New graphics card - memory for a few years life

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The thing is,if it were like £150 to £160 and the GTX1060 6GB was £230,then it might be different. But with a £30 to £40 difference,why spend £200 on a card,to be limited by things like VRAM.

I give you an example of how much it can affect cards.

Look at the 9600GT 512MB against the 8800GT 256MB. Remember the 8800GT had 112 stream processors and the 9600GT had 64 stream processors. The 8800GT 512MB was generally faster than a HD3870 512MB.











Remember the 8800GT 512MB was rebadged as the 9800GT 512MB during that time.

Both the 9600GT and HD3870 had weaker cores,than the 8800GT.

Hitting VRAM limits tanks performance,as the card will need to use slower system RAM. Yes,you can turn down settings,but it defeats the whole point of spending £200 on a graphics card IMHO,and as time progresses games will tend to use more and more VRAM.

[DanceswithUnix]

Look at the 9600GT 512MB against the 8800GT 256MB. Remember the 8800GT had 112 stream processors and the 9600GT had 64 stream processors. The 8800GT 512MB was generally faster than a HD3870 512MB.

The 9600GT was clocked much higher and had the same memory bandwidth as the 8800GT 512MB, once again the reduced memory version had slower ram as well as less of it and in this case that meant slower than the 9600.

But I think those were different times, more than 512MB of vram was a nuisance as it ate into the 3.5GB that 32 bit Windows XP allowed a process to see so cards were being held back. The rise in vram up to that point had been steady and in keeping with Moore's law because there was a real thirst for it.

I bought a 2GB video card (GTX460) 6 years ago for £180. Moore's law would expect a doubling every 2 years so if the pressure had kept up then that £180 graphics card would have scaled to 4GB 4 years ago, 8GB 2 years ago, 16GB today. That simply hasn't happened, and according to AMD when Fury was released with "just 4GB" the amount of ram on graphics cards is currently more down to the need for bandwidth and the simple maths that if you buy enough mainstream ram chips to fill a 512 bit wide bus you get 4GB or 8GB of ram. Instead, it seems that money has been going into shaders and enough cache and other tech on the GPU die to reduce the need for a really wide ram bus.

So it has taken 6 years for 2GB to go from high end to mainstream. There are a few games now where 2GB is looking marginal (even World of Warcraft) so you want more than than. 4GB should be good for a few years, but as I said if you can I would aim high and just be done with the whole question!

My main worry with 3GB is human. What developer is going to tune their game for 3GB?

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The 9600GT was clocked much higher and had the same memory bandwidth as the 8800GT 512MB, once again the reduced memory version had slower ram as well as less of it and in this case that meant slower than the 9600.

But I think those were different times, more than 512MB of vram was a nuisance as it ate into the 3.5GB that 32 bit Windows XP allowed a process to see so cards were being held back. The rise in vram up to that point had been steady and in keeping with Moore's law because there was a real thirst for it.

I bought a 2GB video card (GTX460) 6 years ago for £180. Moore's law would expect a doubling every 2 years so if the pressure had kept up then that £180 graphics card would have scaled to 4GB 4 years ago, 8GB 2 years ago, 16GB today. That simply hasn't happened, and according to AMD when Fury was released with "just 4GB" the amount of ram on graphics cards is currently more down to the need for bandwidth and the simple maths that if you buy enough mainstream ram chips to fill a 512 bit wide bus you get 4GB or 8GB of ram. Instead, it seems that money has been going into shaders and enough cache and other tech on the GPU die to reduce the need for a really wide ram bus.

So it has taken 6 years for 2GB to go from high end to mainstream. There are a few games now where 2GB is looking marginal (even World of Warcraft) so you want more than than. 4GB should be good for a few years, but as I said if you can I would aim high and just be done with the whole question!

My main worry with 3GB is human. What developer is going to tune their game for 3GB?

The official clockrates were 600MHZ for the 8800GT and 650MHZ for the 9600GT,so that does not make up for the fact it only had 64 stream processors and the 8800GT had 112. Look at where the HD3870 is too. Now,look at a review from BT of pre-overclocked 9600GT cards against the reference 8800GT 512MB:

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/gra...raphics_card/7

The 8800GT is always faster than the 9600GT and HD3870 in its 512MB version.

