Nvidia GeForce GTX 1000 Series (Pascal) MegaThread: FAQ and Resources

[Math Geek]

appears that nvidia has launched the 3 GB 1060 cards as well. specs are up on the geforce.com page http://www.geforce.com/hardware/10series/geforce-gtx-1060 and videocardz is showing a bunch of card models from various vendors http://videocardz.com/63252/nvidia-launches-geforce-gtx-1060-3gb

i'll take some time to look around and update the product list if any 3 gb card models have product pages yet. not seen any reviews but i'm sure they will show up soon enough.

edit: see some for sale already so looks like a full launch of the 3GB 1060 cards. EVGA has one already for sale http://www.evga.com/Products/Product.aspx?pn=03G-P4-6160-KR $199. wonder how it compares to the full 1060 card. could be a heck of a price if it is even close to full 1060 performance. the AMD RX cards might be in serious trouble. of course this assumes they can be found for actual MSRP and not price gouged like we are seeing, such as the one techyinaz linked a little bit ago.

 

[Math Geek]

Ah.. sorry.. yeah agree it's a very high price.

Now since Nvidia 3.0 GPU boost technology offers the SAME overclock for all cards it doesn't matter anymore how much you can manually overclock your GPU right? Because none manually overclocked pascal gpu will give you more overclock than you will have in game with nvidia 3.0 GPU boost technology... at least not for Pascal because BIOS hacking tools haven't been written yet for Pascal. The guy who wrote Keplar and Maxwell tools is clearly having trouble backwards engineering everything, cause it's taking him a long time this generation and might never be realeased.

GPU to look for should be the coolest one (lowest temperatures), not the one that has highest manual overclock since it doesn't matter anyway if I'm correct. And one of the coolest, if not THE coolest GPU other there atm is Phoenix from Gainward which is pretty cheap

Math Geek correct me if I'm wrong pls

sounds pretty right to me. i do plan on looking back at the reviews to see what had the best temps and power usage since that seems to be what matter this time around. but the gainward cards were very cool and great deals for their low prices. that is if the color scheme does not bother you. they are a bit different that the normal black/red color scheme we tend to see.

 

[Math Geek]

any word on if tom's been able to find someone to translate his work to english? i know they were/are looking for people to do it. would love to be able to read it in english and not translated through google. toms.de has a lot of good stuff that i'd love to see make it to the english site.

 

[Proofy]

Math Geek

actually they match perfectly with my noctua nh-d15 cooler fan 😀

Thank you for the insight and I will buy GTX 1060 Phoenix then (standard version, not GS nor GLH) since it's cheapest in my country. Next one is Gigabyte G1 but I don't want to end up with coil whine and the temperature difference between the two is ~7 C on load

 

[U6b36ef]

Is there much point of the 1060 3GB. Since the 1060 is equal to the 980 in performance you'd think 4GB (or more) would be minimum.

My Strix 980 4GB was right on the point where it was OK or needed just a bit more RAM. Like in Shadow of Mordor it was recommended to have 5 or 6GB I think for the HD Pack. I maxed SoM on a 970 and a 980 at 1080p 60fps. However the HD Pack dd still run on 4GB cards. (I hit RAM-gate on the 970 though.)

Mine ran it OK though. Doom required either 5 or 6GB for an ultra setting. Although I never used that Ultra setting because the GPU core could not run it. However you could have run that ultra setting and reduced something else.

In other words 3GB 1060 owners are going to maxing out good games but fall short on vRAM.

 

[TechyInAZ]

Is there much point of the 1060 3GB. Since the 1060 is equal to the 980 in performance you'd think 4GB (or more) would be minimum.

My Strix 980 4GB was right on the point where it was OK or needed just a bit more RAM. Like in Shadow of Mordor it was recommended to have 5 or 6GB I think for the HD Pack. I maxed SoM on a 970 and a 980 at 1080p 60fps. However the HD Pack dd still run on 4GB cards. (I hit RAM-gate on the 970 though.)

Mine ran it OK though. Doom required either 5 or 6GB for an ultra setting. Although I never used that Ultra setting because the GPU core could not run it. However you could have run that ultra setting and reduced something else.

In other words 3GB 1060 owners are going to maxing out good games but fall short on vRAM.

The 3GB GTX 1060 is going to be more of a GTX 970 competitor, since it actually does lack a very small amount of CUDA cores compared to the 6GB model.

However, surprisingly most games today only require 3GBs of vram. But if you mean the latest AAA titles, then yeah your going to need more vram.

 

[Math Geek]

nvidia has said there is only about 5% difference in performance between the 2 cards. if that is true, then the $199 price makes it a super deal as it would still beat a 480 4gb for the same price (reference model price anyway).

will have to wait for reviews to know true performance but even 10-15% less than full 1060 and it's probably a good price as well.

 

[TechyInAZ]

nvidia has said there is only about 5% difference in performance between the 2 cards. if that is true, then the $199 price makes it a super deal as it would still beat a 480 4gb for the same price (reference model price anyway).

will have to wait for reviews to know true performance but even 10-15% less than full 1060 and it's probably a good price as well.

