Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060 6GB Review

[the_countess]

A very good mid-range card that beats the RX480 in every metric possible

except were it actually counts, which is dx12 and vulkan performance, which is what pretty much all games were FPS matters will be using starting 4 months ago.

if you ONLY care about DX11 games then sure the 1060 looks decent (but the 4GB 480 offers significantly better value) but if you want to use it to play future games that will more and more be utilizing the full potential of dx12 and vulkan, then it looks distinctly lackluster.

 

[Joe Black]

Such a difference between some tittles and others. Which of the titles use GameWorks, or is GameWorks licensed?

"
How Nvidia’s GameWorks Strays From Industry Tradition
This approach of providing game developers with ready-made effects in the form of DLLs as a middleware solution is certainly dissimilar to the more traditional approach that Nvidia has taken before GameWorks’ inception. And is also different from the approach that its competitors, namely Intel and AMD, continue to follow. The traditional approach that we’ve seen over the years involves supplying game developers with the source code of the feature so it can be implemented directly into the game rather than do it through an intermediate layer. The developers would have complete freedom over how the feature is implemented, they can look at the source code and make changes to it as they see fit. In this case the game developer would maintain the ultimate say in how their game looks, runs and more importantly how it’s optimized.
With the GameWorks program developers can gain access to source code through a licensing deal with Nvidia, something that Nvidia did not offer when the program was initially introduced but started to do so in response to requests from game developers. However this means that developers are not allowed to share this code with anyone else without a license, this obviously includes Nvidia’s competitors like AMD and Intel.
"

Before PhysX and Gameworks... You know when AMD still rocked it hard.

"
PhysX is a proprietary realtime physics engine middleware SDK. PhysX was authored at NovodeX, an ETH Zurich spin-off. In 2004 NovodeX was acquired by Ageia, and in February 2008 Ageia was acquired by Nvidia.
"

Ageia made a whole damned PCI card specifically to provide PhysX support. They even stuck a teensy little fan on it to make it look like it has to do a lot of work. And NVidia loved the idea. Middleware - It's got nothing to do with hardware at all. Yet Project Cars is practically a sugar coating on top of PhysX.

And then NVidia cards went from sub 10fps in Tombraider 2013 with TressFX enabled to back-in-business when they had a look-see at AMD's code and updated their drivers.

I think the fact that most of the official benchmark sites are complicit in this scam is outrageous.

 

[wira123]

Afraid to put Doom Vulkan result huh toms ?
and also where the Warhammer DX12 benchmark ?

 

[Kewlx25]

The reviewers lack 3rd party RX 480 models to test. nVidia drivers will improve GTX 1060 performance that may be 20% to 60% more expensive (right now) but what u give in price you take back in power bill costs, as it seems.

To those that are disappointed with the lack of SLI, I tell you this : DX12 mutli-adapter configurations. We buy a GPU to play future titles not only old/current ones.

It would take 20 years to recoup the power savings in a typical situation. Also, I wouldn't count on mass adoption of the multi-adapter configurations for DX12 any time soon. We are probably looking at 1-2 more graphics card generations before anyone gets serious about it.

The power draw difference between the 1060 and 480 is enough to pay back the difference in less than 4 years with $0.10/KWH.

 

[thor220]

The hype is gone... I will wait for the partners boards to decide: Green or Red. Let the price war begin...

Price war? Ha! Neither company is doing a price war. Both cards are priced in accordance with their performance. A price war causes both sides to lose. In this case, both AMD and Nvidia are winning, winning, winning.

Some people fail to realize that the entire Pascal GPU lineup has not been as big of an improvement as Maxwell was when it was released. Maxwell significantly reduced power consumption. Pascal has not (it's remained relatively the same to a tad-wee-bit less). The prices are much higher. I'm not talking about the inflated prices, the MSRP and everything are higher than the Maxwell counterparts. I'm not saying Pascal is bad, they are definitely an improvement in performance, and once prices go down they will also be an improvement in price/performance, but with the inflated prices currently Pascal cards are the same price/performance as similarly-priced Maxwell cards. In some cases even worse.

At this current moment in time, the GTX 970 is better value than the GTX 1060. We will be seeing at least $300 for these GTX 1060s, most likely more in the $330 arena since the 1070s are even more expensive. I'm going to stick with my original statement: Founder's Editions are stupid. The coolers just stink. My R9 390, a GPU with nearly 3X the power consumption, stays much cooler than the 1060 FE cooler. Nvidia is so good at marketing their cards that so many people fail to see past what they are doing, which is slowly decreasing the increase in price/performance per generation. Just like how CPUs are becoming limited, I expect GPUs will soon get into that same state. Little improvements.

