Nvidia takes wraps off GeForce GTX 1060 graphics card

[zsde]

You've already made this point once - identically - and Tarinder gave you an in-depth answer into his thinking. Not sure what you think you gain by repeating yourself?

Yeah,not sure what is going on there LOL.

Wasn't the intention. Never got a positive response from the Post button. It just seemed to time out. Thus I tried again. That may have caused the duplicate. My apologies.

[Nifl]

No SLI support? Guess this is Nvidia saying "no you won't easily upgrade, give us all your money instead!"
Meanwhile AMD and even M$ are trying to push multi-GPU support.

[Cr@ig]

http://semiaccurate.com/2016/07/06/n...d-gt1060-real/

[watercooled]

Seems like Nvidia are feeling threatened if they feel the need to do a paper launch well over a month in advance of the proposed launch date. As others have said though, Nvidia's own chart (with scales butchered as usual) shows ~15% over 480 performance... for half again on the price! If the 1070/1080 are anything to judge by, we can safely ignore the non-founders RRP for at least a few months.

http://semiaccurate.com/2016/07/06/n...d-gt1060-real/

I was just about to link that myself - what we're seeing today and the sense of things being very rushed do fit with what Charlie said. Perhaps that explains the memory IC blanks on the PCB too?

[dannyboy75]

I had been hoping the 1070 might be comparably priced to the 970 but since it's way over 300 quid I can't justify it now (I only play Elite, GTA V and Witcher 3 on 1440p but my GTX760 is struggling - not worried about GSync or framerates above 60 or any of that jazz). This 1060 might be just the ticket although bad time for the £ to nosedive against the $.

Those are the exact same 3 games as I'm currently playing (though just finished Witcher 3), and at the same resolution. I'm running an MSI GTX970 and it copes fine with those games. Admittedly I don't dial in loads of AA as I don't consider it necessary at 1440p, but my frame rates are pretty good. So, purely going by the GFLOPS figures in the article, I'd imagine the 1060 would cope just fine too.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

It looks like the PCI-E extension cable is soldiered into the PCB.

[watercooled]

That really is curious! Like someone else suggested, maybe they were planning on a bus-powered card but the 480 forced them to up clocks a bit, else they'd have to sell at below $199 (and most sane people would tell them to shove a +$50 founders card too I imagine). As we've seen before, some 900 series cards vastly exceeded the PCIe bus power spec and I don't recall any mass complaining, but now the media have jumped on it, Nvidia likely have to play it safe.

[kalniel]

I was just about to link that myself - what we're seeing today and the sense of things being very rushed do fit with what Charlie said. Perhaps that explains the memory IC blanks on the PCB too?

I could be wrong, but doesn't the chip shape show quite clearly that it's not a GP104 like Charlie is suggesting? Also 12 days isn't exactly a month!

[Cr@ig]

Exactly what i see, its a calculating effort by Nvidia, but this time i feel there is a lot more of us out there that see the truth for what it is rather blind affiliation.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I could be wrong, but doesn't the chip shape show quite clearly that it's not a GP104 like Charlie is suggesting? Also 12 days isn't exactly a month!

Unless early cards use a cut down GP104 instead of a GP106?? Nvidia did this with the GTX660 - there was both a GK104 and GK106 version.

[kalniel]

Unless early cards use a cut down GP104 instead of a GP106?? Nvidia did this with the GTX660 - there was both a GK104 and GK106 version.

I think I see what you're saying - press get GP106 cards (as pictured), early buyers however get GP104 until enough GP106 are made? Wonder which is preferable?

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I think I see what you're saying - press get GP106 cards (as pictured), early buyers however get GP104 until enough GP106 are made? Wonder which is preferable?

The GK104 based GTX660 was actually worse than the GK106 based ones:

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/geforc...-32523-16.html

I think the main reason was because the GK104 ones had lower clockspeeds overall. The specs were technically better though.

[kalniel]

The GK104 based GTX660 was actually worse than the GK106 based ones:

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/geforc...-32523-16.html

I think the main reason was because the GK104 ones had lower clockspeeds overall.

I guess it'll be easy to check, given they've published the clockspeeds we can expect.

[Corky34]

It looks like the PCI-E extension cable is soldiered into the PCB.

Indeed, so what's the connectors for, is one the fan and the other lighting?

[kalniel]

Indeed, so what's the connectors for, is one the fan and the other lighting?

Think you're spot on.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I guess it'll be easy to check, given they've published the clockspeeds we can expect.

It depends - it seems all the AIB GTX1060 cards leaked have 8 pin PCI-E power connectors. It could be that CD got confused OFC.

Indeed, so what's the connectors for, is one the fan and the other lighting?

Probably.