Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060 6GB Review

[falchard]

Just shows you how deep fanboyism runs. For AMDs 9800, x800, x1800 they should have had a higher percentage of the market share as they had significantly faster cards at every price point. It wasn't until the 8800 series that nVidia took back the crown. They should have also had the market share from the HD4800 to the HD7900. I imagine that AMD will be in the lead this generation as well once Vega releases.
In those years, AMD has only lead once based on Steam market share despite offering the better products. It's probably best summed up in fanboyism and nVidia marketing strategy.

 

[AndrewJacksonZA]

@Toms team:
On 19 July 2016 Igor said that you guys were waiting on id to release a patch to enable Vulkan on Nvidia hardware.

On 23 July 2016 Jason Leavey posted that Vulkan is now supported on AMD and Nvidia hardware with the appropriate drivers - it's just that async isn't supported on Nvidia hardware yet but there'll be an update "soon" as Igor said.

Has id given any evidence that the patch is coming "soon?" Any date estimate whatsoever, perhaps? Is it ever coming out? Please add the Doom Vulkan benchmarks already and then update them should the async for Nvidia patch ever come out. Pretty please guys?

 

[JackNaylorPE]

Oh, I'm not saying Nvidia hasn't outsold AMD. That's obvious. I'm saying going by Steam stats alone you can't say the 960 outsold all Radeon 200 and 300 series combined.

Add in the 7900 ... that would include the 7970 and 7950. And lets be exceedingly generous and say only half of these are actually 7950s / 7970s .... and I say generous as the 7950 / 1970 were actually competitive

AMD Radeon R9 380 Series = 0.54%
AMD Radeon R9 390 Series = 0.52%
AMD Radeon R7 300 Series = 0.46%
AMD Radeon R9 200 Series = 0.68%
AMD Radeon R7 200 Series = 0.41%
AMD Radeon 7900 Series = 1.40% (So half would be 0.70%)

Total = 3.31 % ... still less then the 960's 3.72%

 

[RedJaron]

*sigh*
Jack, why are you pursuing this? Why do you consider it so important? What bearing does 960 sales have on the 1060?

Besides, you're still in error. You're not including 7800 series ( would include the 270 and 370 lines ) or 7700 series ( 260s ). More importantly, your numbers are only counting the active GPUs on Steam. Yet you're making claims about ALL GPU sales. Where are you counting the GPUs that were purchased but have since been replaced? Quite a few of those were crypto-mining as well. How many of those show up on Steam stats?

 

[Tradesman1]

I'm expecting to see some eye popping numbers when the latest Steam survey is released.

It has been.

The AMD Radeon R9 380/380x Series 1st appeared at the end of June 2016, one year after the 380 was released and now the 2 cards have 0.54% of the market, Meanwhile, the slower 960 grabbed 3.72% of the market.

I don't expect the 480 to make an appearance for months, especially that this time around the the 1060 is substantially faster than the 480 and the cards w/ the price advantage (reference and Nitro) have kinda fallen flat .

As for the 960, even tho, it outsold all AMD cards combined over two generations, I don't expect the 1060 to break into the list until fall.

AMD Radeon R9 380 Series = 0.54%
AMD Radeon R9 390 Series = 0.52%
AMD Radeon R7 300 Series = 0.46%
AMD Radeon R9 200 Series = 0.68%
AMD Radeon R7 200 Series = 0.41%

____________________________

Just for clarification purposes the R9 380 was released in May 2015 (OEM model), the manufacturer's models were released in June of 15, as far as the 380X line it was Nov of 15 Release.....No idea where the above info was read Not that it makes any sense anyway

 

[17seconds]

There are several good places to get an idea of GPU market share: Steam Hardware Survey, J Peddle Research, and Mercury Research.
http://mercuryresearch.com/graphics-pr-2016-q3.pdf

In addition, I found this very interesting site, which is all based on user submitted benchmarks. It allows you to sort along various metrics, including "market share".
http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/

 

[AndrewJacksonZA]

Thanks for the links 17.

 

[Nikos_5]

with i7 920 (3.53 oc) can work properly?
as an upgrafe from hd7970

 

[Nikos_5]

could combine with i7 920 (3.53 oc) ?
as an upgrade to hd7970

 

[n0ns3ns3]

could combine with i7 920 (3.53 oc) ?
as an upgrade to hd7970

If you are talking about using GTX 1060 with i7 920 - yes it will work fine

 

[cdrkf]

could combine with i7 920 (3.53 oc) ?
as an upgrade to hd7970

If you are talking about using GTX 1060 with i7 920 - yes it will work fine

My only thought on this is, how big of an upgrade is a HD 7970 -> GTX 1060? The HD 7970 is faster than a GTX 960, and the GTX 1060 is in between a GTX 970 and 980- so we're only talking one graphics card 'tier' above surely?