People talk about new GPUs like Vega and such for 2016 even or early 2017. I say bull. Maxwell was 2014, Pascal was 2016. We can expect Q3 2018 to see the next upgrade after Pascal on the Nvidia side and on the AMD side I'm betting we will have to wait until late 2017 before we see an RX490.

I loved Maxwell. Maxwell was incredible, it really was groundbreaking with how it lowered power consumption so much even without a die shrink and improved performance a ton. But with these new Pascal cards, I'm not seeing that same great jump we saw with Maxwell. Mostly, the poor availability is ruining literally everything. It wasn't this bad with Maxwell. The GTX 1070 and 1080 were supposedly released in May. It is more than half way through July and they still get sold out nearly everywhere immediately and have higher prices. It is indeed getting better, availability is starting to increase, but crap it took so long.

But the GTX 1060 is a good card. I plan to purchase a 1070 when the Gigabyte ITX version comes out, and I am getting nervous that it may be a while and have poor availability. Nonetheless, an improvement is an improvement! Pascal and Polaris are both great.

Edit: I do see cards available currently so it seems this is good!

I'd have to agree, this isn't a price war. AMD is simply too small a company to compete with Nvidia head to head anymore. Going to the middle of the market was the best choice AMD could have made, if they didn't Nvidia most likely would have beaten AMD to the top, middle, and bottom. Nvidia can afford to charge Nvidia tax simply because people will buy the brand regardless of performance.

The RX 480 looks like the better value right now and for in the future but I highly doubt it will sell more than the GTX 1060 simply because the Apple like Nvidia fanbase. Nvidia will extract as much profit as it can from it's customers and I wouldn't be surprised if we see a large wave of GameWorks Titles like we did last year.

 

[thor220]

The reviewers lack 3rd party RX 480 models to test. nVidia drivers will improve GTX 1060 performance that may be 20% to 60% more expensive (right now) but what u give in price you take back in power bill costs, as it seems.

To those that are disappointed with the lack of SLI, I tell you this : DX12 mutli-adapter configurations. We buy a GPU to play future titles not only old/current ones.

It would take 20 years to recoup the power savings in a typical situation. Also, I wouldn't count on mass adoption of the multi-adapter configurations for DX12 any time soon. We are probably looking at 1-2 more graphics card generations before anyone gets serious about it.

The power draw difference between the 1060 and 480 is enough to pay back the difference in less than 4 years with $0.10/KWH.

Actually, no

http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/cost.html

The average cost of electric is 12c a kWh. If you are an extreme gamer who games for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week the total yearly cost of an RX 480 is only 8.64 and that's if we assume the worst case scenario. In many cases, even at full load, it will not consume it's max rated power consumption. Compare this to the 7.32 cost of the GTX 1060 and it will take you well over 20 years to repay the difference.

I don't know where you got your math but you are way way off. The cost of electricity between the two is negligible.

 

[Kenneth Barker]

The AMD fanboy rage here is strong. The 1060 is a fantastic card, that in many ways outperforms the 480. It uses less power, OCs FAR better, runs cooler, and performs 5-20% faster in MOST games. That is a fact.

I just see a lot of AMD fans here. Maybe because they jumped the gun on buying the 480 up too quickly as if it was the greatest thing since sliced bread, only to have it trounced by Nvidia so quickly. AIB cards are already out there for the 1060 with AMD AIB cards still out of sight.

You have to give credit where it is due. Those bashing the 1060 are blind Fanboys, or they simply are not paying close enough attention.

 

[TJ Hooker]

People talk about new GPUs like Vega and such for 2016 even or early 2017. I say bull. Maxwell was 2014, Pascal was 2016. We can expect Q3 2018 to see the next upgrade after Pascal on the Nvidia side and on the AMD side I'm betting we will have to wait until late 2017 before we see an RX490.

Maxwell to Pascal was a new micro-architecture. Unless I'm mistaken, the 'big' GPUs from Nvidia/AMD speculated to be released in late 2016/early 2017 are supposed to be the same uArch as the recently released cards (Pascal and GCN Gen 4, for Nvidia/AMD respectively), but bigger dies, and probably HBM2 VRAM. So it's more like the GTX 970/980 to the 980 ti/Titan X rather than Maxwell to Pascal. So the time frame doesn't seem unreasonable.

