the most profit.


----------



## ZoneDymo (Jul 7, 2016)

Siman00 said:


> Lol now you know why britian is leaving the eu. Gotta love that vat tax. Complain to your government not amd or nvidia.



ermm UK prices are the same, and you should realize its all rather connected, taxes, what the government does for you etc etc.
Id stick to complaining to AMD and Nvidia, mostly for mostly fake competition and borderline price fixing.


----------



## Siman00 (Jul 7, 2016)

Prima.Vera said:


> I don't believe that this card will be faster than my 780Ti. I refuse to belive that!



Lol with thoes diver gimpimg it will be...


----------



## Air (Jul 7, 2016)

RejZoR said:


> So, all the garbage reference designs from the past were actually "Founders Editions". XD I never thought people were this stupid. NVIDIA confirmed they actually are.



I dont think all the past reference designs were equivalent to FE. GTX 960 was all plastic. I think the it should be seen as a better option for users looking for a blower style GPU.

GTX 770 and GTX 970 reference designs already had the "premium" cooler, but both were more expensive than their custom counterparts ($50), so in this case, yeah basically FE: better materials but higher price. The "FE" already existed, but were not marketed as such.


----------



## yogurt_21 (Jul 7, 2016)

bug said:


> No dude, it's the same as Nvidia: you can find them in stock, just not at MSRP.
> See here: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01GTYIEG2/?tag=tec06d-20
> and here: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00WJOU7DA/?tag=tec06d-20



finding it on amazon is almost like ebay

resale gouging is gouging.

but when its from legit retailers
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&IsNodeId=1&N=100007709 601202919

In stock or not 0 cards at 379$, and only one even close to it. Then manufactured suggested retail price is really just that, a suggestion at least for Nvidia now.

amd still has a sway apparently.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&IsNodeId=1&N=100007709 601203818

in stock or not they sell for msrp of 199$ for 4GB or 239$ for 8GB. 

so when nvidia lists a 299$ founders edition and a 249$ msrp, forget 249, 280-320 will be where they all end up as apparent with the 1070 prices above.


----------



## mcraygsx (Jul 7, 2016)

Removal of SLI was a let down by NVidia, knowing that they did it to keep the 1080/1070 for top dogs and let the little folks not be able to enjoy the similar level of performance for better price.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jul 7, 2016)

Everyone should just be quiet and act like tech minded adults.

Pricing is up to the manufacturers and people will buy what they want to buy.  It might piss of AMD zealots that Nvidia sell cards like hot cakes but dem's da breaks.  No matter how much people whine about money, the things will keep on selling at those prices until the competition forces the prices the other way.  Until AMD match Nvidia for perf/watt, the OEM's will continue to sucker up to Nvidia as it makes a better case for quieter product using stock, reference (FE) cards.
The FE card is in fact touted as being just that - something the OEM's can bank on not changing and thus integrate into PC builds.

The 1060 looks overpriced but the fact is it's an illusion of 'poor' value.  Just last week the RX 480 was being hailed as  a saviour due to it's pricing.  Given the 1060 isn't massively far off and (if PR is to believed) appears to be faster and more energy efficient, then the 1060 isn't actually off base in that dept.

What? you want Nvidia to price their card the same as a product that performs worse (according to PR) and consumes way less power?  Get real, this is big business.  Nvidia is not your friend (nor is AMD) - they are owned by share holders who demand profit.

It doesn't matter how many of us vote with our wallets - we're a pleb minority of techies.  The majority of consumers know shit.  I'm certainly not buying a 1080 even though it's 10-15% faster than my card - at that fucking price - NO way!.

Irony is, I'll probably buy a 1080ti as it's probably going to be stupidly fast.  Unless of course Vega pulls a swifty and comes in firing with all chambers.

Anyway - people - get a grip of yourselves.  Big Business hates you.  It wants your money - not your opinions.  This card will sell.  Period.

EDIT:  oh yeah, and no amount of whining, bitching, name calling or fanboy memes (from either side) is going to change that.


----------



## N3M3515 (Jul 7, 2016)

efikkan said:


> Now, let's see. GTX 1060 offers:
> - Better performance
> - Better performance per dollar
> - Better efficiency
> ...



A person who doesn't want to spend $100 more for an hipothetycal 8% increase.


----------



## Fluffmeister (Jul 7, 2016)

GC_PaNzerFIN said:


> I don't know what this guy does, but looks awfully like mining. 108 GTX 1080/1070 GPUs!
> 
> https://www.chiphell.com/thread-1612953-1-1.html



Now that's more like it, no more whining over a few hundred bucks!


----------



## efikkan (Jul 7, 2016)

N3M3515 said:


> A person who doesn't want to spend $100 more for an hipothetycal 8% increase.


It's a $10 increase not $100. Get an education!
GTX 1060 will be available worldwide starting at *$249* at July 19th. Stop this BS!


----------



## thebluebumblebee (Jul 7, 2016)

It is sad to see how far the x60 GPU has fallen.  Even the *$130* GTS 450 had a SLI connector.  Adjusted for inflation and that these GPU's come with more, the price for the GTX (remember when "X" stood for 3 or 4 way SLI?) 1060 should be in the $175-200 range.  No competition = we get screwed.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jul 7, 2016)

efikkan said:


> It's a $10 increase not $100. Get an education!
> GTX 1060 will be available worldwide starting at *$249* at July 19th. Stop this BS!



In your dreams.  I'm not complaining, just trying to stop you and others from being apologists.

Anyway, I'm quitting this thread.  I'll look forward to all the shocked faces on July 19th.  If I'm wrong, I'll admit it, but I will be very, very surprised if pricing goes like you think it will.  NVIDIA has too many examples under the bridge for me to believe otherwise.


----------



## Frick (Jul 7, 2016)

I have no idea how well the RX 480 is selling, but I'm betting the 1060 will sell better. I'm also betting the RX 480 will have a slightly better price/performance ratio. All based on previous generations. it will probably slaughter in effeciency though, which is always nice but IMO not THAT big a deal unless you're building a tiny, new machine. For budget gamers looking to upgrade they likely have enough power for a 480.

Now, SLI. The reason for SLI on a card like this is for future upgrades. Buying dual cards from the get go is stupid unless you buy multiple high end cards, but what you can definitely do with low-mid range cards is increasing their lifespan. Get one card now and the second a couple of years down the line. Yes, SLI these days are hit and miss and that is a sad state of affairs, I'm hoping DX12 will improve that. Or it might not, but I still see the lack of SLI as a definite downside.

EDIT: The cards I'm really interested in at this point are the low-mid range cards.