Performance tanked on the 256MB version as a result.

Also remember the GTX460 1GB against the GTX460 768MB and all the games will be targetting at least 4GB for higher settings,since its either 4GB,2GB or 1GB of VRAM for games. There are no fast 2GB cards out there.

No modern game targetting 2GB of VRAM nowadays will be targetting R9 290/GTX970 level performance - they will be targetting slower cards. There is a large userbase of GTX970/R9 290/R9 390 users who have cards with over 3GB of VRAM.

Plus using the Fury X is not a great example - AMD said they were optimising games specifically to make sure the 4GB limitation was reduced(for the Fury X),and it does have massive bandwidth too which might be useful for quickly swapping stuff in and out. None of these midrange cards have high bandwidth either. Yet,despite that it has hit problems too(certain games won't run well due to the VRAM limitations or situations with low limitations).

The other issue is AMD and Nvidia will want to shift their higher end cards - Nvidia has 8GB and 6GB top end cards,and AMD will probably have 8GB ones too in the next six months. So,I expect there will try and push VRAM usage too.

Even Deus Ex:Mankind Divided and ARK hit well over 3GB VRAM usage at 1080P on Ultra settings IIRC(could be wrong).

[DanceswithUnix]

Also remember the GTX460 1GB against the GTX460 768MB

As I said, I was a GTX 460 owner so I remember them well. Cracking cards, apart from the 768MB one which had a narrower bus, slower ram, fewer ROPs and less cache. It was a dog, and all for about £20 savings. I bought my 2GB one with absolutely no evidence that it was faster than the 1GB version, but it lasted half a decade so I was pretty happy with it.

Just stumbled upon something more up to date, Assassins Creed likes 4GB on an R9 380, but it doesn't matter on a GTX 960:



More interestingly, the 4GB 290 is faster than the 8GB 390 (clocks adjusted to be otherwise identical). My take home for that is that this game is probably tuned to be optimal with 4GB of ram at those settings at least on AMD, but not to the extent that it actually matters.

Now this is a really interesting one, as it uses a texture pack that requires 6GB of vram:



Looks pretty good at 4GB to me, and even 2GB looks playable.

In all, none of the games hit a wall at 2GB. If the settings are wound up enough to show a difference, then it is a slideshow regardless of how much vram you have. Back it off, and you are in the noise of measurement.

Have a read, it seems a well done article: http://www.techspot.com/review/1114-...mparison-test/

I still think that *if* you can afford it the small extra is worth paying for more ram, but it isn't worth getting worried over. I would choose a card with better cooling over one with more ram, that is more likely to make a performance and noise difference.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

As I said, I was a GTX 460 owner so I remember them well. Cracking cards, apart from the 768MB one which had a narrower bus, slower ram, fewer ROPs and less cache. It was a dog, and all for about £20 savings. I bought my 2GB one with absolutely no evidence that it was faster than the 1GB version, but it lasted half a decade so I was pretty happy with it.

Just stumbled upon something more up to date, Assassins Creed likes 4GB on an R9 380, but it doesn't matter on a GTX 960:



More interestingly, the 4GB 290 is faster than the 8GB 390 (clocks adjusted to be otherwise identical). My take home for that is that this game is probably tuned to be optimal with 4GB of ram at those settings at least on AMD, but not to the extent that it actually matters.

Now this is a really interesting one, as it uses a texture pack that requires 6GB of vram:



Looks pretty good at 4GB to me, and even 2GB looks playable.

In all, none of the games hit a wall at 2GB. If the settings are wound up enough to show a difference, then it is a slideshow regardless of how much vram you have. Back it off, and you are in the noise of measurement.

Have a read, it seems a well done article: http://www.techspot.com/review/1114-...mparison-test/

I still think that *if* you can afford it the small extra is worth paying for more ram, but it isn't worth getting worried over. I would choose a card with better cooling over one with more ram, that is more likely to make a performance and noise difference.

There is a 20% decrease in framerates going to the 2GB versions on the card,which is massive for a simple VRAM difference,and remember you need to look at frametimes too.

Look at the computerbase.de article which is 9 months old:

https://www.computerbase.de/2015-12/...etimemessungen





















Frametimes are worse for the 2GB versions in all cases and sometimes it is very much worse.