 

[tps3443]

I know a gtx 1060 will not beat my AMD RX480 8GB. I took my RX480 box stock, just turned power limiter up and pulled a 14,300 in firestrike with Tess on.

My RX480 has a ASIC QUALITY of 91.5% once overclocked to 1400/2250 my scores jump to 15,237 in firestrike.

At this point, I am at the wall for voltage. The ASUS unlocked bios allows up to 1.4V on the core for a RX480. So, I set my clocks to 1,450 Mhz core with 2,200 Mhz memory. Firestrike score is at 15,921 with Tess on.

When you turn Tess off, the firestrike score turns up to 16,770 points.

Also, this was all done on AIR cooling. The stock blower works well for a high asic card with a high fan speed to though, SO IT IS NOISY!

So when you take a AMD RX480 for $199 then flash it's bios to unlock the 8GB of vram, further it to more voltage and High core clocks on a water block, you can overclock to 1,500+ Mhz core and now you are nipping at the heels of a GTX 1070


Nvidia is so stingy, and selfish. They charge you more and offer less! Only 6GB of vram? No sli??? Why not? YEP not that big of a deal, but they charge you more! To only not have it lol.


I bought a RX480, and do not be fooled by these benchmarks from these sites. I am for performance , not to be a fan boy at all. I ran two gtx Titan X cards in sli before this card. It was alot of unneeded power. All I'm trying to say, is battlefield 1 is going to be DX12 and once that power limiter is cranked up on a RX480 it just starts to blow right past a overclocked gtx 1060, while having more memory for less money.

And do not forget the huge overclock gains you can achieve, if you know how to that is.

My 4.9Ghz 6600K makes this SUCKER FLOW LIKE A PIPE!!

I'm good on a GTX1060, I am way ahead of the frame rates in this review, and some PC games utilize slot of VRAM at 1080P and 1440P . Gtx 1060 is a step back, to make profit off people with only a little money to spend, but to offer you less card.

Nvidia has cows, it's cows are the customers, and nvidia milks them all day long, for every last cent they can get.

I was there biggest customer, and fan! But, not so much anymore.

 

[tps3443]

By the way, Great comments everyone! I ran Nvidia only for quite some time. It's nice to see how much support , and praise the RX480 is receiving .

I have been running my RX480 8GB for about 2 weeks now. And I just love it. Phenomenal DX12/Vulkan performance.

Great job AMD!

 

[rhysiam]

And there you have it .... yes, with the $199 MSRP AMD will be able to claim a the price / gaming performance crown. The 7% performance difference between the stock reference 1060 and 480 is easy to give up for a wide enough price gap ... the 22% difference between the 1060 AIB OC'd and the reference 480 OC'd is not. By comparison, the 980 was only 10% faster than the 970 and it costs twice as much.

The 960 had a price performance advantage over the 970, but certainly did not impact 970 sales. When you account for the power, heat, noise and potentially larger PSU and case cooling costs, I'd have to agree with the above quote and say for 22% more OC'd performance, lower noise, no throttling, lower heat .... "most users will go for the price premium any day".

It clearly depends a lot on where your draw you OC'd data from. TBH, that's the issue with comparing OCs anyway.

Hilbert from Guru3D got just a tiny bit shy of 10% higher fps from his RX 480 sample: http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_radeon_r9_rx_480_8gb_review,35.html
Compared to maybe 11ish% on his 1060 (maths done in my head - check it for me if you like: http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/geforce_gtx_1060_review,29.html
He was able to extract only a single extra fps from an aftermarket open air cooled 1060 (Admittedly a "Palit" model which is unlikely to be the best OC-er on the market): http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/palit_geforce_gtx_1060_super_jetstream_review,29.html

Using those figures totally changes the value dynamics you've calculated above, and until there are more cards out in the wild we have no way of knowing which OC is more representative of what we can expect from either card.

Also, it's a bit early to say that Nvidia custom boards are available now IMHO. Both PCPartpicker and Newegg list absolutely no 1060s in stock as I write this, with the only available RX 480s starting at a stupid $340. While Nvidia have "released" the custom boards, most people who want one are going to have to wait... just like they will if they want a custom 480.
[EDIT*] - sorry - misquoting you there. On a second read you don't claim that [edit]

The 1060 is a solid card IMHO and demonstrates once again just how poorly AMD execute on their reference designs - especially from a noise and thermal perspective. I just think it's a bit early to be declaring a clear winner based on the kind of detailed performance per dollar calculations that you're doing. Further, IMHO it's definitely premature to be including OCing results in to the value mix given that the figures you're quoting are substantially skewed from other publications.