----------



## ironwolf (Jul 7, 2016)

So where did the rumor of a 3 GB version start?


----------



## darklm (Jul 7, 2016)

Nvidia MSRP... ha! how funny, there isn't a single 1080 that retails at $599, not a single one, the cheapest that i can find was this $619 EVGA

1070 MSRP $379? nope $399 Gigabyte

so this thing is not going to sell from $249, it's going to start at around $280 (if not higher)


----------



## ZoneDymo (Jul 7, 2016)

the54thvoid said:


> Everyone should just be quiet and act like tech minded adults.
> 
> Pricing is up to the manufacturers and people will buy what they want to buy.  It might piss of AMD zealots that Nvidia sell cards like hot cakes but dem's da breaks.  No matter how much people whine about money, the things will keep on selling at those prices until the competition forces the prices the other way.  Until AMD match Nvidia for perf/watt, the OEM's will continue to sucker up to Nvidia as it makes a better case for quieter product using stock, reference (FE) cards.
> The FE card is in fact touted as being just that - something the OEM's can bank on not changing and thus integrate into PC builds.
> ...



Glad to got that off your chest ey?
I would buy this argument if we are talking about lets say an Xbox One, but in the world of building your own pc? or at least going for a gpu upgrade? Im not so sure, you already have to be of that branch and that branch tends to do some research, hell its mandatory tbh to know what you are doing.

Secondly, pricing it the same as AMD yet having a better card means everyone will turn to you, now they can still argue AMD has the cheaper alternative.
If I was big business I want to give the buyers no choice but to go with my product because its simply better in every way.
That means more profit in the end.


----------



## HD64G (Jul 7, 2016)

mcraygsx said:


> Removal of SLI was a let down by NVidia, knowing that they did it to keep the 1080/1070 for top dogs and let the little folks not be able to enjoy the similar level of performance for better price.



Exactly! Denying gamers on a budget to get great performance at least in a few games should have been dissapproved heavily and loudly even from the biggest fanboys of green team. But we all know fanboyism isn't a sign of maturity or smartness eh? I hope 1060 doesn't become a great saling GPU as nVidia will continue or even make worse of their awful practice against the not so rich gamers.



efikkan said:


> It's a $10 increase not $100. Get an education!
> GTX 1060 will be available worldwide starting at *$249* at July 19th. Stop this BS!



When did that happened with FE editions before. Just wait a few days and repost on this matter...


----------



## DrPlate (Jul 7, 2016)

I don't care about having no sli. Nvidia, just make this card's price not higher than 250$ for 6GB and my money is your's. I doubt that's gonna happen though.


----------



## Dave65 (Jul 7, 2016)

Nvidia can keep it, no SLI support is just wrong!


----------



## efikkan (Jul 7, 2016)

The Founders Edition is a special limited edition:





While the base models will start at $249:




Now, let's end the trolling.



Frick said:


> Now, SLI. The reason for SLI on a card like this is for future upgrades. Buying dual cards from the get go is stupid unless you buy multiple high end cards, but what you can definitely do with low-mid range cards is increasing their lifespan. Get one card now and the second a couple of years down the line.


Buying a duplicate card, let's say 1-1.5 years later is never a good deal, then it's much smarter and better future-proofing to buy a slightly faster card in the first place, or simply just replacing the card instead of adding another. If you are going to run multiple cards, you should do it from the start. Otherwise there will be newer and faster cards by the time you are ready to upgrade. Both GTX 1070 and GTX 1080 are better options than 2× GTX 1060 in SLI.

Multi-GPU is only a good choice when you need more performance than a single GPU can provide, so SLI for GTX 1060 is pointless in real life.



Frick said:


> Yes, SLI these days are hit and miss and that is a sad state of affairs, I'm hoping DX12 will improve that. Or it might not, but I still see the lack of SLI as a definite downside.


It wouldn't change much. Games still have to be designed in order to scale well across GPUs.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jul 7, 2016)

efikkan said:


> The Founders Edition is a special limited edition



Sorry, couldn't resist.


----------



## BiggieShady (Jul 7, 2016)

Fluffmeister said:


> This guy was: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1433925.msg15438599#msg15438599
> 
> Eek.


Looks like every now and then some new cryptocurrency becomes popular and has short window of time during growth where GPU mining is still profitable ... well, except for this dude


----------



## Frick (Jul 7, 2016)

efikkan said:


> The Founders Edition is a special limited edition:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So far no 1080/70 has hit the lower MSRP afaik. I would definitely say that the FE pricing is the new reference pricing and the other cards revovle around that. We obviously can't tell if it will be the same with the 1060, but I understand if people sre spectical. Yes prices will come down etc etc but Pascal definitely jumped in price on release.


----------



## N3M3515 (Jul 7, 2016)

Frick said:


> So far no 1080/70 has hit the lower MSRP afaik. I would definitely say that the FE pricing is the new reference pricing and the other cards revovle around that. We obviously can't tell if it will be the same with the 1060, but I understand if people sre spectical. Yes prices will come down etc etc but Pascal definitely jumped in price on release.



Let him live his fantasy xD
Oh and 1060 at $250, i would still prefer a 4GB RX 480.
Those 50 bucks translate in to $200.000 in my country
One last bit, wasn't GTX 960 MSRP $200?


----------



## muSPK (Jul 7, 2016)

249$ = 350€ in Europe.


----------



## chaosmassive (Jul 7, 2016)

OMG I've been through with this in several post already
wakey wakey, how long you gonna put this bullshit up?
enough of "Special Ultra Limited Exclusive Premium Platinum" this already


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jul 7, 2016)

chaosmassive said:


> OMG I've been through with this in several post already
> wakey wakey, how long you gonna put this bullshit up?
> enough of "Special Ultra Limited Exclusive Premium Platinum" this already



Don't worry. When they see the reviews for FE, and then AIB editions, they will realize they have been marvelously duped by clever NVIDIA marketing.


----------



## efikkan (Jul 7, 2016)

Don't forget that EUR is weakened by ~23% vs USD over the last two years or so. And then many countries have VAT on top of that.


----------



## tabascosauz (Jul 7, 2016)

As far as I'm concerned, the GTX 970 was successful not because of absolute performance, but because it was versatile. You had cards with the fanciest coolers reserved for the high-end cards, yet you had 6-inch dual slot cards for people like me. With the TDP of this card, I think it's reasonable to expect the same from the GTX 1060.