Is that including the vram being maxed out?

If so, I might just save $50 and buy a 3GB GTX 1060 instead of a 6GB.

 

[Math Geek]

no idea. was just a blurb from them and that's all it said. the evga is for sale now at their site for $199 and it appears to be in stock. too bad we don't have enough info to make an informed purchase today.

i don't see any 3 GB models listed at newegg yet. but a few are available through their sites. like the pny card and evga card.

 

[U6b36ef]

Is there much point of the 1060 3GB. Since the 1060 is equal to the 980 in performance you'd think 4GB (or more) would be minimum.

My Strix 980 4GB was right on the point where it was OK or needed just a bit more RAM. Like in Shadow of Mordor it was recommended to have 5 or 6GB I think for the HD Pack. I maxed SoM on a 970 and a 980 at 1080p 60fps. However the HD Pack dd still run on 4GB cards. (I hit RAM-gate on the 970 though.)

Mine ran it OK though. Doom required either 5 or 6GB for an ultra setting. Although I never used that Ultra setting because the GPU core could not run it. However you could have run that ultra setting and reduced something else.

In other words 3GB 1060 owners are going to maxing out good games but fall short on vRAM.

The 3GB GTX 1060 is going to be more of a GTX 970 competitor, since it actually does lack a very small amount of CUDA cores compared to the 6GB model.

However, surprisingly most games today only require 3GBs of vram. But if you mean the latest AAA titles, then yeah your going to need more vram.

That might be right. However the 1060 custom card is going to be playing Doom and Shadow of Mordor, I am guessing. The 1060 processor will run those games maxed. I Just dunno what the 3GB RAM will do to it.

Anyway speaking of the G1 Gaming as some folk above were. I just saw it's coming into stock on UK Amazon for £630 on August 24th. The price might vary nearer the time, as it often does. All other custom 1080 are not is stock, and no lead time.

 

[Math Geek]

yah this new card seems like yet another one we won't find in a store anywhere either. maybe instead of releasing ever more card models. maybe nvidia could just get the ones already out in stock somewhere. sounds like a good plan to me anyway.

this new 3 gb 1060 at 10% less performance directly bumps into the rx 480 cards 4gb &8 gb models in performance. so at $200 bucks it should compete directly with those cards as well. custom cards will probably go as high as 480 custom cards do so we may have our first direct pascal vs polaris throwdown.

 

[MrN1ce9uy]

"That cut-down combo results in performance that's roughly 5 percent slower than the full $250 GTX 1060 with 6GB of memory. To put that in perspective, the GTX 1060 3GB is about 3 frames per second slower if you're targeting 60fps."

"In fact, Nvidia specifically called out the 8GB RX 480 when the company pinged us about the launch of the 3GB GTX 1060. “The GTX 1060 3GB is about 10 percent faster than the AMD RX480 8GB,” an Nvidia spokesperson said."

Ian Paul | @ianpaul
Contributor, PCWorld

-->http://www.pcworld.com/article/3109132/hardware/nvidias-new-200-geforce-gtx-1060-3gb-challenges-the-radeon-rx-480-head-on.html


I personally think it will depend on individual game titles as to which card (GTX 1060 3GB/RX 480 4-8GB) performs better, as usual with such similar cards.

I like NVIDIA and I ordered the EVGA 3GB model today when I saw it (after reading the article from PC World.) I suppose I feel the need to vindicate my purchase even further. I was itching to spend the $210 I got from selling my Strix GTX 970 I bought "used" for $224 a couple months ago. I bought the AAA titles last month on the Steam Summer Sale (Fallout 4, GTA V, Black Ops III, JC3, DOOM) and found that my EVGA GTX 950 SC plays the games just as well on high settings as my GTX 970 played them on ultra settings, so I could enjoy the games just as well on the 950 and thought I didn't need the 970 (I know, kind of stupid). Buuut, I forgot I was planning on buying Battlefield 1 and For Honor after they are released, both games recommend a GTX 970, also Gears of War 4 minimum requirements is GTX 950... so I felt I needed more. Furthermore, I have an i3-4160 that I know could be upgraded, but I just don't have that kind of extra money. I get much better performance increase out of the GPU upgrade than a CPU upgrade, although even the 970 couldn't always perform at it's full potential. So it may have been a spur of the moment kind of thing today, but I feel it will be justified in the long run. If it does any better than the Strix 970 (I think it will be close!), I'll be happy.

I had my eye on the GIGABYTE GTX 1060 6GB today, which is why I was looking and saw the 3GB EVGA, which I like EVGA better (haven't owned a GIGABYTE) and I wasn't really wanting to spend the $250+ and had considered an RX 470.. but I've been really impressed with NVIDIA with the 750 Ti, 950, and 970.. so yeah.

 

[Zaxx420]

nvidia has said there is only about 5% difference in performance between the 2 cards. if that is true, then the $199 price makes it a super deal as it would still beat a 480 4gb for the same price (reference model price anyway).

will have to wait for reviews to know true performance but even 10-15% less than full 1060 and it's probably a good price as well.

