Why is the GTX 1060 being called a low-end card?

[SuperShark]

It's performance is better than the RX 480 in most games and it's performance is good for its price, why is it being called a low-end card? I see it as a mid range card.

 

[Kiril1512]

For me the 1060 is mid range too...

1040m- laptop
1050 - best low tier
1060 - med tier
1070,1080 - high tier
1080ti, titan x - premium tier

 

[cdrkf]

It's performance is better than the RX 480 in most games and it's performance is good for its price, why is it being called a low-end card? I see it as a mid range card.

Anyone who calls either the RX480 or GTX 1060 'low end' is either showing off, or have no concept of the value of money.

These are price / performance sweet spot cards... and there will be several cards on both sides lower than these.

I think a lot of enthusiasts who have lots of free money to throw around get used to only buying the top end parts (i.e. your Fury and Titan class cards). To them these are 'cheap', but given either card costs almost as much as a console I don't see them as cheap. That said I've been gaming since 486 based computers were current, and I've never spent more than £160 on a gpu in my life from either company (with the cheaper 4gb RX480 is just slightly over).

 

[TheFluffyDog]

I would call it mid high. There are alot of computer guys out there that thing of high end as the top of the market, but the prices keep those cards as "premium." The majority of builders who dont spend ludacris amounts of money on small gains would probably consider the 1070 the "higest end" card in reach of the consumer. The 1080 at least in alot of builds, is just way to pricey. And the perfromance gains dont warrant the extra money. I would say any card from Geforce that is XX60 is defiantely in the high end line. XX60 -XX70 high end XX80-Titan premium.

Just my opinion!

 

[Snipergod87]

IMO 1060 is low end, 1070 is mid and 1080 is high. Everyone has their own opinions.

 

[cdrkf]

For me the 1060 is mid range too...

1040m- laptop
1050 - best low tier
1060 - med tier
1070,1080 - high tier
1080ti, titan x - premium tier

See even that is pushing it for 'low tier'- I mean to put it into perspective, I 'donated' my ancient HD 4670 (not exactly high spec when it was new) to a friend so he can play minecraft better than on his igpu. He's was so impressed with the performance boost of that old card... I know other people still rocking cards from 3 or 4 gens back (HD 5XXX and GTX 4XX cards) that don't see the point 'wasting money upgrading'...

As an enthusiast (even one with a limited budget like me), it's easy to forget what a lot of people manage to get by with

 

[JQB45]

I'd also consider the 1060 and RX 480 to be mid-range cards and my 950 to be an upper low end card when it was new last August.

 

[Snipergod87]

Apparently my opinion makes supershark angry.

 

[SuperShark]

Apparently my opinion makes supershark angry.

Why would you say that? I just disagree with your opinion which is my own opinion lol.

 

[SuperShark]

It's performance is better than the RX 480 in most games and it's performance is good for its price, why is it being called a low-end card? I see it as a mid range card.

Anyone who calls either the RX480 or GTX 1060 'low end' is either showing off, or have no concept of the value of money.

These are price / performance sweet spot cards... and there will be several cards on both sides lower than these.

I think a lot of enthusiasts who have lots of free money to throw around get used to only buying the top end parts (i.e. your Fury and Titan class cards). To them these are 'cheap', but given either card costs almost as much as a console I don't see them as cheap. That said I've been gaming since 486 based computers were current, and I've never spent more than £160 on a gpu in my life from either company (with the cheaper 4gb RX480 is just slightly over).

These are the cards that will sell the most as not everyone has a large enough budget to throw $500 just on a GPU. I was going to get the GTX 1070 for 1080p gaming, but I think that is an overkill as it's better for 1440p gaming. The YouTube reviewers don't call it a low-end card it's just some sites online that I have seen calling the cards low-end.

 

[SuperShark]

I would call it mid high. There are alot of computer guys out there that thing of high end as the top of the market, but the prices keep those cards as "premium." The majority of builders who dont spend ludacris amounts of money on small gains would probably consider the 1070 the "higest end" card in reach of the consumer. The 1080 at least in alot of builds, is just way to pricey. And the perfromance gains dont warrant the extra money. I would say any card from Geforce that is XX60 is defiantely in the high end line. XX60 -XX70 high end XX80-Titan premium.

Just my opinion!

I'd also consider the 1060 and RX 480 to be mid-range cards and my 950 to be an upper low end card when it was new last August.

I agree with you completely, the GTX 1060 gets good benchmark scores on most games.