As far as I'm concerned, if AIBs for the RX 480 can't come up with a decent 6-inch card and AIBs for the GTX 1060 have something close to it, you can bet that I'll be buying that 1060. I'm no Nvidia fanboy, nor am I an AMD fanboy. It doesn't matter if the RX 480 sticks to its pricing; it's the fastest card that AMD will have for the next little while, so if it's not versatile enough, it cannot compete. Dunno where AMD engineers got the idea that doing the same as Nvidia and milking the reference design is going to get them anywhere, they aren't Nvidia. They haven't been making profits. They need their AIB partners' designs.

Every time we go through this, people are hopeful that MSRP actually means something. I'm sure the joke is getting old. Wake up. You don't have to live in a country with a worthless currency like Canada to realize that MSRP is meaningless.


----------



## $ReaPeR$ (Jul 7, 2016)

Laughing My Ass Off.. an x60 for 300$!! well played nvidia, well played!
i literally posted yesterday that this card will sell for 300$.
i really hope we end up with a monopoly, i would like to see the faces of the moronic nvidia apologists then.

ps. @btarunr  you should change the headline or clarify it mate.


----------



## matar (Jul 7, 2016)

No SLi not buying it even if it was priced @ $200


----------



## Fluffmeister (Jul 7, 2016)

All credit to them, they just announced the card and everyone already has their knickers in a twist!

Well played sir.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jul 7, 2016)

$ReaPeR$ said:


> i really hope we end up with a monopoly, i would like to see the faces of the moronic nvidia apologists then.



Speaking as a level headed Nvidia owner I think you'd find Nvidia apologists would be delighted with a monopoly. The pricing wouldn't matter because apologists only care about their guy being top.
So, no, let's not hope for a monopoly because as much as fanboys are assholes, we need both assholes in this fight.


----------



## rruff (Jul 7, 2016)

$ReaPeR$ said:


> i really hope we end up with a monopoly, i would like to see the faces of the moronic nvidia apologists then.



High prices are the only thing preventing a monopoly. If Nvidia sold their cards as cheap as you'd like, then AMD would quickly be bankrupt...


----------



## Fluffmeister (Jul 7, 2016)

rruff said:


> High prices are the only thing preventing a monopoly. If Nvidia sold their cards as cheap as you'd like, then AMD would quickly be bankrupt...



A point well made, although a GTX 1080 @ $250 does sound sweet....


----------



## laszlo (Jul 7, 2016)

efikkan said:


> MSRP of $239 vs $249.



think we should ask w1zzard to add new a graph in the future reviews  named "MSRP Performance per dollar"... once we have this no need for benches & other useless graphs....?


----------



## jabbadap (Jul 7, 2016)

N3M3515 said:


> Let him live his fantasy xD
> Oh and 1060 at $250, i would still prefer a 4GB RX 480.
> Those 50 bucks translate in to $200.000 in my country
> One last bit, wasn't GTX 960 MSRP $200?



Yeah it was $199. If you look back from fermi times to now
gtx460 $229
gtx560 $199
gtx660 $229
gtx760 $249
gtx960 $199
It's back to higher side again. Don't know if it affects to gtx 1060 prices, but unlike gtx1070 or gtx1080, gtx 1060 FE is only available from nvidia own webshop. Maybe there's even different reference pcb with normal 6-pin pcie connector.


----------



## $ReaPeR$ (Jul 7, 2016)

the54thvoid said:


> Speaking as a level headed Nvidia owner I think you'd find Nvidia apologists would be delighted with a monopoly. The pricing wouldn't matter because apologists only care about their guy being top.
> So, no, let's not hope for a monopoly because as much as fanboys are assholes, we need both assholes in this fight.



i dont think they would like it , you see, because from my experience the fanboys dont usually own titans, they usually own price/perf cards, they just bitch about it because they think they have titans. so imo their wallet would actually get raped.
that doesnt mean that i would like it, but their faces... oh that would be priceless!! 



rruff said:


> High prices are the only thing preventing a monopoly. If Nvidia sold their cards as cheap as you'd like, then AMD would quickly be bankrupt...



no mate, price isnt the problem, the problem are people that like getting raped by nvidia just to have the bragging rights of the fancier epenis.. the problem are people that will buy the 1060 even though the 480 is already an overkill for 1080p, but they will buy it anyway, even though it is more expensive. at 300 its ridiculous actually. also hell would freeze before nvidia would sell any x80 card for 250$.

ps. it was a hypothetical scenario. even if amd fails it will be bought by someone and it will continue to exist.


----------



## yogurt_21 (Jul 7, 2016)

jabbadap said:


> Yeah it was $199. If you look back from fermi times to now
> gtx460 $229
> gtx560 $199
> gtx660 $229
> ...



you can go back even further with the 6600gt, 7600gt, 8600gts, and 9600gt all being 200$ at launch. The 200 series was a bit odd as the 260 was more on scale with modern X70 series cards price point and performance and the gts 250 was the 200$ variant (and a thrice rebadge).

But for the most part the X6 nvidia cards have pretty much been 200$ msrp since the 6600gt. bumping to 250$ alone is an oddity, though not an unprecedented one. But with the current FE price becoming the norm, 300$ for one of these cards is an unwelcome change. You would expect the ti to perhaps be up there. Also all those cards starting from the 6600gt included sli support, making it much easier to add performance later without breaking the bank or changing chipsets. To lose it here sucks the most.


----------



## Fluffmeister (Jul 7, 2016)

$ReaPeR$ said:


> no mate, price isnt the problem, the problem are people that like getting raped by nvidia just to have the bragging rights of the fancier epenis.. the problem are people that will buy the 1060 even though the 480 is already an overkill for 1080p, but they will buy it anyway, even though it is more expensive. at 300 its ridiculous actually. also hell would freeze before nvidia would sell any x80 card for 250$.
> 
> ps. it was a hypothetical scenario. even if amd fails it will be bought by someone and it will continue to exist.



Raped? Overkill? The market is flooded with cards that play 1080P well, second-hand or otherwise.

There really is no problem if people choose to buy a 1060 over the RX480 because it's a free market, no one is forced to buy anything.


----------



## Frick (Jul 8, 2016)

laszlo said:


> think we should ask w1zzard to add new a graph in the future reviews  named "MSRP Performance per dollar"... once we have this no need for benches & other useless graphs....?



I'm pretty sure he goes on MSRP. Any other method would be stupidly complicated and unreliable.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jul 8, 2016)

Frick said:


> I'm pretty sure he goes on MSRP. Any other method would be stupidly complicated and unreliable.



Except with the Founders Edition (read "Reference)  he will likely list THAT cost, sincer that is the higher price it will be available at.