That is 9 months ago.

Deus Ex and ARK use well over 3GB of VRAM at 1080p once you turn up settings and those are two of the most taxing titles out there.

These are much slower cards too,so with a faster core and even more settings increased,its going to get worse and worse.

Anything under 4GB VRAM for a modern £200ish card is a pointless - I would not touch a 3GB card with a bargepole.

I don't see the 3GB version of the GTX1060 having the same user experience as the 6GB version(within 10%) in 1,2 and 3 years time.

I am not going to make a false promise to people since it is their money.

People need to be very worried about only having 3GB of VRAM on a £200 card.

Are you going to say sorry to somebody when that 3GB card hits a game which needs more VRAM and performance tanks?? Or their mate with the 6GB version,turns up more settings??

You need to be a bit more conservative in recommending cards - it only takes one major game for performance to tank and it makes a recommendation for the 3GB card look stupid.

It will collapse in performance once it hits VRAM limits,unless you keep turning down settings and it is disingenuous for anybody to recommend a £190 to £200 GTX1060 3GB now,when the 6GB version is no more than £30 to £40 more,which is barely 15% to 20% extra in price.

Over three years,that is just over £1 a month extra.

Edit!!

To show how pointless the GTX1060 3GB is and a poor purchase at £200:

https://tpucdn.com/reviews/Performan...ges/memory.png





The GTX1060 6GB,RX470 and RX480 4GB and 8GB can enable Ultra settings. Even High settings push past 2GB in certain places. None of the 2GB cards have enough performance anyway so its a moot point.

Now think in 1,2 and 3 years time.

VRAM usage peaks past 3GB on Ultra at 1080P - it means for one of the most taxing games today,you will need to turn down settings for the GTX1060 3GB on a £200 card. The 6GB version won't have that problem.

That £30 to £40 saving is pointless.

It also means somebody who buys a GTX1060 3GB will be limited if they upgrade their monitor to something a bit more higher resolution,as they will hit VRAM limitations quicker.

For a £200 card,the GTX1060 3GB is just a short term fix card to look good in reviews and a con at that.

It will be soon forgotten in all the test suites,and reviewers will only have the GTX1060 6GB in their test suites in another year,especially after what we saw with the 8800GT 256MB,GTX460 768MB,etc.

AMD nearly tried to do that with the RX480 4GB(more of a marketing ploy to show they had an uber awesome £200 card),but it is increasingly apparent it was more of a price-point ploy model to hit a specific price-point for a short period. This is why the RX470 4GB is so closely priced. I see the RX480 4GB being quietly phased out and I expect the 3GB GTX1060 will quietly disappear too.

I am all for saving money,but since graphics cards are the most expensive part in most people's rigs over time,it is very much the cheap fool pays twice(within reason),for tiny savings.

Its happened with all the VRAM limited versions of cards with decent cores - all rubbish purchases longterm just to win a few quick PR wins. People get excited at how good "value" they are,and AMD and Nvidia laugh even more when people ditch them quicker and spend more with them.

Every single person I know who got the VRAM limited "special edition" cards has regretted them - they only saw how quickly performance tanked compared to the normal versions.

£200 is not cheap - its nearly enthusiast level pricing. People buy those cards to turn settings up or to keep them for yonks. The 3GB GTX1060 is just a waste of money,and I don't want to have to apologise to people down the line by trying to fool them into thinking the 6GB version will not move ahead in performance.

Second Edit!!

I would rather have a worse cooler but at least 4GB VRAM on a card - I can always put another cooler on a card,if it is annoying to me. I can't solder on more VRAM chips if I run out of VRAM!!

Luckily,we don't need to choose between either with the current AMD and Nvidia cards around £200 to £250 if AIB models are considered!

[DanceswithUnix]

There is a 20% decrease in framerates going to the 2GB versions on the card,which is massive for a simple VRAM difference,and remember you need to look at frametimes too.

Firstly I have to point out that we are mostly in agreement here (I keep saying to buy the card with more ram if you can afford it), but I have to admit that the historic trend isn't showing any signs of being relevant. I don't like the idea of 3GB, but I can't back that bias up with hard numbers.