 

[atavax]

What is premium and what is necessary past $200 largely depends on your resolution and your desired FPS. If you have a 4k monitor and want at least 90fps when gaming, then a 480 or 1060 is probably even below low end. But if you have a 720p monitor and are ok with 30 fps, then they're both high end. a lot of variance in resolution and desired frame rate in the market right now means a lot of variance in what people consider low, med, and high end.

 

[anbello262]

It's just naming people give to the categories, and the difference in this nomenclature is caused by what you use as reference or standard.
If you say 'most people have a 1080p monitor, and the 1060 can max any game at 1080p', then you can consider it mid end.

But you could also say that a 1080p 60Hz monitor is low end, therefore a card that works well at that resolution but is not meant for higher resolutions is a low end card, which isn't wrong either.

Or you could classify them by comparison to other gtx cards. In this case, I would say
'Titan X Pascal: Extreme/Enthusiast
1080/(1080ti): High end
1070: Mid range
1060: Mainstream
1050: Entry level/low end'

It all depends on where you are looking from, and relative to what.

 

[SuperShark]

What is premium and what is necessary past $200 largely depends on your resolution and your desired FPS. If you have a 4k monitor and want at least 90fps when gaming, then a 480 or 1060 is probably even below low end. But if you have a 720p monitor and are ok with 30 fps, then they're both high end. a lot of variance in resolution and desired frame rate in the market right now means a lot of variance in what people consider low, med, and high end.

I understand what you are saying, but I'm looking at it from a mainstream view.

 

[SuperShark]

It's just naming people give to the categories, and the difference in this nomenclature is caused by what you use as reference or standard.
If you say 'most people have a 1080p monitor, and the 1060 can max any game at 1080p', then you can consider it mid end.

But you could also say that a 1080p 60Hz monitor is low end, therefore a card that works well at that resolution but is not meant for higher resolutions is a low end card, which isn't wrong either.

Or you could classify them by comparison to other gtx cards. In this case, I would say
'Titan X Pascal: Extreme/Enthusiast
1080/(1080ti): High end
1070: Mid range
1060: Mainstream
1050: Entry level/low end'

It all depends on where you are looking from, and relative to what.

I think 1080p gaming is mainstream, but some gamers are moving onto 1440p and it will become a popular resolution to play at in the future.

 

[atavax]

It's just naming people give to the categories, and the difference in this nomenclature is caused by what you use as reference or standard.
If you say 'most people have a 1080p monitor, and the 1060 can max any game at 1080p', then you can consider it mid end.

But you could also say that a 1080p 60Hz monitor is low end, therefore a card that works well at that resolution but is not meant for higher resolutions is a low end card, which isn't wrong either.

Or you could classify them by comparison to other gtx cards. In this case, I would say
'Titan X Pascal: Extreme/Enthusiast
1080/(1080ti): High end
1070: Mid range
1060: Mainstream
1050: Entry level/low end'

It all depends on where you are looking from, and relative to what.

right, i'd say that 1080p is the bare minimum resolution a mid range budgeted gamer would use and could potentially be using a higher resolution, such as 1440p, 2560 x 1080, or 3440x1440. I'd also say that mid range implies at the very minmum a 60 fps standard, and possibly at high as 90. And then the expected life span of a videocard is 2-4 years. If you take the highest of all of those, then no, it shouldn't be expected to run games in 4 years at 3440x1440 and 90fps.

using, Enthusiast, Performance, Mainstream, and Budget is better, more clear terminology imo. I would say generally, GPUs $400 and up are Enthusiast. Then Performance would be sub $400 to around $250, mainstream is like $250 to $150, and Budget is sub $150.

 

[SuperShark]

It's just naming people give to the categories, and the difference in this nomenclature is caused by what you use as reference or standard.
If you say 'most people have a 1080p monitor, and the 1060 can max any game at 1080p', then you can consider it mid end.

But you could also say that a 1080p 60Hz monitor is low end, therefore a card that works well at that resolution but is not meant for higher resolutions is a low end card, which isn't wrong either.

Or you could classify them by comparison to other gtx cards. In this case, I would say
'Titan X Pascal: Extreme/Enthusiast
1080/(1080ti): High end
1070: Mid range
1060: Mainstream
1050: Entry level/low end'

It all depends on where you are looking from, and relative to what.

right, i'd say that 1080p is the bare minimum resolution a mid range budgeted gamer would use and could potentially be using a higher resolution, such as 1440p, 2560 x 1080, or 3440x1440. I'd also say that mid range implies at the very minmum a 60 fps standard, and possibly at high as 90. And then the expected life span of a videocard is 2-4 years. If you take the highest of all of those, then no, it shouldn't be expected to run games in 4 years at 3440x1440 and 90fps.

using, Enthusiast, Performance, Mainstream, and Budget is better, more clear terminology imo. I would say generally, GPUs $400 and up are Enthusiast. Then Performance would be sub $400 to around $250, mainstream is like $250 to $150, and Budget is sub $150.

