Would you buy GTX 1060 or RX 480 ?

[rtwjunkie]

Kepler fiasco

Kepler fiasco? What did I miss?

 

[rhythmeister]

RX 480 hands down if I were on the market for either card, although I'm not as I am still happy with my R9 290 Windforce card, which only seems to be getting faster and faster with DX12/Vulkan.

The AMD architecture is simply more powerful in DX12/Vulkan, and that's the immediate future. I believe nVidia was simply not expecting DX12/Vulkan when the Pascal chip was on the drawing board, and they've been caught with their pants down. Their GPUs seem to be more energy efficient, but that's because they're missing crucial components, mainly a hardware scheduler and asynchronous compute engines.

Finally, AMD now owns >75% of the overall gaming market (Consoles + PC), and that figure is only set to increase to >90% within the next two years. Game engines are already being optimized for Radeon architecture in the current and next generation consoles first, and nVidia is an irrelevancy to the developers. nVidia is only going to be scrambling more and more to fix games that are broken on their GPUs. My thoughts are greatly explained/expanded up on in this video:

Now you're making me regret my GTX 1060 purchase, even though DOOM runs like a dream!

 

[medi01]

Vulkan is the savior? Was Mantle the savior?

There is no savior.

Don't Doom 4 benchmarks (even 470 beats 1060) contradict your statement? (noting Mantle is out there somewhere in both DX12/Vulkan)

 

[64K]

Kepler fiasco? What did I miss?

Probably meant Maxwell fiasco. The 970 thing again.

Now you're making me regret my GTX 1060 purchase, even though DOOM runs like a dream!

Don't feel bad about that 1060 purchase. It's a very nice 1080p GPU and the future adoption of Vulkan or the impact of DX12 is not clear yet. Even with the advantage that the RX480 has in those areas bear in mind that at least twice as many people, if not three times as many people, run Nvidia cards. The PC games market is somewhere around 25 billion dollars annually and rising. I don't think publishers are going to allow their developers to churn out code that runs like crap on Nvidia GPUs on most games and hurt sales.

 

[EarthDog]

Don't Doom 4 benchmarks (even 470 beats 1060) contradict your statement? (noting Mantle is out there somewhere in both DX12/Vulkan)

One title. Basing judgment off that, particularly considering history, is premature at best, blatant favoritism at worst...

...I suppose I should expect nothing less considering the source though!

 

[RealNeil]

Installed Doom on this computer, (i7-4770K, 32GB DDR4-2400Mhz RAM, two 8GB R9-390X Sapphire NITRO GPUs, 480GB SATA-III SSD) and it is as smooth as butter. Go Figure.

Installed Doom on my other computer, (i7-4790K, 32GB DDR4-2400Mhz RAM, two 6GB GTX-980Ti GPUs, 480GB SATA-III SSD) and again, it's smooth as butter.
I think that once your specs get to a certain point, it's gonna be alright.

My i5-6600K system is next on the list.

I don't think publishers are going to allow their developers to churn out code that runs like crap on Nvidia GPUs on most games and hurt sales.

Exactly! They would be shooting themselves in the foot by ignoring such a large chunk of the market. It would be a stupid move, and it is unlikely to happen.

 

[xorbe]

Did they make DOOM faster *in general*? Yeah I swapped my Titan X for a 1080 which is a tiny bit faster, but I stopped about half way through several weeks ago, and when I fired it up yesterday, it was much smoother than what I remember before. I could definitely feel some fps drops with the Titan X, I clearly remember that, and thinking that I better look into lowering some gfx options. I know DOOM got a couple of huuuge updates since I last played.

 

[EarthDog]

Good call xorbe... nothing like accurately describing a 'feeling' of smoothness after weeks between the comparison, LOL. I played it before the upgrade, before the DLC, and after, about daily with a 1080... no changes I noticed.

 

[xorbe]

Good call xorbe... nothing like accurately describing a 'feeling' of smoothness after weeks between the comparison, LOL. I played it before the upgrade, before the DLC, and after, about daily with a 1080... no changes I noticed.

Okay thanks. Anyway so my 2nd evga mini 1060 is on the way, heh.

 

[medi01]

One title. Basing judgment off that

It works both ways, regardless of judgement. You don't know if it is or not.

 

[medi01]

bear in mind that at least twice as many people, if not three times as many people, run Nvidia cards.

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

AMD vs nVidia is roughly 1 vs 2, and that when ignoring consoles.
"Twice as many" would be "at most", to start with.
Total number of consoles sold is about 50 at this point.

Care to compare it with consoles taken into account, lol?

 

[64K]

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

AMD vs nVidia is roughly 1 vs 2, and that when ignoring consoles.
"Twice as many" would be "at most", to start with.

I have seen it reported here on TPU from a service that tracks hardware sales that claimed 75% use Nvidia and 25% use AMD as far as discrete GPUs. The Steam Hardware Survey says around twice as many use Nvidia as AMD so I'm fine with your assertion of 1 vs 2 AMD vs Nvidia. The point of my post was that the PC games market is around ~25 billion dollars a year right now. That's a lot of money and as you know most publishers are greedy as hell. They will put pressure on developers to somehow not make the games run like crap on Nvidia GPUs if Vulkan and DX12 take root. AMD GPUs will perform better if Vulkan and DX12 are adopted by developers but that's not the same thing as saying that games will run like crap on Nvidia GPUs imo

Care to compare it with consoles taken into account, lol?