That 20% decrease is in a benchmark that the 2GB card is supposed to be utterly unable to run, compared to a card that is also supposed to be unable to run it. The 4GB vs 8GB cards where one is and one isn't supposed to be able to run it, there isn't any difference. That is specifically a 6GB vram texture set.

Now it is very difficult to use results from today to predict tomorrow, but historically the greatest push on vram has been textures required to make scenes look realistic. Testing with a bonkers texture pack is as good a predictor as I think you can get. So do any of the cards hit a horrible wall of texture swap and become unplayable? Well a minimum of 39fps doesn't seem that bad.

But as I said, my main worry about 3GB is that it is a corner case, and in PC components there is a definite safety in numbers. Games will get tuned for 4GB and 2GB for years to come, but who the heck is going to bother spending developer or QA time on 3GB cards? They will just assume that the 2GB tuning will work, and take the flak if it doesn't.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Firstly I have to point out that we are mostly in agreement here (I keep saying to buy the card with more ram if you can afford it), but I have to admit that the historic trend isn't showing any signs of being relevant. I don't like the idea of 3GB, but I can't back that bias up with hard numbers.

That 20% decrease is in a benchmark that the 2GB card is supposed to be utterly unable to run, from a card that is also supposed to be unable to run it. The 4GB vs 8GB cards where one is and one isn't supposed to be able to run it, there isn't any difference. That is specifically a 6GB vram texture set.

Now it is very difficult to use results from today to predict tomorrow, but historically the greatest push on vram has been textures required to make scenes look realistic. Testing with a bonkers texture pack is as good a predictor as I think you can get. So do any of the cards hit a horrible wall of texture swap and become unplayable? Well a minimum of 39fps doesn't seem that bad.

But as I said, my main worry about 3GB is that it is a corner case, and in PC components there is a definite safety in numbers. Games will get tuned for 4GB and 2GB for years to come, but who the heck is going to bother spending developer or QA time on 3GB cards? They will just assume that the 2GB tuning will work, and take the flak if it doesn't.

Sorry,but the historic trend is very relevant - look at the frametimes for the 2GB cards in some of those games - its a stuttery mess.

That is the definition of not being able to run. That is with the GTX960 and R9 380 which are not very fast cores. If games are running far better on a 4GB card,what do you think is happening there?? The performance cards have over 3GB of VRAM,so they are being optimised for them.

You do realise I had a GTX960 2GB for a short period right?? I returned it - my 4GB ones is noticeably better in some games. I noticed games going past 3GB of VRAM.

I would not touch a GTX1060 3GB with a bargepole - if people have such belief in it they should 100% guarantee it will be within 10% of the GTX1060 6GB for the next three years!! I tend to keep my cards for at least two to two and a half years if I can.

The problem is though,we are having more and more of those higher end cards shipping with 6GB to 8GB of VRAM and AMD and Nvidia pushing to make a case for them. See that over 1,2 and 3 years.

You need to consider AMD and Nvidia are quite happy to push these things to get people to upgrade too.

The historic precident is happening and people can't stick their head in the sand about it. 20% worse performance at least with massively inferior frametimes,games like Deus EX using like nearly 4GB VRAM at 1920X1080 and just about 3GB at lower settings. Then you have games like the latest Mirrors Edge on max settings going past 4GB(probably optimised for the GTX980TI framebuffer size) and the GTX970 tanks in comparison to the R9 390 (DF retested it).

That is now - wait until Vega is out and AMD has stopped optimising for 4GB cards(as they said they were doing) due to the Fury X. Anything under 3.5/4GB on a GTX970/GTX980 level core is really pushing it. Add the new consoles into the mix too. Think in 1,2 or 3 years time? You can't make marginal decisions with other people's money for the same for £30 to £40 on a £200 card. Its not worth it.

Its not a £160 card against a £230 card. £30 to £40 is nothing on a £200 card. Somebody spending £200 card can afford £230 since that is not a cheap card by my standards or even the fact JPR considers around £200 close to enthusiast class.

Anybody buying the GTX1060 3GB is really just fooling themselves,and I really can't play with £200 of somebody elses money to saw it will be "fine". I would love it to be fine - as I like spending less money on cards if I can,but in this case,nope.