What you are saying is that the GTX 1070/1080 isn't expected to run games at 1440p in 4 years? Would the same apply to the GTX 1060 for 1080p?

Mid range should be at least 60 FPS at 1080p I agree with you on that.

 

[cdrkf]

It's just naming people give to the categories, and the difference in this nomenclature is caused by what you use as reference or standard.
If you say 'most people have a 1080p monitor, and the 1060 can max any game at 1080p', then you can consider it mid end.

But you could also say that a 1080p 60Hz monitor is low end, therefore a card that works well at that resolution but is not meant for higher resolutions is a low end card, which isn't wrong either.

Or you could classify them by comparison to other gtx cards. In this case, I would say
'Titan X Pascal: Extreme/Enthusiast
1080/(1080ti): High end
1070: Mid range
1060: Mainstream
1050: Entry level/low end'

It all depends on where you are looking from, and relative to what.

right, i'd say that 1080p is the bare minimum resolution a mid range budgeted gamer would use and could potentially be using a higher resolution, such as 1440p, 2560 x 1080, or 3440x1440. I'd also say that mid range implies at the very minmum a 60 fps standard, and possibly at high as 90. And then the expected life span of a videocard is 2-4 years. If you take the highest of all of those, then no, it shouldn't be expected to run games in 4 years at 3440x1440 and 90fps.

using, Enthusiast, Performance, Mainstream, and Budget is better, more clear terminology imo. I would say generally, GPUs $400 and up are Enthusiast. Then Performance would be sub $400 to around $250, mainstream is like $250 to $150, and Budget is sub $150.

What you are saying is that the GTX 1070/1080 isn't expected to run games at 1440p in 4 years? Would the same apply to the GTX 1060 for 1080p?

Mid range should be at least 60 FPS at 1080p I agree with you on that.

Lol you can run current games on cards that date back to 2008 at a push (thinking top of the range, at the time, HD5000 series parts).

I can't see any of the currently released new cards struggling for a few years- *although* I do acknowledge that in 4 years time you'll probably have to notch the detial settings down a bit to maintain decent frame rates.

I think people forget- as great as PC's are, the *average* standard of game graphics is usually limited by the incumbent consoles. So long as PS4 and Xbone are current (even if they get upgraded counterparts) then the base spec to play games reasonably will be fairly low (not saying there won't be additional bells and whistles to turn on for people with higher end kit though).

What I find slightly strange is the concept that it is only possible to play and enjoy a game if *all the graphics sliders are on maximum* (irrespective of what they actually do). I also find this new issue with frame rates quite perplexing- you can play most games fine as low as 20fps, it's only twitchy shooters that really require high frame rates, in which case turn a couple of dials down and play on

 

[anbello262]

I agree with the last comment, since I spent about 20 years with low end pcs, playing at 10-20 fps all the time. The experience was great, I didn't find the games choppy or anything. Once your mind gets used to it, you just don't notice it.
Also, playing on low settings was the norm for me.
And I still really enjoy playing old games (PSX/PS2 games for example, or.old DOS games), soI agree that graphic details and fps are not extremely important to have a good experience.

Now, I have a high end PC and play with everything maxed out, adaptive v-sync, and never dip below 60 fps. I enjoy games even more, now, because many times I get surprised by awesome landscapes, and particle effects can help too. But the thing I enjoy the most is seeing that my character, who was so blocky, now looks a lot better.
And that now I don't have to be careful, for example in mmorpgs, to turn down all the zettings before going into a city.

So, basically, you can enjoy games a lot without the need for a high end system.
But I have no idea how this relates to the thread.




I also don't understand why people would get annoyed (not talking about OP) if you say that the 1060 is low end. You play your games with whatever you can get, why would you care if some.people call it low end or high end? That won't make it perform any faster or slower, it's just a name.

 

[SuperShark]

It's just naming people give to the categories, and the difference in this nomenclature is caused by what you use as reference or standard.
If you say 'most people have a 1080p monitor, and the 1060 can max any game at 1080p', then you can consider it mid end.

But you could also say that a 1080p 60Hz monitor is low end, therefore a card that works well at that resolution but is not meant for higher resolutions is a low end card, which isn't wrong either.