----------



## papupepo (Jul 8, 2016)

The GeForce GTX 1060 Founder’s Edition board — designed and built by NVIDIA — will be available starting July 19 for $299 at *www.nvidia.com only*. 

http://videocardz.com/61957/nvidia-unveils-the-geforce-gtx-1060


----------



## Caring1 (Jul 8, 2016)

efikkan said:


> Now, let's see. GTX 1060 offers:
> - Possibly higher overclocking headroom.


Which sane person would come to that assumption based on existing Pascal overclocking performance?


----------



## AsRock (Jul 8, 2016)

Chaitanya said:


> Another price hike with early adopters tax for refrence cards.



Well sounds like a nice card in all but i would not buy it due to that power connector, like hell no i like keeping my options open for easy 3rd party coolers and 300$ is just another reason.

AIB's might look much better to me but  i think the RX480 is a true winner once the AIB's get the cards out.



efikkan said:


> Now, let's see. GTX 1060 offers:
> - Better performance
> - Better performance per dollar
> - Better efficiency
> ...



Better performance ?, did i miss the reviews ?.
Better performance per $ huh ?, some 60$ more than the 480
Better efficiency yes but for the time i would use the card be better of keeping my 60$ savings.
Lower power draw ?, so they so and even if it were you would be about $60 better of with a RX480 with a mere 30w more which would take years to add up to any thing much.
Overclocking headroom ?, again did i miss a trust worthy review ?. i probably did though as i cannot say i been looking.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Jul 8, 2016)

......the price is high for a xx60 card......though no xx60 card has come in at the performance level. Its all relative.  Regardless of the pros/cons, it will still sell, Nvidia will still make money.


----------



## zAAm (Jul 8, 2016)

RejZoR said:


> So, all the garbage reference designs from the past were actually "Founders Editions". XD I never thought people were this stupid. NVIDIA confirmed they actually are.



Ah, and this is why I couldn't take your opinion seriously in the original power draw thread. I tried, but ultimately you can't reason with a fanboy.


----------



## RejZoR (Jul 8, 2016)

Says a person owning a GTX 1070 Founders Edition card. Dude, you can't... XD


----------



## the54thvoid (Jul 8, 2016)

RejZoR said:


> Says a person owning a GTX 1070 Founders Edition card. Dude, you can't... XD



You're just being offensive now. Putting others down because of their purchase choice.


----------



## RejZoR (Jul 8, 2016)

No, because he's putting me down (first) because I can see through bullshit NVIDIA price inflating scheme. Are you people honestly this dumb to believe a reference model will cost more than a badass aftermarket one with beefier VRM and beefier cooler? Have you all somehow instantly forgot the basics of economics? Better materials and more of stuff always means more money. But somehow, in your minds, aftermarket models with better everything will cost less than crappy reference just because they are called "Founders Edition". Oh my god the monumental ignorance and blindness.


----------



## laszlo (Jul 8, 2016)

Frick said:


> I'm pretty sure he goes on MSRP. Any other method would be stupidly complicated and unreliable.



think u missed the point of my post...   .... i was wondering how somebody can guess performance knowing only the price...


----------



## ensabrenoir (Jul 8, 2016)

RejZoR said:


> No, because he's putting me down (first) because I can see through bullshit NVIDIA price inflating scheme. Are you people honestly this dumb to believe a reference model will cost more than a badass aftermarket one with beefier VRM and beefier cooler? Have you all somehow instantly forgot the basics of economics? Better materials and more of stuff always means more money. But somehow, in your minds, aftermarket models with better everything will cost less than crappy reference just because they are called "Founders Edition". Oh my god the monumental ignorance and blindness.



The people who bought the F.E. did so because they were early adopters who wanted it not because they were tricked, fooled or anything else. Man wants what man wants, price probably didnt matter.  To those that can afford it....the price is within reason....to them.  There is a market there that Amd has not been able to capitalize on.....that Nvidia has totally dailed in. Just the nature of the business.


----------



## RejZoR (Jul 8, 2016)

Yeah, but then you can't talk about a $249 price point, can you? The RX480 was apparently being sold at the advertised price. From what I can see for USA that is. For Europe where I'm from, prices are all messed up anyway with the USD to EUR conversion and VAT that we have already attached to selling prices...


----------



## ensabrenoir (Jul 8, 2016)

RejZoR said:


> Yeah, but then you can't talk about a $249 price point, can you? The RX480 was apparently being sold at the advertised price. From what I can see for USA that is. For Europe where I'm from, prices are all messed up anyway with the USD to EUR conversion and VAT that we have already attached to selling prices...



Yep the 480 price was spot on and it delivered. Honestly the best move from amd in years.  I dont think that pcie draw issue is gonna have much of a negative effect either.  Supply will be the only major issue.  At this price point amd prob gotta sell a 3 to 4 cards to match the profit of nvdia selling 1 card.  If they have the volume.... cool...if not the 480 wont mean a thing or make a difference in the long run.


----------



## RejZoR (Jul 8, 2016)

Yeah, but you first need a lot of people wanting a 800 USD graphic card. If that was the case, then AMD would be aiming that, not 200-250 USD range.

As for supply, even if they prepared 100.000 cards, split that into worldwide distribution and you see it becomes a very small number per country. It's impossible to cover the demand in this case.


----------



## ZoneDymo (Jul 8, 2016)

$ReaPeR$ said:


> i dont think they would like it , you see, because from my experience the fanboys dont usually own titans, they usually own price/perf cards, they just bitch about it because they think they have titans. so imo their wallet would actually get raped.
> that doesnt mean that i would like it, but their faces... oh that would be priceless!!
> 
> 
> ...



"the problem are people that will buy the 1060 even though the 480 is already an overkill for 1080p"

ERmmmm what?
Im sorry have you seen the benchmarks?
The RX480 does 41 fps in Crysis 3, a game released in 2013...
41 fps in AC Syndicate
57 fps in FC Primal
58 fps in hitman
50 fps in the witcher 3

I mean... I would check the definition of "overkill" because to me the card is barely passable.
I mean remember, Im just checking everything under the minimum of 60 fps...not even talking about the many gaming screens that do 120hz/fps and up, let alone higher resolutions.

Overkill on 1920x1080 means at least 150fps in at least all currently released games....

And before anyone says "not even the GTX1080 does that"....yeah I know...sad isn't it?
I have been complaining about these mediocre performance jumps for a while now....