Like I said it will look OKish now and then get worse and worse in games,and be quietly dropped from review sites,and be forgotten about. Look what happened the 8800GT 256MB. Noticed how so few reviews of the 9600GT had the 8800GT 256MB in them??

Edit!!

That is the other consideration too - people might also get a higher resolution monitor too at some point too ,since they are dropping in price,so that amplifies any lack of VRAM too. Even things like VSR and DSR(for less demanding games),etc and so on.

In 12 years I never went for VRAM limited special edition cards and its been the correct decision.

Remember,if AMD and Nvidia thought 3GB was enough,they would not be having 6GB and 8GB cards over £200. They would sell the GTX1060 and RX480 as 3GB and 4GB cards and say it was enough and make more money per card.

Second Edit!!

Other factors - plenty of games tested in reviews will be older ones from 2014 and 2015 and you can see the issues with VRAM limits in some of those. You are starting to see it in the more intensive 2016 games like Deus Ex.Then you have 2017,then 2018 and maybe 2019.

That is what the OP is trying to get a card to last for - into 2019.

If I bought one of those cards today,I would expect it to last at least until late 2018.

You are going to have a load of high end cards having 6GB to 8GB VRAM by then,a load of £200 to £300 cards with 6GB to 8GB of VRAM also by then. Quite a few 4GB cards already there and being sold under £200. Looking at Kepler virtually all the 192 bit memory controller cards were replaced by 256 bit and 128 bit ones,meaning most likely 4GB VRAM at least there. If HBM2 and HBM3 start taking off,odd VRAM amounts will probably not happen. If GDDR5X and GDDR6 start taking off,I can't see odd numbered memory buses appearing for a few years either.

With the new consoles having better GPUs ,I can see them pushing better textures too to differentiate them from the older ones too.

Plus do you think Nvidia would want to crash GTX1060 6GB sales,by making the 3GB version have no performance deficit??

They are only responding to the RX480 4GB and RX470 4GB. I expect them to push settings in their games which favours the 6GB version more and more.

Its pretty much what the 8800GT 256MB did,until it ended up being thrashed by the 9600GT in 4 months.

[DanceswithUnix]

You do realise I had a GTX960 2GB for a short period right?? I returned it - my 4GB ones is noticeably better in some games. I noticed games going past 3GB of VRAM.

That is interesting, I went from a 2GB 285 to a 4GB 380 and was really hoping it would help the occasional iffyness playing Elite, but apparently the game just does that. I really haven't noticed any difference even with twin monitors and 1440p, but then I don't play a big mix of games.

But from what you say, you noticed games going past 2GB not going past 3GB. You can ask how much vram is in use, but that will get you a game's total footprint not the working set that has to stay in vram. That is in the same way that I use a PC with 32GB of ram which usually reports a few hundred megs free even when idle, because it can always find something to cache in the hope it will be used again.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

That is interesting, I went from a 2GB 285 to a 4GB 380 and was really hoping it would help the occasional iffyness playing Elite, but apparently the game just does that. I really haven't noticed any difference even with twin monitors and 1440p, but then I don't play a big mix of games.

But from what you say, you noticed games going past 2GB not going past 3GB. You can ask how much vram is in use, but that will get you a game's total footprint not the working set that has to stay in vram. That is in the same way that I use a PC with 32GB of ram which usually reports a few hundred megs free even when idle, because it can always find something to cache in the hope it will be used again.

I said 3GB,and computerbase.de kind of confirmed what I saw with the GTX960!

My mate Bagnaj97 noticed it on his RX480 too.

The OP wants a card to last him two to three years,and in the end you are just confusing them!

The only real candidates are the GTX1060 6GB and RX480 8GB. Even the RX480 4GB is now too expensive,and my mate Bagnaj97 even went for the 8GB card,as he keeps his cards for a while.

Even looking at some of the GTX1060 3GB reviews leaking out,you can see it looks OKish until it hits a VRAM limit(then not so good),and the issue over three years its going to get worse(not better). This is why both the articles I saw said to get the 6GB version,which is the same thing what I have been saying.

Lets cut to the chase,will ANYONE make the following promise for a potential GTX1060 3GB owner:

" I promise a GTX1060 3GB will be within 10% of a GTX1060 6GB in 1,2 and 3 years in ALL titles".

This is what it all comes down too.

