efikkanNo, it's supposed to replace GTX 960, which exists in 2GB and 4 GB variants.

Not performance wise. Its suppose to replace the 980

The 960 2GB to 4GB saw no real gains with the added memory. Even 970 even has 3.5+0.5

960 was a mid-1080p for new titles (Nvidia recommends 970 for 1080p High). 980 is a high+-1080p to 1440p entry-level card. This 1060 would slot in between where the 970 and 980 are now but if there is a 3GB it will do so with less memory.

If the performance was the same as the 960 then yes 3GB is no biggy but its not replacing 960 performance wise.

XzibitNot performance wise. Its suppose to replace the 980

The 960 2GB to 4GB saw no real gains with the added memory. Even 970 even has 3.5+0.5

960 was a mid-1080p for new titles (Nvidia recommends 970 for 1080p High). 980 is a high+-1080p to 1440p entry-level card. This 1060 would slot in between where the 970 and 980 are now but if there is a 3GB it will do so with less memory.

If the performance was the same as the 960 then yes 3GB is no biggy but its not replacing 960 performance wise.

No card replaces the previous one without a large jump in performance. 60's replace 60's. 70's replace 70's. 80's replace 80's, and so on. If they didn't improve on the previous generation, and perform like last generation higher-end models, there would be no point in models.

Fact is, no matter how well the 1060 performs compared to the last generation, it replaced the 960 in the lineup.

XzibitNot performance wise. Its suppose to replace the 980

You just don't get it, do you? It's about market segments, not performance level. The customer who previously considered GTX 980 wouldn't buy a GTX 1060 instead, they will buy a GTX 1080. Each new architecture has given similar gains, Tesla, Fermi, Kepler, Maxwell and now Pascal.
GTX 960 => GTX 1060
GTX 970 => GTX 1070
GTX 980 => GTX 1080
GTX 980 Ti => "GTX 1080Ti"? (in a while)
GTX Titan X => "GTX Titan P" (in Q3)

rtwjunkieNo card replaces the previous one without a large jump in performance. 60's replace 60's. 70's replace 70's. 80's replace 80's, and so on. If they didn't improve on the previous generation, and perform like last generation higher-end models, there would be no point in models.

Fact is, no matter how well the 1060 performs compared to the last generation, it replaced the 960 in the lineup.

Yup. Exactly. The pivotal point is pinned down the line when a 1080ti comes out. That nails the logic down completely and completes the line up.
It only suits the narrative of naysayers to say otherwise.

rtwjunkieNo card replaces the previous one without a large jump in performance. 60's replace 60's. 70's replace 70's. 80's replace 80's, and so on. If they didn't improve on the previous generation, and perform like last generation higher-end models, there would be no point in models.

Sort of like how 660 - 760 - 960 didn't totally stagnate performance-wise? (Sarcasm!) About time 1060 did something about it.

efikkanNo, it's supposed to replace GTX 960, which exists in 2GB and 4 GB variants.

I think what he means is that 3GB Vram is kinda weak for a card that has performance that is nearly identical to GTX 980.

And I agree. Doubt the new compression is going to make up that difference.

As for pricing I see the 6GB model at ~$250 when AIBs are in healthy supply. They have to compete with RX 480 pricing, plus it makes sense relative to the 1070 at $379. You always get more FPS/$ at the 480/1060 level.

Xzibit3GB and 6GB ?

Nvidia: 4GB = 3.5 gb
AMD: 4 GB = 8 GB

ROFLMAO

N3M3515Seing how pascals overclock, i wouldn't give it too much hope, if any.

Not sure what you mean by that.

CasecutterNot here to bug... ;)

Though figure if we say this GP106 is half the size of a GP104 that's 157nm die, say half the transistors that's 3.6m. Though you're still working all such internal parts nearly as hard if clocked the same, while the area is less. As the die's shrink it harder to get enough surface and contact to effectively have ability to draw heat off fast enough.

That's a lot of words to say it will have to dissipate exactly the same amount of power per unit of surface area.