----------



## bug (Jul 8, 2016)

yogurt_21 said:


> you can go back even further with the 6600gt, 7600gt, 8600gts, and 9600gt all being 200$ at launch. The 200 series was a bit odd as the 260 was more on scale with modern X70 series cards price point and performance and the gts 250 was the 200$ variant (and a thrice rebadge).
> 
> But for the most part the X6 nvidia cards have pretty much been 200$ msrp since the 6600gt. bumping to 250$ alone is an oddity, though not an unprecedented one. But with the current FE price becoming the norm, 300$ for one of these cards is an unwelcome change. You would expect the ti to perhaps be up there. Also all those cards starting from the 6600gt included sli support, making it much easier to add performance later without breaking the bank or changing chipsets. To lose it here sucks the most.


 May we adjust those 2004 $200 (6600GT) for inflation?

Anyway, we already have a lot of pages to say a simple thing: some will rather buy the 1060, while others prefer the 480. Nobody's being ripped off, everyone will spend their cash voluntarily.


----------



## geon2k2 (Jul 8, 2016)

ZoneDymo said:


> "the problem are people that will buy the 1060 even though the 480 is already an overkill for 1080p"
> 
> ERmmmm what?
> Im sorry have you seen the benchmarks?
> ...




Most benchmarks are on ultra with lots of AA. I can get >60 FPS from R9 380 ... and if I remember correctly it was entirely and very playable on 7850 as well, which I still had when I bought C3.

See these guys get close to 60 on the highest settings, without AA : http://www.hardwareluxx.de/index.ph...delle-der-radeon-r9-380-im-test.html?start=10
What TPU itself also tests is not very relevant. I always get much higher frame-rates and very good experience, even if I have to reduce quality a notch or two. Anyway very rarely you notice any difference from medium to high or from high to ultra. In general you notice between low and medium, though. Even so in general the PC low setting is above console graphics ... so it is good enough.


----------



## ZoneDymo (Jul 8, 2016)

geon2k2 said:


> Most benchmarks are on ultra with lots of AA. I can get >60 FPS from R9 380 ... and if I remember correctly it was entirely and very playable on 7850 as well, which I still had when I bought C3.
> 
> See these guys get close to 60 on the highest settings, without AA : http://www.hardwareluxx.de/index.ph...delle-der-radeon-r9-380-im-test.html?start=10
> What TPU itself also tests is not very relevant. I always get much higher frame-rates and very good experience, even if I have to reduce quality a notch or two. Anyway very rarely you notice any difference from medium to high or from high to ultra. In general you notice between low and medium, though. Even so in general the PC low setting is above console graphics ... so it is good enough.



Yes thats the beauty of proper pc gaming, scalability...
Im not saying you cannot give up tons of visual candy to get the frame rate you need, 
Im saying calling a RX480 >OVERKILL< for 1920x1080 is complete bs if you need to lower the settings to get proper framerates.
That is really not debatable tbh unless we change to meaning of "overkill" to the previously mentioned "barely passable".


----------



## bug (Jul 8, 2016)

ZoneDymo said:


> Yes thats the beauty of proper pc gaming, scalability...
> Im not saying you cannot give up tons of visual candy to get the frame rate you need,
> Im saying calling a RX480 >OVERKILL< for 1920x1080 is complete bs if you need to lower the settings to get proper framerates.
> That is really not debatable tbh unless we change to meaning of "overkill" to the previously mentioned "barely passable".


Except that it is debatable.
Doom3 when ran with the maximum texture quality, used uncompressed textures. They were visually indistinguishable from the next quality settings which used compressed textures. However, because of the sheer size, uncompressed texture brought every single available card to their knees. For no better quality whatsoever.
Similarly, shadows quality also kills performance. If you play an adventure game, the better looking shadows add something to the game play. If you're playing a fast paced FPS, you don't notice the shadow quality at all.
Even AA will become unnoticeable given enough pixel density (though clearly that's not the case here).
With that in mind, if you want to mindlessly pull all sliders to the right and play, then yes, few cards are overkill at 1080. But if you actually look at the screen, you'll get great performance from a much wider selection.

Review sites stick to presets so we may actually compare cards between themselves, not because there's inherent value in the presets. HardOCP was the only site that tuned each game to tell us the maximum playable settings for each title, but I believe they recently stopped doing that.


----------



## RejZoR (Jul 8, 2016)

I don't agree on that. Doom 3 had quite severe texture compression issues. Only with mods, textures became truly bearable visually.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jul 8, 2016)

zAAm said:


> Ah, and this is why I couldn't take your opinion seriously in the original power draw thread. I tried, but ultimately you can't reason with a fanboy.



Really? You know RejZor is an equal opportunity user, don't you? And that he currently has a 980? No? So you didn't want to bother checking system specs before you spoke? Yeah, making a fool of yourself is certainly preferable.

What he and I and a multitude of others are, are enthusiasts that are intelligent enough to recognize BS marketing and bullshit pricing.

I do have to tip my hat to NVIDIA, though.  They are making money and selling cards.  Their marketing is phenomenal! They are actually taking reference models, renaming them Founder's Edition, and people, including some here on TPU, think that it's a special, better edition of the card.  What's even more brilliant, and I have to give them credit, despite disagreeing with them, is that by pricing the FE models higher, they have effectively pointed the way for AIB makers as to what a reasonable price to charge is, and not the MSRP.


----------



## alucasa (Jul 8, 2016)

Patience is virtue. I think at least. Don't like the inflated price?

Wait until price stabilizes.

Early adopters always pay more for the same thing. It isn't necessarily a bad thing. It was their choice.
Additionally, it's very easy to see the marketting. If you keep falling for it, so be it.

For me, I am not falling for it and am waiting until it reaches a more reasonable price.


----------



## N3M3515 (Jul 8, 2016)

ensabrenoir said:


> ......the price is high for a xx60 card......though no xx60 card has come in at the performance level. Its all relative.  Regardless of the pros/cons, it will still sell, Nvidia will still make money.



What performance level?
Afaik, all x60 are always the same...


----------



## wurschti (Jul 8, 2016)

Not wanting something and not needing something are two different things dear NVIDIA. I don't want to SLI two GPUs, but I need to have it, just in case I change my mind in the future. Next time keep your thoughts for yourself and let us think freely.


----------



## ZoneDymo (Jul 8, 2016)

bug said:


> Except that it is debatable.
> Doom3 when ran with the maximum texture quality, used uncompressed textures. They were visually indistinguishable from the next quality settings which used compressed textures. However, because of the sheer size, uncompressed texture brought every single available card to their knees. For no better quality whatsoever.
> Similarly, shadows quality also kills performance. If you play an adventure game, the better looking shadows add something to the game play. If you're playing a fast paced FPS, you don't notice the shadow quality at all.
> Even AA will become unnoticeable given enough pixel density (though clearly that's not the case here).
> ...