 

[rhysiam]

People talk about new GPUs like Vega and such for 2016 even or early 2017. I say bull. Maxwell was 2014, Pascal was 2016. We can expect Q3 2018 to see the next upgrade after Pascal on the Nvidia side and on the AMD side I'm betting we will have to wait until late 2017 before we see an RX490.

Maxwell to Pascal was a new micro-architecture. Unless I'm mistaken, the 'big' GPUs from Nvidia/AMD speculated to be released in late 2016/early 2017 are supposed to be the same uArch as the recently released cards (Pascal and GCN Gen 4, for Nvidia/AMD respectively), but bigger dies, and probably HBM2 VRAM. So it's more like the GTX 970/980 to the 980 ti/Titan X rather than Maxwell to Pascal. So the time frame doesn't seem unreasonable.

Yep, you're correct. A much better comparison is the GTX 680 (GK104 GPU), released March 2012, and the GTX Titan (GK110 GPU) released Febraury 2013. Both were based on the same architecture and similar to this round, Nvidia initially released their second tier GPU (then GK104 - now GP104) as their flagship x80 model before releasing their proper big die GPU (then GK110 - now probably GP100, maybe GP102) later as an ultra-flagship.

We know Nvidia has a GP100 die that could be a future uber-flagship (Titan or 1080TI). There's some info on the GP100 here if you're interested: http://www.anandtech.com/show/10222/nvidia-announces-tesla-p100-accelerator-pascal-power-for-hpc
WCCFTech are forecasting that Nvidia also has a GP102 die, which is half way between the monstrous GP100 and the GP104 in the 1080, which also makes sense: http://wccftech.com/nvidia-gtx-1080-ti-pascal-gp102/

It's a safe bet that Nvidia will sell as many GP100 GPUs in professional Tesla cards as they possibly can. In that case they can sell them for several (possibly "many") thousands of dollars each. Also safe to assume that at some point either the full GP100, or a less extreme and more consumer focused GP102 GPU will appear as an ultra high end consumer GTX model at some point (new Titan or 1080ti). But precisely when... who knows?

 

[tps3443]

And there you have it .... yes, with the $199 MSRP AMD will be able to claim a the price / gaming performance crown. The 7% performance difference between the stock reference 1060 and 480 is easy to give up for a wide enough price gap ... the 22% difference between the 1060 AIB OC'd and the reference 480 OC'd is not. By comparison, the 980 was only 10% faster than the 970 and it costs twice as much.

The 960 had a price performance advantage over the 970, but certainly did not impact 970 sales. When you account for the power, heat, noise and potentially larger PSU and case cooling costs, I'd have to agree with the above quote and say for 22% more OC'd performance, lower noise, no throttling, lower heat .... "most users will go for the price premium any day".

It clearly depends a lot on where your draw you OC'd data from. TBH, that's the issue with comparing OCs anyway.

Hilbert from Guru3D got just a tiny bit shy of 10% higher fps from his RX 480 sample: http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_radeon_r9_rx_480_8gb_review,35.html
Compared to maybe 11ish% on his 1060 (maths done in my head - check it for me if you like: http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/geforce_gtx_1060_review,29.html
He was able to extract only a single extra fps from an aftermarket open air cooled 1060 (Admittedly a "Palit" model which is unlikely to be the best OC-er on the market): http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/palit_geforce_gtx_1060_super_jetstream_review,29.html

Using those figures totally changes the value dynamics you've calculated above, and until there are more cards out in the wild we have no way of knowing which OC is more representative of what we can expect from either card.

Also, it's a bit early to say that Nvidia custom boards are available now IMHO. Both PCPartpicker and Newegg list absolutely no 1060s in stock as I write this, with the only available RX 480s starting at a stupid $340. While Nvidia have "released" the custom boards, most people who want one are going to have to wait... just like they will if they want a custom 480.

The 1060 is a solid card IMHO and demonstrates once again just how poorly AMD execute on their reference designs - especially from a noise and thermal perspective. I just think it's a bit early to be declaring a clear winner based on the kind of detailed performance per dollar calculations that you're doing. Further, IMHO it's definitely premature to be including OCing results in to the value mix given that the figures you're quoting are substantially skewed from other publications.