CasecutterAs to price, that means 32% smaller part, with 37% less transistors and 25% less memory on a less costly PCB (128-Bit) less requirement in the power section. So a $250 price on a 6Gb would seem like an exorbitant margin. Especially given AMD is not near working on the same mark-up. I suppose an unknown is what TSMC is charging now vs. what AMD has to pays GloFlo, which might be significantly less.

This I don't even understand.

rruffI think what he means is that 3GB Vram is kinda weak for a card that has performance that is nearly identical to GTX 980.

And I agree. Doubt the new compression is going to make up that difference.

As for pricing I see the 6GB model at ~$250 when AIBs are in healthy supply. They have to compete with RX 480 pricing, plus it makes sense relative to the 1070 at $379. You always get more FPS/$ at the 480/1060 level.

If the GTX 1060 performance is similar to that of the GTX 980 then what difference does it make?

Its still a forced comparison since the GTX 1060 is the successor of the GTX 960 not the GTX 980.

N3M3515$329 for the founders edition!

Add on another ~$50 if you want SLI,...... :)

OctaveanAdd on another ~$50 if you want SLI,...... :)

You must be joking, something that is a standard on GPU's is removed and they want us to pay more to get it back?

OctaveanIf the GTX 1060 performance is similar to that of the GTX 980 then what difference does it make?
Its still a forced comparison since the GTX 1060 is the successor of the GTX 960 not the GTX 980.

The GTX 1060 is the successor to the 560, too, which only had 1GB of vram. Does that mean 1GB is enough?
We are talking about vram requirements, which scale with a card's processing power. Therefore comparing the vram to the prior generation card that had similar performance makes a lot of sense.

Or compare it to the current generation which has nearly 2x the performance... the 1080. It has double the cores just like 980 vs 960 did. Would 6GB be enough for the 1080? I don't know... maybe.

I don't think the 1060 is going to match the 980 in performance. I think it will come in at ~50-55% of the 1080 performance which is 970 level. It will probably not even match the 480 with stock clocks, but will best it when OC'd.

6GB vram is probably more than the 1060 would ever need without SLI, but I still think 3GB is kinda weak for a card with that level of performance. Also, considering that it will have nearly identical performance to the 480 and less vram, I think it will sell for a good price (very close to 480 prices) to be competitive in the market. Nvidia isn't going to just let AMD take back a bunch of market share.

rruffI think it will sell for a good price (very close to 480 prices) to be competitive in the market. Nvidia isn't going to just let AMD take back a bunch of market share

Prices just announced. MSRP of $249, but Founders Edition for $299. NVIDIA has basically winked to all the vendors what price is really acceptable, and it's not 249. Not when your reference model is set so high.

rtwjunkiePrices just announced. MSRP of $249, but Founders Edition for $299. NVIDIA has basically winked to all the vendors what price is really acceptable, and it's not 249. Not when your reference model is set so high.

It's just early adopter, Nvidia fan boy, new node raping. Probably limited supply so they can get away with it. In the fall when things settle down, I'm sure many good examples of 480 and 1060 will be <$200 in the US. 1070 and 1080 prices may stay inflated for a good while though, until AMD introduces competing cards.

rruffIt's just early adopter, Nvidia fan boy, new node raping. Probably limited supply so they can get away with it. In the fall when things settle down, I'm sure many good examples of 480 and 1060 will be <$200 in the US. 1070 and 1080 prices may stay inflated for a good while though, until AMD introduces competing cards.

I do hope you are right, for everyone's wallets. Unfortunately, NVIDIA has really started to get out of hand, almost arrogantly so with prices the last coiple years. I don't see this changing anytime soon.

rtwjunkieI do hope you are right, for everyone's wallets. Unfortunately, NVIDIA has really started to get out of hand, almost arrogantly so with prices the last coiple years. I don't see this changing anytime soon.

I think their prices are quite reasonable considering the market. Else they wouldn't have been able to increase market share to 80%. I bought a pair of GTX 950s for $100 each last fall. GTX 960s were down to $120. FPS/$ they were always on par or better than AMD.

At the high end though a lack of competition keeps the prices high. Any company would do the same if faced with the same situation. AMD will need to bring something with Vega before we see "cheap" 1070s and 1080s.

rtwjunkiePrices just announced. MSRP of $249, but Founders Edition for $299. NVIDIA has basically winked to all the vendors what price is really acceptable, and it's not 249. Not when your reference model is set so high.