I'd say from there you'd be better looking at a 1070 (or something from the Fury range if you want to look at AMD). I'm not sure the 1060 (or an RX480 for that matter) would be *much* of an upgrade.

Edit: In answer to if it will be a bottleneck, here's a useful video pairing an i5 750 with a GTX 1080... it works surprisingly well
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TScpVAGNdcI

 

[madmatt30]

2 years back I went from a 280x to a gtx 970 .
This was mainly done for temps & power draw in a small htpc case rather than as a performance upgrade.
However there was an absolutely noticeable difference in performance to go along with it.
Think 15-20fps at the same graphics settings or at a minimum the same fps at a higher setting.

I can only assume the difference between a 7970 & a 1060 is going to be even more pronounced than my results so it is worth it IMO as an upgrade.

 

[Jorge Nascimento]

with i7 920 (3.53 oc) can work properly?
as an upgrafe from hd7970

Well there are some people saying those 1st gen I cores processors might bottleneck, others may say it runs ok.
But nobody cant tell you that with certainty unless they have one of those 1st gen I cores.
My experience and advise are, get the GTX 1060 or a RX480 (if you plan playing most recent and upcoming dx12/vulkan game), both graphics are good and if you playing in a 60hz monitor either one should be fine.
After you get the graphic runs some tests and see for yourself how it runs and if it doesn't bottleneck.

 

[mapesdhs]

But nobody cant tell you that with certainty unless they have one of those 1st gen I cores.

I can say with certainty because I do have the relevant CPUs and I have tested it, to an extent.

Newer cards will work with the older tech just fine (I have the Futuremark records for P55 with multiple 980s), and yes there can be a bottleneck but it depends on the game, resolution, detail settings, whether the CPU is oc'd or not, RAM, etc. However, the performance hit from running on an older platform is often not as bad as one might expect (and certainly way better than many on forums just blindly assume), though the hit might be higher with an i7 920 as its base clock is somewhat lower than some other options from back then (P55 was faster, oh the irony). For a game that is to any degree CPU-dependent, the gain from a newer platform could be substantial.

I tested an i5 760 with 7970/CF, the hit was only about 10% when the CPU is overclocked compared to the same GPUs on a 5GHz 2700K, which is not bad at all. But it will vary from game to game, etc. Ref:

http://www.sgidepot.co.uk/sgi.html#PC

Ian.

 

[madmatt30]

But nobody cant tell you that with certainty unless they have one of those 1st gen I cores.

I can say with certainty because I do have the relevant CPUs and I have tested it, to an extent.

Newer cards will work with the older tech just fine (I have the Futuremark records for P55 with multiple 980s), and yes there can be a bottleneck but it depends on the game, resolution, detail settings, whether the CPU is oc'd or not, RAM, etc. However, the performance hit from running on an older platform is often not as bad as one might expect (and certainly way better than many on forums just blindly assume), though the hit might be higher with an i7 920 as its base clock is somewhat lower than some other options from back then (P55 was faster, oh the irony). For a game that is to any degree CPU-dependent, the gain from a newer platform could be substantial.

I tested an i5 760 with 7970/CF, the hit was only about 10% when the CPU is overclocked compared to the same GPUs on a 5GHz 2700K, which is not bad at all. But it will vary from game to game, etc. Ref:

http://www.sgidepot.co.uk/sgi.html#PC

Ian.

Some good info on your site mate,the text layout makes my eyes bleed a bit but some really interesting titbits

good stuff

 

[Jorge Nascimento]

>advertised as 120watt max but gets 130+ under stressed.
>no SLI bridge
>$250 for 3gb and 300 for the 6.
>not exactly better than RX480 or even the 980, more like comparable in performance
>small OC headroom, well RX 480 OC headroom was near non-existent too.

Any AIB's RX480 are much better value than this.
*reads AIB's 1060, 480 still much better value

...realizes people would still buy this.

Hey there.

I have a sapphire 480 nitro + 8gb that comes factory clocked @ 1342, i have it running @ 1402, hitting 78-80ºC on load with the standard cooler that comes with the graphic. With factory settings max temp on load is around 75-76ºC.
http://sapphirenitro.sapphiretech.com/en/480-8.html

 

[mapesdhs]

Some good info on your site mate,the text layout makes my eyes bleed a bit but some really interesting titbits

good stuff

Thanks!! Note that for the text-only pages, make sure Page Style is set to No Style from the View menu (this is for Firefox; not sure about other browsers), otherwise it'll wordwrap the lines. Maybe it's wrapped lines which you were seeing. I did consider making them HTML pages, but decided not to for various reasons.

Ian.