Or you could classify them by comparison to other gtx cards. In this case, I would say
'Titan X Pascal: Extreme/Enthusiast
1080/(1080ti): High end
1070: Mid range
1060: Mainstream
1050: Entry level/low end'

It all depends on where you are looking from, and relative to what.

right, i'd say that 1080p is the bare minimum resolution a mid range budgeted gamer would use and could potentially be using a higher resolution, such as 1440p, 2560 x 1080, or 3440x1440. I'd also say that mid range implies at the very minmum a 60 fps standard, and possibly at high as 90. And then the expected life span of a videocard is 2-4 years. If you take the highest of all of those, then no, it shouldn't be expected to run games in 4 years at 3440x1440 and 90fps.

using, Enthusiast, Performance, Mainstream, and Budget is better, more clear terminology imo. I would say generally, GPUs $400 and up are Enthusiast. Then Performance would be sub $400 to around $250, mainstream is like $250 to $150, and Budget is sub $150.

What you are saying is that the GTX 1070/1080 isn't expected to run games at 1440p in 4 years? Would the same apply to the GTX 1060 for 1080p?

Mid range should be at least 60 FPS at 1080p I agree with you on that.

Lol you can run current games on cards that date back to 2008 at a push (thinking top of the range, at the time, HD5000 series parts).

I can't see any of the currently released new cards struggling for a few years- *although* I do acknowledge that in 4 years time you'll probably have to notch the detial settings down a bit to maintain decent frame rates.

I think people forget- as great as PC's are, the *average* standard of game graphics is usually limited by the incumbent consoles. So long as PS4 and Xbone are current (even if they get upgraded counterparts) then the base spec to play games reasonably will be fairly low (not saying there won't be additional bells and whistles to turn on for people with higher end kit though).

What I find slightly strange is the concept that it is only possible to play and enjoy a game if *all the graphics sliders are on maximum* (irrespective of what they actually do). I also find this new issue with frame rates quite perplexing- you can play most games fine as low as 20fps, it's only twitchy shooters that really require high frame rates, in which case turn a couple of dials down and play on

My whole life I've been mostly gaming on consoles, except for back in 2008 when I used to play star wars using my old NVIDIA card that came with the system, but burnt out after a few years due to poor maintenance. Console FPS is locked to 30 FPS so I probably won't see the difference for a while, I actually find the graphics on consoles alright lol.

 

[SuperShark]

I agree with the last comment, since I spent about 20 years with low end pcs, playing at 10-20 fps all the time. The experience was great, I didn't find the games choppy or anything. Once your mind gets used to it, you just don't notice it.
Also, playing on low settings was the norm for me.
And I still really enjoy playing old games (PSX/PS2 games for example, or.old DOS games), soI agree that graphic details and fps are not extremely important to have a good experience.

Now, I have a high end PC and play with everything maxed out, adaptive v-sync, and never dip below 60 fps. I enjoy games even more, now, because many times I get surprised by awesome landscapes, and particle effects can help too. But the thing I enjoy the most is seeing that my character, who was so blocky, now looks a lot better.
And that now I don't have to be careful, for example in mmorpgs, to turn down all the zettings before going into a city.

So, basically, you can enjoy games a lot without the need for a high end system.
But I have no idea how this relates to the thread.




I also don't understand why people would get annoyed (not talking about OP) if you say that the 1060 is low end. You play your games with whatever you can get, why would you care if some.people call it low end or high end? That won't make it perform any faster or slower, it's just a name.

People are getting annoyed because the users who don't have enough knowledge about computer parts may think it's actually a really crap card and will start spreading false information which is bad for everyone.

 

[JQB45]

What is premium and what is necessary past $200 largely depends on your resolution and your desired FPS. If you have a 4k monitor and want at least 90fps when gaming, then a 480 or 1060 is probably even below low end. But if you have a 720p monitor and are ok with 30 fps, then they're both high end. a lot of variance in resolution and desired frame rate in the market right now means a lot of variance in what people consider low, med, and high end.

I suppose on a related subject we can say:

Less than 720p = Obsolete
720p = Low End
1080p = Mainstream
1440p or 21:9 = Mid Range
VR = Upper Mid Range / High End
4k = Enthusiast

Assume at least 60fps at each resolution, except VR which needs at least 90fps. If you get a 1080p at 144Hz then that would bump it up to Midrange. 1440p at 144Hz is Upper Midrange.

And since they tend to be expensive 16:10 monitors would be Midrange, although intended mainly for say developers and other specialist that can really use the extra vertical space.