Nope. Everyone knows that AMD has the lion's share of gamers when you look at consoles and PC. One point in Amd's favor if Vulkan does take off is that most games are made for consoles first and then ported to PC.

 

[EarthDog]

It works both ways, regardless of judgement. You don't know if it is or not.

Which is my point. I appreciate your reiteration and acceptance of it.

We have no idea if it will take off. But because of AMD'S history (mantle/marketing and not delivering) and how quickly new APIs get into the market, I will certianly wait and see. My glass isn't half full or half empty... it's just half.

 

[AlienIsGOD]

last time i checked RX 480 wasnt on the steam hardware survey yet, so that needs to be considered as well

 

[EarthDog]

last time i checked RX 480 wasnt on the steam hardware survey yet, so that needs to be considered as well

Here's a bucket full of water... now add a drop to it.

Perhaps I missed it, but I didn't catch the 1060 in there either...add another drop. These JUST came out and there is barely any stock...

 

[AlienIsGOD]

regardless, have fun spending all your time defending the 1060 and Nvidia, in the meantime i will enjoy my RX 480

 

[EarthDog]

You said we need to consider the RX 480 isn't in there, I added the 1060 wasn't in there...also that each barely had any stock so it is a drop in the bucket... for either camp at this time.

Besides, who mentioned the Steam survey in the first place? You didn't quote anyone, and I was the reply above you...........? I added information to you post so the picture is painted completely.

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

My vote is for the 1060, for several reasons.

1.) the 1060 and 480 are about even in performance. Some games prefer one, some the other. In other news, water is wet.
So when performance is equal, next comes power consumption. Because lower consumption menas less waste heat. It's been 80-90F with high humidity for the last three weeks, I'd rather not add more heat into an already too-warm apartment. nvidia steals the show here, the 1060 pulls less then the 480, especially with OC in the picture.

2.) drivers. Specifically, linux drivers. My desktop has been primarily linux for almost a year and a half now, and sorry to say that nvidia's drivers are still dramatically superior to AMD's, even though polaris is doing better, nvidia is a mile ahead. It's like 2008 all over again.

3.) the 1060 has multiple "mini" designs to choose from. AMD once had mini designs, with the ITX_ compatible 285 and 380x, and the nano. No sign of any 480 model though. My case needs a tiny card, and only nvidia has one now, even if it means rewiring that stupid 6 pin plug to face backwards instead of up.

The other stuff doesnt matter to me. VRAM? I no longer play cuting edge games, even 3GB would be more then enough for my typical usage. 6GB is enough to ensure that GPU remains in use for a very long time. DX12/Vulkan? One game uses vulkan right now, and DX isnt in linux. VR? no interest.

 

[Caring1]

My vote is for the 1060...
My case needs a tiny card, and only nvidia has one now, even if it means rewiring that stupid 6 pin plug to face backwards instead of up.

You could use low profile adapters.

 

[happita]

I chose the RX 480, but since there was never ANY third-party 480 cards in stock, the wait became so frustrating for both camps. So when I found something good in stock, I went ahead and pulled the trigger on an MSI GTX 1060 Gaming X. It'll be coming in sometime next week. I will become a first-time Nvidia user. I can't wait.
So now, I choose the 1060

 

[Nergal]

Placed my order for a x480 AIB last week, should be arriving any day now.

I agree that for the moment, the 1060 performs a little bit better overall (not counting DX12).
But I reckon that gap will close completely after a few drivers updates in the coming months.

Everyone seems to agree that the speed is about equal(exceptions ofcourse to some games)
I have heard that it then just would be important to pick a card that goes well with the games you play
Or to look at the power consumption

For me it is the pricing.
x480 is just cheaper for about the same; and with better support in future titles (DX12/VULKAN lads)

If you need more FPS/play on 75Hz; and are willing to pay more anyway, get a 1070 for a 100bucks more.

 

[dwade]

I was waiting for AIB 480s, but those crap took ages to release. Once they were out, reviews suggest they are just as disappointing as the vanilla ones. Hot, loud, inefficient vs its competitor, and more expensive than the mini EVGA 1060 I bought for $229 from Newegg, which clocks to 2ghz easily while running around 60°C and is virtually silent.

 

[Super XP]

I would go for the Radeon of course.

I was waiting for AIB 480s, but those crap took ages to release. Once they were out, reviews suggest they are just as disappointing as the vanilla ones. Hot, loud, inefficient vs its competitor, and more expensive than the mini EVGA 1060 I bought for $229 from Newegg, which clocks to 2ghz easily while running around 60°C and is virtually silent.

You must be speaking about another card. Your description does not match the 480's as you suggest.

 

[HD64G]

Another review for RX480 Nitro+OC 8GB: https://www.computerbase.de/2016-08...on-rx-480/2/#diagramm-the-witcher-3-1920-1080

 

[EarthDog]

You must be speaking about another card. Your description does not match the 480's as you suggest.

You may want to read a review or two.

Pricing for the 6GB model 1060 and RX 480 4GB are, for all intents and purposes, the same if you look and compare at newegg (1060 link, rx 480 link). The 480 is slower outside of the 3/4 Vulkan enabled games... lord only know if Vulkan will catch on (I refer you to Mantle). But if it does, it won't be soon enough to make the 480 'worth it'. Maybe in a couple years when we hopefully see more vulcan games, but that isn't now and isn't a guarantee later. Less power use by a small margin as well...