I just can NOT win! It started with the 480 'launch' (if u can call that)...was stoked to see that kind of perf right at my budget limit of $200. Then I found out only ref cards with crap coolers and 6 pins would be available at launch. Then once the custom cards do show, theres nothing but scarce availability and price gouging. Then the 470 launches with decent availability/price. THEN Nvidia says the 3gb 1060 is pushed back to november...so after weeks of waiting (and jonesing) for a new card (7770 was dying) I give up and pull the trigger on a Sapphire Nitro 470 4gb for $209. And three days later they launch the 3gb 1060 that is just as fast as the price gouged, unavailable 480 that I wanted in the first place!?! F#@% Thanks for the burn Nvidia. Sry...had to vent. /rant

Just curious...anyone know about how much does a GB of gddr5 cost board makers?

 

[Proofy]

Don't know exact price but pretty cheap...

Btw that 470 is 480 performance when oc-ed. Take in mind that 470 works on 66C load while 480 sits on 73C.

 

[RobCrezz]

Yeah my first 1060 strix coil whined like a bitch, but the replacement one is fine.

Whats the problem with the strix cards? My current one seems superb, very quiet, very low temps and overclocks extremely well.

 

[Proofy]

Yeah my first 1060 strix coil whined like a bitch, but the replacement one is fine.

Whats the problem with the strix cards? My current one seems superb, very quiet, very low temps and overclocks extremely well.

It's not just strix, it's gigabyte too, and asus is way too expensive now. Also like it was said already, your 1060 will operate on ~2.1GHz in game due to 3.0 GPU boost, so your manual overclock doesn't matter since you didn't get your OC above 2.1GHz I believe, you can just put it back to stock if I'm correct...

 

[RobCrezz]

Yeah my first 1060 strix coil whined like a bitch, but the replacement one is fine.

Whats the problem with the strix cards? My current one seems superb, very quiet, very low temps and overclocks extremely well.

It's not just strix, it's gigabyte too, and asus is way too expensive now. Also like it was said already, your 1060 will operate on ~2.1GHz in game due to 3.0 GPU boost, so your manual overclock doesn't matter since you didn't get your OC above 2.1GHz I believe, you can just put it back to stock if I'm correct...

No thats not right.

Left at standard settings it doesnt boost as high (around 1900 max boost as standard). Also, these can get 9.2ghz out of the vram easily.

 

[Proofy]

Yea my bad. Once your oc manually, lets say to ~1.9GHz, you'll get around 2.1GHz with 3.0 GPU boost ingame. If it remains on stock 1.5GHz you will get ~1.9GHz in game with 3.0 GPU boost

 

[TehPenguin]

Yea my bad. Once your oc manually, lets say to ~1.9GHz, you'll get around 2.1GHz with 3.0 GPU boost ingame. If it remains on stock 1.5GHz you will get ~1.9GHz in game with 3.0 GPU boost

That's about right. Remember you can OC memory, too. +500MHz offset seems normal. GPU Boost 3.0 doesn't boost memory.

 

[RobCrezz]

Yea my bad. Once your oc manually, lets say to ~1.9GHz, you'll get around 2.1GHz with 3.0 GPU boost ingame. If it remains on stock 1.5GHz you will get ~1.9GHz in game with 3.0 GPU boost

Yeah, not all that different from GPU boost 2.0 really.

Increase core clock and get higher boost clock..

 

[Warmacblu]

I'm not sure where all the STRIX hate is coming from either. I 100% understand and agree that they are priced too high against the other brands but I do not understand some of the claims that their quality is lacking. Maybe I got lucky, but my 1070 STRIX boosts to 2001MHz right out of the box and never rises above 65 degrees C while gaming and remains whisper quiet with no signs of coil whine.

Maybe you guys are talking about how the cooler does not cover the memory chips when compared to other brands that offer memory chip cooling such as MSI? If the only complaint is the price then I can see how that would turn many people off.

 

[MrN1ce9uy]

The Strix 970 I had had a noisy fan that needed replacing. I think it's shameful for such an expensive card.

 

[turkey3_scratch]

Warmacblu, it's because they don't cool the VRMs and memory well.

 

[Warmacblu]

The Strix 970 I had had a noisy fan that needed replacing. I think it's shameful for such an expensive card.

I'm sure there are always cases where some people get a lemon and usually those people are the most outspoken on forums like these. It sucks that you had an issue with your 970 STRIX but that doesn't make all ASUS STRIX cards bad.

Warmacblu, it's because they don't cool the VRMs and memory well.

Okay, thanks. Is this actually vitally important though? I've owned plenty of GPUs that have lasted well over 5 years that did not have the VRMs and memory cooled directly. Sure, ASUS should have probably included the extra cooling for the asking price but if the core temp doesn't even reach 70C during prolonged gaming sessions while boosting to 2,000MHz is it really necessary?

 

[turkey3_scratch]

I think it's more important than cooling the GPU. Look at how long CPUs last. Silicon like that doesn't seem to die; on most GPUs it seems to be the VRMs, memory, or fans that fail first. I think this is mostly with the newest Strix cards not the older ones.