That actually is "is AMD in deep shit or not" question, in my humble opinion.

If 1070 is 379$ then 299$ 1060 is hardly a good option.
But as long as 1070 FEs NV's customers, so can 1060.

Except.... What about AMD RX 480?

If 1060 is, what we think it is, namely about 10% faster than stock RX 480 (that's 980 levels), at 249$ vs 239$ for 480 it's a better perf/$.
On top of it it comes with 30w-ish lower power consumption which people should really care about, but also _possibly_ with better OC-ing (it could be OCed out of the box though to get to "faster than RX 480" though, we'll see that soon).

So, if nVidia does see RX 480 as a threat, we'll see AIBs honoring non Fools Edition MSRP of 249$, in which case, AMD MUST drop price on RX 480 8Gb for about 10% for it to be attractive and who knows, if they actually can afford that.

If AIB 1060's are announced at Fools Edition prices, it's a different story and whether 1060 is worth the extra 20-25% price will depend on OCing.

The worse imaginable scenario for AMD is if 1060 can OC to 2000Mhz and beyond AND custom cards (AIBs) are released at 249$ in July.
It would mean nVidia clearly won this round and, I"m afraid, cache starved company won't be have another chance to recover. They'd stay afloat with semi-custom etc, but will quit direct competition in GPU market, the way it is in CPU market.

rruffGTX 960s were down to $120. FPS/$ they were always on par or better than AMD

What on earth are you talking about.
960 is a terrible price/$ card, worse than 970 and even 1070.
Not sure where you saw that $120 card, 960's cost about 380 OC in Europe.

medi01That actually is "is AMD in deep shit or not" question, in my humble opinion.

If 1070 is 379$ then 299$ 1060 is hardly a good option.
But as long as 1070 FEs NV's customers, so can 1060.

Except.... What about AMD RX 480?

If 1060 is, what we think it is, namely about 10% faster than stock RX 480 (that's 980 levels), at 249$ vs 239$ for 480 it's a better perf/$.
On top of it it comes with 30w-ish lower power consumption which people should really care about, but also _possibly_ with better OC-ing (it could be OCed out of the box though to get to "faster than RX 480" though, we'll see that soon).

So, if nVidia does see RX 480 as a threat, we'll see AIBs honoring non Fools Edition MSRP of 249$, in which case, AMD MUST drop price on RX 480 8Gb for about 10% for it to be attractive and who knows, if they actually can afford that.

If AIB 1060's are announced at Fools Edition prices, it's a different story and whether 1060 is worth the extra 20-25% price will depend on OCing.

The worse imaginable scenario for AMD is if 1060 can OC to 2000Mhz and beyond AND custom cards (AIBs) are released at 249$ in July.
It would mean nVidia clearly won this round and, I"m afraid, cache starved company won't be have another chance to recover. They'd stay afloat with semi-custom etc, but will quit direct competition in GPU market, the way it is in CPU market.



What on earth are you talking about.
960 is a terrible price/$ card, worse than 970 and even 1070.
Not sure where you saw that $120 card, 960's cost about 380 OC in Europe.

Seing how 1080 & 1070 overclock, i wouldn't give the 1060 any hope at being good at it. It seems nvidia squeezed all the performance they could in to stock clocks.

N3M3515Seing how 1080 & 1070 overclock...

Up to about 18%-ish I thought. Although, not sure how much of perf increase it gives.

medi01What on earth are you talking about.
960 is a terrible price/$ card, worse than 970 and even 1070.
Not sure where you saw that $120 card, 960's cost about 380 OC in Europe.

In the late fall in the US there are many great deals on computer parts, and that is when I buy everything. Good 960s hit $120 several times. So did 380s. 970s never got below $230, which is clearly worse FPS/$. Good 480s and 1060s will be well under $200 and may even get below $150 this fall.

MSRP is irrelevant. Actual selling prices will adjust based on performance. There is real competition and FPS/$ is always best in the mid range and below. 480 vs 1060 looks like a fine battle to me. Best offering from AMD in a long time. BTW, I don't think the 1060 will be faster than the 480, not with stock clocks anyway.