cant see the 1060 being under £300
cant see the 1060 being under £300
It is hilarious to see the scale of the graph = my first thought was "WTF how 1060 can be faster than 1080, as it is up to 3x faster than RX480".
Then i sow the scale...
So nVidia claim it to be ~11% faster than RX480, lets see the tests.
I am a litle dissapoited by performance of Nvidia and Amd cards, I wanted to find replacement for my old 670GTX but i still thinking if it is worth the money.
That chart needs another couple of bars showing the bang for buck. Green bar @ 1 and red bar @ 1.8
I'd stretch the red bar out a yard or more beyond where the x axis ends and write 1.8 on the end. Second thoughts I'm going to curve it upwards exponentially as well so it shoot up vertically way higher than the green bars.
Pleiades (07-07-2016)
Why not just start the scale at 1.0 (or 100%). Then nVidia could drop the red bars completely. Much tidier. Another upside is that you can save on the red ink for your printer. A boon for the environment (which is green). Win-win for everyone!
Pleiades (07-07-2016)
@Corky
@DanceWithUnix
My point was that at the same freq, RX 480 is faster card. GTX 1060 will not sell for the same money as RX 480, it will sell for more, so it is normal that it is faster. If both cards were shipped with same frequency, RX 480 would be faster.
I know that it was water cooled, but air cooling and later batches of silicon will be better, so 1.5Ghz is not that far off.
I am waiting September to buy a card, once all this small things have been resolved and once we have real choice and valid bench results. Better card will get my money be it AMD or nVidia.
The more you live, less you die. More you play, more you die. Isn't it great.
That's a pretty good performance point for the 1060.
Almost exactly the same as I got benchmarking my two slightly clocked 770s yesterday (11293) - and they let you smoothly use 1440 on near-max settings.
Unfortunately they did sound like I had Chinook in the room. 1070 got 15034, so everything nicely maxed out.
Cards do nicely align to resolutions, though.
1060 - Perfect 1080, Excellent 1440
1070 - Perfect 1440, Excellent 4K
1080 - Excellent 4k
@darcotech, so what your saying is that the RX 480's IPC is higher than the 1060, not that I've bothered looking at what the IPC is for Pascal/Polaris (is IPC much use for GPU's (idk)), maybe we need to use a new term, something like FPPC (Firestrike points per clock).
@Corky FPPC ...hahaha..good one.
Yes , it seems that its "IPC" is better than the one from 1060.
But we should see that in the couple of days when 1060 gets to reviewers hands.
The more you live, less you die. More you play, more you die. Isn't it great.
IPC doesn't, since it doesn't reflect the speed a GPU is running. Compute, which is basically Instructions per Cycle*Cycles per Second, or Instructions per second, or slightly more relevantly FLoating Operations per Second (FLOPs), partially does at the heart of things, but doesn't account for all the tricks a GPU may be doing to either reduce the number of instructions needed to carry out a task, or reducing other bottlenecks that allow all the data to be in the right place for those operations to be carried out.
So compute is equivalent to raw horsepower of a car perhaps, but that doesn't tell you 100% how fast it will be around a track since another car may do more with less power, or you might not be able to put down your full power at a given point.
Pleiades (07-07-2016)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)