Both are decent cards, yes. Although, what I am saying is that, my gaming performance is faster, and my synthetic performance is faster then a GTX1060. I am not going by reviews. I am going by my own findings with my computer. With my bios, and my card, I am putting down some serious performance with a $239.99 video card, with more memory.

So that is clearly a better value to me and alot of other people as well.

Nvidia cut down everything on there card, sli support, memory bandwidth, and even memory capacity, the FP32 performance is completely crippled. While still costing more money.

But, let's talk more crap about how loud the AMD card is, and how much power it uses. If you run it default it is virtually silent, if you overclock it then it will scream. You simply cannot have the best of both worlds.

My RX480 @1450 Mhz / 2250 Mhz is performing in another league.

I guess what I find the most important is all of these newly released DX12 games the performance with a AMD RX480 is huge. So, I guess if I own a gtx 1060 we get slower performance, with more cost.

I want to play BF1 on ultra . That's what I was concerned with. Polaris favors DX12 alot because of asynchronous compute.

To many DX12 games are releasing shortly to pass the performance advantage of a RX480 up.

Nvidia did miss the boat... They could easily release a faster, better card for the same price. But they are milking there cows.

 

[FormatC]

My RX480 @1450 Mhz / 2250 Mhz is performing in another league.

I want to see the your log files over a hour

My own RX 480 runs under water max 1400 stable in a big open loop system (EKWB) - with a special voltage hard-mod and all phases soldered by me on the track to the PCIe connector. The power consumption increased up to 227 watts (and more). For real 8-10 percent more gaming-performance. Nothing to use in real life.

Nvidias current Problem is Vulkan RT and the 1-2 games, using it without giving NV any change of a clean implementation. Ok, OpenGL and the picture quality are one thing (I dislike it on each card, also on AMDs latest products) but I can't compare atm both philosophies under fair conditions. So it makes no sense for me to write an objective, final conclusion right now. We tried to prevent all tested cards before influencing gameworks effects, Doom is atm the same but in the red direction.

DX12 is not only asynchronous shading / computing but a lot more. But to be honest, I miss real DX12 games, using the complete feature sets to give an objective answer for the future. If a good implementation appears, I'm also very interested in to check out the scaling of such mid-range cards on different, also slower CPUs and to see, which advantages AMD or Nvidia cards may have or not. THIS is the one and only way to make any kind of prognosis.

 

[rhysiam]

Both are decent cards, yes. Although, what I am saying is that, my gaming performance is faster, and my synthetic performance is faster then a GTX1060. I am not going by reviews. I am going by my own findings with my computer. With my bios, and my card, I am putting down some serious performance with a $239.99 video card, with more memory.

I'm glad you're happy with your choice of graphics card, and nice work on actually getting it for $240... something which is very difficult to do right now. To play devil's advocate for a second, if you're not basing things on reviews, and you don't own a GTX 1060, how can you compare your 480 "by my own findings"?

Anyway - I wasn't actually addressing your comment. I was addressing @JackNaylorPE who was claiming a clear victory for the 1060 vs the reference 480... and I was disagreeing his performance, and specifically his OCing numbers.

Having said that, as someone who really wants to support AMD and see them doing well, it's frustrating that they can't manage a smooth reference card release with a product that doesn't require you to make significant compromises. Go back and read a few launch reviews for the R9 290 and 290X. Aftermarket versions of those cards have proved to be really solid, long term value propositions and are still great cards more than 2 1/2 years later. But the reference cards were stupidly hot and loud and AMD PR (IMHO at least) handled the release poorly.

I'm glad you're happy with your reference RX 480, but there's no getting around the fact that it runs hot and loud - on this I agree @JackNaylorPE. Combine that with the PCIe power draw issues (though quickly addressed and probably overhyped anyway), and it's another release that paints AMD as the hot & power hungry option on the market. For me personally, I've lived with a blower-style cooler on my 7950 for long enough now. It's a great GPU, but I'm just not prepared to put up with those noise levels this time around (especially OC'd). I think long-term the RX 480s will prove great cards, but once again the aftermarket models are, in my opinion at least, going to be essential for anyone like me who wants to OC but also cares about noise levels.

 

[AndrewJacksonZA]

Can it run Doom or is it so bad you didnt want us to know?

ID said, that they optimzed the render path ONLY for AMD yet and that the Nvidia implemention will follow later. How we can test a hald-done game without the optimized driver?

Currently asynchronous compute is only supported on AMD GPUs and requires DOOM Vulkan supported drivers to run. We are working with NVIDIA to enable asynchronous compute in Vulkan on NVIDIA GPUs. We hope to have an update soon.