K so doom has some weird choices made (I cannot attest to that as I dont own it nor am interested in it) but what you are saying seems to me to be something some user detected and clearly was not meant to be like that.
Similar to the Tessellation setting in the Witcher 3.
But that is all specific to certain games and not really relevant to the total.

On the second part....yeah if you play without standing still once...sure.
But who does that? Probably the same people who play Counter Strike at the lowest settings to get their 1000 oh so helpful frames per second.
I mean now you are basically just arguing visuals v gameplay which is not what this is about.

I repeat, the term "overkill" would have to imply completely crushing every single game out there and the RX480 does not do that nor does the GTX1080.
Simply put, the RX480 is "good" for 1920x1080p but not even remotely close to "overkill"


----------



## wurschti (Jul 8, 2016)

If it does not offer at least 20% more performance, with more promise in the future, NVIDIA cannot simply ask 25% more cash for an unfinished product. I say unfinished because it's so limited, it's just absurd.


----------



## medi01 (Jul 8, 2016)

It will be about 10%-ish faster, if it is roughly on 980 levels.

The main question is, how would AIBs price it.
If it goes after non-Fools Edition pricing, good for AMD.
If not, RX 480 needs to drop about 10% of its price to be competitive.


----------



## Caring1 (Jul 8, 2016)

medi01 said:


> It will be about 10%-ish faster, if it is roughly on 980 levels.


The 3Gb version is rated lower than the RX480 (8Gb) and GTX970 (4Gb) in Skydiver.


----------



## medi01 (Jul 8, 2016)

Caring1 said:


> The 3Gb version is rated lower than the RX480 (8Gb) and GTX970 (4Gb) in Skydiver.


But the 3Gb wasn't even officially announced, I thought. (and probably that is why)


----------



## Caring1 (Jul 8, 2016)

medi01 said:


> But the 3Gb wasn't even officially announced, I thought. (and probably that is why)


I only heard of two versions, 3Gb and 6Gb, i'm not sure if it is being released, we'll have to wait to find out.


----------



## zAAm (Jul 8, 2016)

RejZoR said:


> Says a person owning a GTX 1070 Founders Edition card. Dude, you can't... XD



So now I'm automatically an Nvidia fanboy out to get AMD? You've got some growing up to do. Here's a spoiler: "the real world is nuanced". As an aside, I got the FE because it was the only one in stock here in SA and it cost exactly the same as the AIB ones ($600 US). Ultimately it is the same card.



RejZoR said:


> No, because he's putting me down (first) because I can see through bullshit NVIDIA price inflating scheme. Are you people honestly this dumb to believe a reference model will cost more than a badass aftermarket one with beefier VRM and beefier cooler? Have you all somehow instantly forgot the basics of economics? Better materials and more of stuff always means more money. But somehow, in your minds, aftermarket models with better everything will cost less than crappy reference just because they are called "Founders Edition". Oh my god the monumental ignorance and blindness.



Please tell me how calling people who buy Nvidia cards stupid while refusing to acknowledge some basic facts about the RX480 isn't being an AMD fanboy?



rtwjunkie said:


> Really? You know RejZor is an equal opportunity user, don't you? And that he currently has a 980? No? So you didn't want to bother checking system specs before you spoke? Yeah, making a fool of yourself is certainly preferable.
> 
> What he and I and a multitude of others are, are enthusiasts that are intelligent enough to recognize BS marketing and bullshit pricing.
> 
> I do have to tip my hat to NVIDIA, though.  They are making money and selling cards.  Their marketing is phenomenal! They are actually taking reference models, renaming them Founder's Edition, and people, including some here on TPU, think that it's a special, better edition of the card.  What's even more brilliant, and I have to give them credit, despite disagreeing with them, is that by pricing the FE models higher, they have effectively pointed the way for AIB makers as to what a reasonable price to charge is, and not the MSRP.



I didn't look at his setup, it is irrelevant. He was clearly biased in this thread and the RX480 one while refusing to provide productive comments, instead resorting to calling people stupid or saying "oh but why didn't you care when nvidia did this?". I judge based on actions, not preconceptions.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jul 8, 2016)

zAAm said:


> I didn't look at his setup, it is irrelevant. He was clearly biased in this thread and the RX480 one while refusing to provide productive comments, instead resorting to calling people stupid or saying "oh but why didn't you care when nvidia did this?". I judge based on actions, not preconceptions.



@RejZoR is not biased.  He's got a brain and thinks.  He doesn't move with the herd.  That makes him a fanboy?  He's been equally as hard on both camps, because that's what thinking people do.  They look at every situation and call it like it is.


----------



## RejZoR (Jul 8, 2016)

@zAAm , I didn't call YOU stupid, I called EVERYONE stupid who defend this bullshit FE pricing scheme. It's a regular reference model that you pay MORE than you paid for it in the past. And by supporting such nonsense you're just supporting price inflation. Also, how can I be biased if I own and really like my GTX 980 while also liking RX480? Me defending AMD would make the exact opposite of being biased. But oh well.

I never said GTX 1060 sucks. I'm just saying you'll never get it at advertised price because Founders Edition. And they even said they won't make these through entire life cycle like GTX 1070/1080, yet they aren't bothered charging FE prices for it. It's a reference card and they are selling it at a premium. And people just love paing more for them for no reason. If that isn't idiocy, then I don't know what is.

And seeing how AMD elegantly resolved the PCIe power issues on RX480, it won't affect their sales at all imo. In fact it might even gain some despite initial cockup. Because when company can respond and deliver a fix this fast, it means they mean business and people like that. Yeah, despite initial issue that shouldn't happen, but it has. In the end, users of RX480 actually get more performance than they would if AMD strictly respected the advertised 150W power limit while still making all the reviews 100% relevant and valid. Any power supply can handle that extra 16W from 6pin.

Btw, I don't think the lack of SLi connector will affect anything. People who aim at this price range aren't going to buy dual cards anyway. So, that doesn't really change much. But AMD has a slight sales edge there because they will cover people like these as well as people who want high performance at lower price. Essentially AMD sort of satisfied 2 segments of users without actually releasing a high end card. Assuming people aren't bothered by issues with CrossfireX.


