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

[zAAm]

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]

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

 

[the54thvoid]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!!



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.

"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]

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]

"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....

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[rtwjunkie]

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]

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]

......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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.