[Oldjim]

To finish up and looking at what is available in the UK at my usual sources - most are out of stock of the RX480 and the GTX 1060 (or they are way over priced) I found a Gigabyte 1060 6GB which is now ordered

[DanceswithUnix]

OK firstly I think I have been fairly clear that I don't like the 3GB 1060. It is cut down in shaders, it is an odd amount of memory. So hopefully I'm not confusing anyone.

I get the impression the OP has the money, if I were them I expect I would be too busy playing with my new 8GB RX 480 to be still reading this

I said before I couldn't put my finger on why the small 1060 makes me nervous, but I think I have it. Cards these days are improving really slowly, so 5 years is getting common place as the useful lifetime of a card. Regardless of what it looks like now, in 3 years time the second hand value of the 3GB card is likely to have tanked compared to the 6GB card.

" I promise a GTX1060 3GB will be within 10% of a GTX1060 6GB in 1,2 and 3 years in ALL titles".

This is what it all comes down too.

Not the best question for several reasons. If a 3GB 1060 is managing 9.5fps in some future title and the 6GB card is on a roaring 10fps, then the promise is met and yet the card is unusable. Of benchmarks I have seen so far, games that *need* lots of vram also require GTX 1080 levels of shader performance.

You could also ask "Will the 1060 3GB be no more than 10% slower than a 4GB RX 470". In a few titles the AMD card is already slower, but generally the 1060 is a faster card though so there is some performance to lose before on average it is slower than the RX 470. Now the way AMD seem to look after their older cards better there is a good chance of an eventual overtake, but my point here is that I see a lot of love for the 4GB 470 and a lot of hate for the 3GB 1060 in a world where Nvidia's better compression technology probably makes the two about the same.

If you are building a system, then it becomes "could you make better use of the cost difference between the cards".

OFC, perhaps my Freesync monitor is smoothing any glitch frames enough that in my case I don't really notice them.

I think for the OP's question the best value for money is the 8GB RX480. Given any vague excuse to hand-me-down the 380 and that is what I will get

Edit:

To finish up and looking at what is available in the UK at my usual sources - most are out of stock of the RX480 and the GTX 1060 (or they are way over priced) I found a Gigabyte 1060 6GB which is now ordered

I took too long typing my reply so our posts overlapped. Sounds like a nice result, happy gaming

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Not the best question for several reasons. If a 3GB 1060 is managing 9.5fps in some future title and the 6GB card is on a roaring 10fps, then the promise is met and yet the card is unusable. Of benchmarks I have seen so far, games that *need* lots of vram also require GTX 1080 levels of shader performance.

I worded it specifically for a reason - many of the people making the argument for the GTX1060 3GB are trying to make it sound it will run games with exactly the same settings fine for the next few years. I said 10% since that is the shader deficit - so people should put their money where their mouth is. This is why I said it.

That 10% also includes scenarios where the GTX1060 is producing playable framerates with VRAM heavy textures.

Plus arguments for "but! but! but! we can turn down settings" is all pointless - the GTX1060 6GB can do the same,and will last even longer.

The cards we spec need to have enough in the tank,ie,a bit extra. 3GB is not going to be enough in the tank and for £10 a year its really a false saving.

Your arguments of "need" are not really relevant- some games like Deus Ex,etc are VRAM heavy and very high texture mods don't need massive GPU power. I should know after modding some games with aftermarket packs which are not that well optimised for VRAM usage too.

Plus the GTX1060 3GB getting more flak than the RX470 4GB is not surprising.

Let me list it for you:
1.)Every Nvidia 60 series card since Kepler lasting less longer than the AMD ones
2.)Nvidia not delivering on DX12 async updates for Kepler and Maxwell cards and Vulkan updates seemingly someone delayed
3.)GTX970 RAMGATE issue which lead to Nvidia being sued and having to pay $30 to customers in the US.


So at this point,AMD probably has some goodwill due to that,although the RX470 4GB itself is overpriced so all a moot point.

Plus AMD failing miserably on the reference cooler also has not helped,otherwise that £170 RX470 4GB(modified version of it),might have looked OK. The problem is that any available cards are really £190 to £200. So you end up with a card with a slower core than the GTX1060 3GB but with more VRAM,or get a VRAM gimped card with a faster core and unknown longevity when it comes to DX12/Vulkan.