Any question? All current tests are useless

Yeah Igor: given the inclusion of the controversial Nvidia-preferring Project Cars, I think that it would not only be fair but honest to include Doom. Update the review when the patch drops. That way we can also see what kind of a difference the patch makes.

If you don't want to do that, then run the AMD cards in Vulkan and the Nvidia cards in OpenGL and show those numbers for now, and then update later.

 

[zodiacfml]

Hmm, that explains AMD's decision to push the 480's power consumption to its limits. They wanted the GTX 1060 performance level.

Nvidia drives unprecedented efficiency into the mainstream with its Pascal-based GeForce GTX 1060, but can it compete with AMD's $200 Radeon RX 480?

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060 6GB Review : Read more

 

[tridon]

10% better performance than the RX 480 in 1080p. 8% better in 1440p. Considering the mainshare, thermals and noise levels, it seems that Nvidia has hit the pricing perfectly with a 25% increase from the RX 480. I'm guessing this will sell incredibly well.

 

[madmatt30]

^ ?? For 10% better performance I'd expect to pay 10% more money not 25% personally.

Bear in mind the custom cooled, factory oc 480s are not here yet .
There will be no legitimate performance difference between those & the 1060 IMO.

 

[n0ns3ns3]

^ some people have to go back to school.
RX 480 = 240$ (MSRP)
GTX 1060 = 250$ (MSRP and there are cards at this price like EVGA)

That means that GTX 1060 is ~4.2% more expensive.
Even with the same performance, but with better overclockability, lower heat generation and better power consumption, it worth it

 

[rhysiam]

That means that GTX 1060 is ~4.2% more expensive.
Even with the same performance, but with better overclockability, lower heat generation and better power consumption, it worth it

Too early to talk about overclockability unless we're talking reference models, and no one who cares about overclocking should be looking for a reference model for either card.

There are (or will be when availability improves) 4GB 480s for $200, so that is 25%.

But for sure, power consumption, heat and (for reference cards) noise levels are all clear wins for the 1060.

 

[mapesdhs]

Some of the 1060s in the UK are more than $400 equivalent. The typical 3rd party price is about $330. Heh, "$250 RRP", yeah right... and sure enough the 970 is a good amount cheaper on the same site I checked, eg. the EVGA SC.

Not that the 480 is much better, it's priced about the same as the 1060.

Does make me laugh btw that some people on eBay are buying used 970s for almost the same cost as buying a new one from a normal seller.

Ian.

 

[madmatt30]

@ n0ns3ns3 - you're talking nonsense ;-)

Already posted the cheapest UK prices , the cheapest 1060 is nearly 30% more expensive than the cheapest 480 , my maths is absolutely b fine thanks.
No interest in the American market at all , all over Europe that price difference looks to be the norm.
Americans are getting good deals on the 1060 & bad deals on the 480 - I have no idea why though.

 

[n0ns3ns3]

Too early to talk about overclockability unless we're talking reference models, and no one who cares about overclocking should be looking for a reference model for either card.

There are (or will be when availability improves) 4GB 480s for $200, so that is 25%.

But for sure, power consumption, heat and (for reference cards) noise levels are all clear wins for the 1060.

For that 4GB RX 480, there will be 1060 (or whatever they call it) 3GB version which will be priced at 200-220.

The 1060 (there is very little difference with pascal between reference and custom PCBs for overclockability) clocks to over 1800 by itself. with a little effort, it gets to over 2000. Memory easily overclocks to over 10Gbps.
that's about 17-18% overclock on core and over 20% on memory.
The typical RX 480 overclock is around 1400MHz on core - ~14%.
It looks like the 16nm TSMC is better than 14nm of the global foundries (and samsung - remember the iPhone CPUs ?) in terms of power efficiency, which supposed to provide more overclock.

 

[n0ns3ns3]

@ n0ns3ns3 - you're talking nonsense ;-)

Already posted the cheapest UK prices , the cheapest 1060 is nearly 30% more expensive than the cheapest 480 , my maths is absolutely b fine thanks.
No interest in the American market at all , all over Europe that price difference looks to be the norm.
Americans are getting good deals on the 1060 & bad deals on the 480 - I have no idea why though.

I do not give a ... about greedy sellers in europe
Cards are supposed to cost about the same, if they are not - it's not the manufacturers to blame
Where I live (not US and not EU) a custom 1060 is 15 euro more than reference RX 480. Which means "RIP AMD sales" in my country