----------



## zAAm (Jul 8, 2016)

RejZoR said:


> @zAAm , I didn't call YOU stupid, I called EVERYONE stupid who defend this bullshit FE pricing scheme. It's a regular reference model that you pay MORE than you paid for it in the past. And by supporting such nonsense you're just supporting price inflation. Also, how can I be biased if I own and really like my GTX 980 while also liking RX480? Me defending AMD would make the exact opposite of being biased. But oh well.
> 
> I never said GTX 1060 sucks. I'm just saying you'll never get it at advertised price because Founders Edition. And they even said they won't make these through entire life cycle like GTX 1070/1080, yet they aren't bothered charging FE prices for it. It's a reference card and they are selling it at a premium. And people just love paing more for them for no reason. If that isn't idiocy, then I don't know what is.
> 
> ...



Thank you! This is all I'm asking for: a proper moderate post with justification instead of just a single sentence jab that isn't constructive and only serves to rile up people. I totally agree with you by the way, I'm really happy with how AMD handled the situation. They fixed the identified issue timeously and listened to the consumer, which was all that was required.

In light of this comment I'll withdraw my previous judgement.


----------



## bug (Jul 8, 2016)

Caring1 said:


> I only heard of two versions, 3Gb and 6Gb, i'm not sure if it is being released, we'll have to wait to find out.


The announcement is only about the 6GB card and it says "$249 MSRP, $299 for FE". If the 3GB version ever sees the light of day, it must be cheaper than this.


----------



## $ReaPeR$ (Jul 8, 2016)

ZoneDymo said:


> "the problem are people that will buy the 1060 even though the 480 is already an overkill for 1080p"
> 
> ERmmmm what?
> Im sorry have you seen the benchmarks?
> ...



ok, i might have exaggerated slightly on the "overkill" term, but this marketing bs and price hiking is getting to my nerves. reality though is relative, and i dont think that most users will max those tabs, most users on steam use intel igp's ffs. also i have personaly tried fallout 4 on different cards and detail, and i found it more enjoyable only when i moded it.. so reality is relative.



geon2k2 said:


> Most benchmarks are on ultra with lots of AA. I can get >60 FPS from R9 380 ... and if I remember correctly it was entirely and very playable on 7850 as well, which I still had when I bought C3.
> 
> See these guys get close to 60 on the highest settings, without AA : http://www.hardwareluxx.de/index.ph...delle-der-radeon-r9-380-im-test.html?start=10
> What TPU itself also tests is not very relevant. I always get much higher frame-rates and very good experience, even if I have to reduce quality a notch or two. Anyway very rarely you notice any difference from medium to high or from high to ultra. In general you notice between low and medium, though. Even so in general the PC low setting is above console graphics ... so it is good enough.


----------



## yogurt_21 (Jul 8, 2016)

bug said:


> May we adjust those 2004 $200 (6600GT) for inflation?
> 
> Anyway, we already have a lot of pages to say a simple thing: some will rather buy the 1060, while others prefer the 480. Nobody's being ripped off, everyone will spend their cash voluntarily.


6600gt would have cost according to an inflation calculator $254.35 in 2016 dollars...hrm. 
7600gt 238$
8600gts 231$
9600gt 223$
GTS 250 224$ (it went up  1$...odd)
GTX 460 220$ (768mb edition)
GTX 560 214$
GTX 660 239$ (229 msrp)
GTX 760 257$ (249 msrp)
GTX 960 203$ (cheapest yet)


So at 249 the 1060 would be perfectly in line with the 6600gt again dropping sli support hurts. The 300$ FE pricing and how aib respond to that is bad though. It places it significantly higher even adjusted for inflation. 

This could indicate that the 960 pricing was too generous and Nvidia is simply trying to make up for that with this launch. Based on the other cards the 960 really should have had a 229$ msrp it obviously had the thinnest margins compared with the rest.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Jul 8, 2016)

N3M3515 said:


> What performance level?
> Afaik, all x60 are always the same...



...an xx60 card that comes in at the performance level  of a n xx80 card after only one generation later?  Don't think I've seen that done before.....correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## alucasa (Jul 8, 2016)

yogurt_21 said:


> This could indicate that the 960 pricing was too generous and Nvidia is simply trying to make up for that with this launch. Based on the other cards the 960 really should have had a 229$ msrp it obviously had the thinnest margins compared with the rest.



I think 960 was cheap for a reason. I have currently 760 and did not see any compelling reason to upgrade to 960.


----------



## BiggieShady (Jul 8, 2016)

It's more of a Funder's Edition rather than Founders Edition


----------



## yogurt_21 (Jul 8, 2016)

ensabrenoir said:


> ...an xx60 card that comes in at the performance level  of a n xx80 card after only one generation later?  Don't think I've seen that done before.....correct me if I'm wrong.


7600gt was a bit faster than the 6800gt and the GTX 460 (1GB) was a bit faster than the GTX 280 also the GTX 660 and GTX 580 were about on par with each other.


----------



## xorbe (Jul 8, 2016)

I am guessing the cheaper 3GB model will be announced/released later, after they have scooped up all the people willing to pay for the 6GB model.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Jul 8, 2016)

yogurt_21 said:


> 7600gt was a bit faster than the 6800gt and the GTX 460 (1GB) was a bit faster than the GTX 280 also the GTX 660 and GTX 580 were about on par with each other.



Tom hardware ....did a gpu hierarchy chart...but gotta consider the source.


----------



## BiggieShady (Jul 8, 2016)

ensabrenoir said:


> Tom hardware ....did a gpu hierarchy chart...but gotta consider the source.


Let's all be mean and condescending and say something like: even they couldn't fuck up that


----------



## Dave65 (Jul 8, 2016)

Nvidia, you can keep it!


----------



## N3M3515 (Jul 8, 2016)

ensabrenoir said:


> ...an xx60 card that comes in at the performance level  of a n xx80 card after only one generation later?  Don't think I've seen that done before.....correct me if I'm wrong.



Did some diggin'
FX 5600 Ultra > 4200 Ti
FX 5700 Ultra > 4600 Ti
6600 GT > 5950 Ultra
7600 GT > 6800 GT
8600 GT............LOL wtf??? garbage!
GTS 250 = 8800 GTX
GTX 460 > GTX 285
GTX 560 (just a refresh of the 460)
GTX 660 = GTX 580
GTX 760 (refresh)
GTX 960 = GTX 680
GTX 1060 = GTX 980 ?