To finish up and looking at what is available in the UK at my usual sources - most are out of stock of the RX480 and the GTX 1060 (or they are way over priced) I found a Gigabyte 1060 6GB which is now ordered

Good thing you avoided the 3GB version - at least you are set now.

Having said OcUK has a few AIB RX480 8GB cards in stock:

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/xfx-r...gx-23i-xf.html
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/xfx-r...gx-23b-xf.html
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/sapph...gx-37b-sp.html
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/power...gx-188-pc.html

[Oldjim]

They have - BUT - either more expensive for what I want or a manufacturer I wouldn't touch with a bargepole because of their very poor RMA system http://forums.hexus.net/graphics-car...ally-look.html
The thing is that the cheaper ones are all with relatively poor cooling (only one fan) and the cheapest one with two fans is XFX (Yuck)
I actually bought a Gigabyte for £243
One reason for going Nvidia (probably not a good reason) is that I can just slot it in without messing with the drivers and change back if there are problems

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

They have - BUT - either more expensive for what I want or a manufacturer I wouldn't touch with a bargepole because of their very poor RMA system http://forums.hexus.net/graphics-car...ally-look.html
The thing is that the cheaper ones are all with relatively poor cooling (only one fan) and the cheapest one with two fans is XFX (Yuck)
I actually bought a Gigabyte for £243
One reason for going Nvidia (probably not a good reason) is that I can just slot it in without messing with the drivers and change back if there are problems

It misses some info - for example for some of the card companies listed they work directly through OcUK,so had no issues(different arrangements). It also does not list retailers which do direct replacements or partial refunds,since many companies within the initial one to two years will ask you to return the cards to the retailer. I had a KFA2 card I had to RMA and it went back to OcUK who refunded me after they tested it and found it was faulty.

Also,different companies have different arrangements. For example with Zotac:

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/sh...postcount=1207

Asus:

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/sh...php?t=18716242

There was noise of them doing something similar with XFX and Powercolor a few years ago IIRC.

OcUK are a bit different - they are part of Caseking.de which are a very large European parts retailers so appear to have extra leverage. Failing that Amazon tend to be generally OK too.

[Oldjim]

These are Overclockers standard RMA terms https://www.overclockers.co.uk/support-details and experience with XFX as reported in the Scan Forums is absolutely dire
Of course it may have improved as this was a while ago
Just to add - I have never used Overclockers (they used to have a really bad reputation which is no longer the case) but for major items, where economic (not too much more expensive) I use Amazon because of their really good return procedure
Example my monitor where I returned it due to a stuck pixel and almost any other supplier would have rejected it
While messing about I did a quick search and found this http://forums.hexus.net/pc-hardware-...-improved.html so they will definitely be on my list in future

[DanceswithUnix]

I worded it specifically for a reason - many of the people making the argument for the GTX1060 3GB are trying to make it sound it will run games with exactly the same settings fine for the next few years. I said 10% since that is the shader deficit - so people should put their money where their mouth is. This is why I said it.

Yeah I did see what you did there, but most games are not impacted fully by the shader count drop so I guess the bottleneck is usually somewhere else, probably the narrow 192bit RAM.

I was amused by the review at http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/di...-vs-6gb-review where Hitman is noted as having an entire 10% drop which, despite corresponding nicely to the shader deficit is blamed on the 3GB ram.

Now that is an interesting 10% drop, as it spans the for many people magic 60Hz barrier. Perhaps that means for people with 60Hz monitors one card would be wonderfully smooth and the other is a 30Hz Vsync mess. Dunno, with 144Hz monitor even with Freesync not available a frame every 6.9ms makes these things fairly smooth for me. I wouldn't really want to get bogged down in that as an argument though, partly as lots of cheap 75Hz monitors seem to exist these days which on both cards would get a 37.5fps with poorly implemented Vsync on so you lose in both cases, or you could argue that Nvidia should man up and implement Freesync.

If a game had proper triple buffering support then 59fps vs 65fps should be utterly playable on both systems, despite the 10.1% difference. As I said, it is the wrong question because it doesn't target either fitness for purpose (it is relative to a card that may be unusable) or value for money (is it better than a 4GB AMD card).