----------



## ensabrenoir (Jul 9, 2016)

N3M3515 said:


> Did some diggin'
> FX 5600 Ultra > 4200 Ti
> FX 5700 Ultra > 4600 Ti
> 6600 GT > 5950 Ultra
> ...




ok ok ok....can't fight the internet   It was to my understanding that the xx70 series took the performance of last gen's xx80.....sooooo.....where does that leave the xx70 series? Or am I forgeting something in my advancing years


----------



## Fluffmeister (Jul 9, 2016)

Whatever Nvidia are doing, they are doing it right:

https://www.thestreet.com/story/13633424/1/nvidia-nvda-hits-new-lifetime-high-today.html


----------



## Zubasa (Jul 9, 2016)

ensabrenoir said:


> ok ok ok....can't fight the internet   It was to my understanding that the xx70 series took the performance of last gen's xx80.....sooooo.....where does that leave the xx70 series? Or am I forgeting something in my advancing years


The last couple generations were basically the worst case scenario in Performance increase because every one were stuck on the 28nm process for so long.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jul 9, 2016)

Just for pricing context on an upwards scale.
HD5870 released at $250
HD6970 released at $370
HD7970 released at $550

The Nvidia pricing holds a context to competitive business practises. I've used the top end as that drags price bands upwards.
Before the Tahiti core (79xx) Radeon were cheaper and performance was lower, in context with Nvidia.
However the 7970 was a brilliant card but unfortunately it was priced substantially higher than previous generations. The twist was Nvidia's mid to performance tier (by core design) matched it.  This let Nvidia price the GTX680 at the same price. This let Nvidia hold back on the second Kepler of the GTX780 (following Titan) and then 780ti to be the competition for AMD's subsequent cards.
The Tahiti pricing was a cash grab by the then CEO (was it Rory) and it allowed a certain Nvidia to raise the pricing ballpark even further on core design.

Our issues are that Nvidia won't undercut AMD. To do so would be an admission of an inferior product (bad for share price) and even if they wanted to price cheaper, the share price would fall. It's a vicious upwards spiral.  And the 1060 is caught up in it.

Sorry for long post but recent history is relevant to the discussion. FWIW, my pre-blocked water cooled Powercolor HD7970 was £600+.


----------



## bug (Jul 9, 2016)

alucasa said:


> I think 960 was cheap for a reason. I have currently 760 and did not see any compelling reason to upgrade to 960.


I currently have a 660Ti and did not see any compelling reason to upgrade to 960 
Also $200 for the 960 is too much anyway ($200 is for the 2GB version).


----------



## Devon68 (Jul 9, 2016)

Guys here are the prices of the GTX 1060 in a few country's around the world:
http://www.game-debate.com/news/207...unced-india-uk-france-russia-germany-and-more


----------



## the54thvoid (Jul 9, 2016)

Devon68 said:


> Guys here are the prices of the GTX 1060 in a few country's around the world:
> http://www.game-debate.com/news/207...unced-india-uk-france-russia-germany-and-more



A lot of red faces if that is true - £239?  I'll believe it when I see it.


----------



## sutyi (Jul 9, 2016)

xorbe said:


> I am guessing the cheaper 3GB model will be announced/released later, after they have scooped up all the people willing to pay for the 6GB model.



In all honesty I can not see the point of a GTX 1060 3GB model, unless the new DCC algorithm is doing truely wonders... which I highly doubt. 2GB is barely enough today, 4GB is alright for the foreseeable future (1-1.5 year). Having 3GB would be like sitting between two chairs.

Board partners probably will have 3GB models available tho just to have an nVIDIA alternative at RX 480 4GB price levels.


----------



## Steevo (Jul 9, 2016)

Devon68 said:


> Guys here are the prices of the GTX 1060 in a few country's around the world:
> http://www.game-debate.com/news/207...unced-india-uk-france-russia-germany-and-more




Until they are for $ale anyone can throw whatever price around they want.


I could price a bottle of my piss at $1,000,000.00 and put it on my assets sheet as such. Once they are available, and not just paper launched, we will see how much you have to pay for them.


----------



## Recon-UK (Jul 9, 2016)

gdallsk said:


> Card without the cooler, it seems that if you take the cooler off, you take the power connector off as well.



Although it's a small PCB, it's a very under utilized PCB at that, there are tonnes of markings for more chips, VRM's etc.
That on the edge of the PCB looks like a place holder for a bios switch.

Same size as my GTX 670 PCB, but mine is far more buisier than this.


----------



## PP Mguire (Jul 10, 2016)

N3M3515 said:


> Did some diggin'
> FX 5600 Ultra > 4200 Ti
> FX 5700 Ultra > 4600 Ti
> 6600 GT > 5950 Ultra
> ...


The 660 was a bit slower than the 580, even according to TPU's own benches. The 660ti was the one that was ahead of the 580. Sorry if I misinterpreted the context of this because I mulled over most of the dumb Founder's chatter.


----------



## Recon-UK (Jul 10, 2016)

PP Mguire said:


> The 660 was a bit slower than the 580, even according to TPU's own benches. The 660ti was the one that was ahead of the 580. Sorry if I misinterpreted the context of this because I mulled over most of the dumb Founder's chatter.


580 was between the 660 and 660Ti, significantly more so more towards a 660Ti if you OC vs OC the 660.


----------



## PP Mguire (Jul 10, 2016)

Recon-UK said:


> 580 was between the 660 and 660Ti, significantly more so more towards a 660Ti if you OC vs OC the 660.


Yea I had a 660 and 2 580s. Was like or nah, 660 couldn't touch my cards. Even OC vs OC.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Jul 12, 2016)

sutyi said:


> In all honesty I can not see the point of a GTX 1060 3GB model, unless the new DCC algorithm is doing truely wonders... which I highly doubt. 2GB is barely enough today, 4GB is alright for the foreseeable future (1-1.5 year). Having 3GB would be like sitting between two chairs.
> 
> Board partners probably will have 3GB models available tho just to have an nVIDIA alternative at RX 480 4GB price levels.


My card was never using more than 2GB of VRAM on 1080p. And even now when all 3GB are used on 1440p there is no stuttering at all.


----------



## sutyi (Jul 12, 2016)

Prima.Vera said:


> My card was never using more than 2GB of VRAM on 1080p. And even now when all 3GB are used on 1440p there is no stuttering at all.



Not yet... that's the point. Seeing the trend of GTA V, Rise of the Tomb Raider and Doom are setting, probably worth spending a couple of bucks more on a 6GB VRAM model. But every one can judge themselves if they need it or not.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jul 13, 2016)

Bansaku said:


> No SLI = My money is going to AMD!



Why on earth would you SLI an x60 or a midranger anyway? You'll run into stutter heaven.


----------



## xorbe (Jul 13, 2016)

Vayra86 said:


> Why on earth would you SLI an x60 or a midranger anyway? You'll run into stutter heaven.



Yeah just 1070 it.


----------

