Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060 3GB equipped with fewer CUDA cores

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Just looking at HUKD,its apparent many have not realised the card has less shaders and are using GTX1060 6GB comparisons to the RX470 4GB to say that is how the GTX1060 3GB will perform.

I predict what will happen:
1.)Reviews will show its brilliant(some might also try and avoid titles and settings which are too VRAM heavy)
2.)Give it 10/10
3.)Will then forget about it in a few months

We saw the same with the 8800GT 256MB,and 8800GTS 320MB - reviews were all positive and then you started to see the issues when the cards hit VRAM limits quicker and it was quietly pushed under the carpet.

What is worrying is that OcUK and others have this at £190 to £200 and above. This is not a cheap card and the issue is that Steam has quite a few cards like the GTX970 with 4GB of VRAM,so games will no doubt push over 3GB for better settings as time progresses.

We have two new consoles with more graphical grunt coming out soon,so I expect cross-platform titles will also start to push better graphics. So I am not sure whether a 3GB card is that good a deal now.

Edit!!

I wish they had even done something like they did with the GTX660 - have another 1GB of RAM addressed at a lower speed(not to the slowness of the GTX970 OFC which made it pointless).

[DanceswithUnix]

All about price isn't it. If this was up against a 2GB RX 460 then it would be another story, but a 3GB card hard on the pricing heels of an 8GB 480 is just insane.

But fundamentally, 3GB isn't a rubbish amount of VRAM so I don't see problems that turning the graphics details down one notch won't cure.

Back when Nvidia launched the GTX460 768MB model, that was like launching a 1.5GB card would be now. Wonder how many owners ended up regretting that purchase, though at least that was quite cheap.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

All about price isn't it. If this was up against a 2GB RX 460 then it would be another story, but a 3GB card hard on the pricing heels of an 8GB 480 is just insane.

But fundamentally, 3GB isn't a rubbish amount of VRAM so I don't see problems that turning the graphics details down one notch won't cure.

Back when Nvidia launched the GTX460 768MB model, that was like launching a 1.5GB card would be now. Wonder how many owners ended up regretting that purchase, though at least that was quite cheap.

Yeah,but a £200 card to turn down some settings as time progresses?? Its one thing comparing a £100 card to a £150 one,but if you really want a GTX1060 you can get the GTX1060 6GB with more cores and more VRAM for like £230.

PS:

Forgot about the GTX460 768MB.

[DanceswithUnix]

Pfft, turning down settings over time is traditionally what you have to do. I don't think people will bat an eyelid. I re-activated my old WoW account to play with the pre expansion event, and with the new game patch had to turn things *way* down on my 4GB R9 380 from maximum to about 60% (not enough grunt, benchmarks show 2GB is usable but on the edge so they are clearly squeezing the game into 2GB cards).

The Steam survey lists 35% or users with ~1GB VRAM, 25% with 2GB of VRAM and 11% of users with 4GB. If you have 3GB of VRAM, then today you are in the top 15%. Who in their right mind would aim a product at 15% of the market other that luxury goods like Ferrari.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Pfft, turning down settings over time is traditionally what you have to do. I don't think people will bat an eyelid. I re-activated my old WoW account to play with the pre expansion event, and with the new game patch had to turn things *way* down on my 4GB R9 380 from maximum to about 60% (not enough grunt, benchmarks show 2GB is usable but on the edge so they are clearly squeezing the game into 2GB cards).

The Steam survey lists 35% or users with ~1GB VRAM, 25% with 2GB of VRAM and 11% of users with 4GB. If you have 3GB of VRAM, then today you are in the top 15%. Who in their right mind would aim a product at 15% of the market other that luxury goods like Ferrari.

But on a £200 card?? That is an enthusiast level card. That is from the mouth of JPR. What cards do you think have that 4GB of VRAM...??

I monitor VRAM usage and more games are breaking 3GB now - that is the problem,most of those 4GB cards are probably the GTX970,so if that is the case,why should devs target 3GB for higher settings now??? Even your own numbers indicate that and contradict what you are saying- it will be 2GB or 4GB of VRAM. That means for better settings it will be above 3GB since most of the performance cards will have at least 4GB of VRAM.

Plus you also seem to have not realised,most of the people running the 1GB cards are more likely to be playing DOTA2,TF2,etc which have huge numbers of players on Steam. They hardly need much graphical grunt.

You need to ask yourself a question,what sort of games need the grunt of a GTX970 onwards cards??

Those cards with 2GB and 1GB VRAM will be much slower cards.

The RX470,RX480 have 4GB at least and the GTX1060 has 6GB and so on,so that is going to grow in number.

People can live in denial like that,especially when they said 256MB VRAM was fine,320MB VRAM was fine and 768MB VRAM was fine. It really is funny how people can forget the last 12 years of graphics card and still make the same mistakes again and again.

Remember the 8800GTS 320MB,8800GT 256MB and GTX460 768MB?? I told people to avoid all of them and spend a bit more extra and those that did not listen regretted it. People might have disagreed with me then,but we saw where that went

Hardware enthusiasts on forums need to realise someone buying a £200 to £250 card will be probably wanting to keep that card for two to three years.

You are spending other people's money,so don't honestly try to push short term cards just for what?? £30 to £40??

Remember,people poo-pooed me about the HD7950/HD7970 and their derivatives against the GTX660TI,GTX760,GTX670,GTX680,GTX770. Have you not noticed how well the AMD cards have aged??

People will say its fine like then with all those cards and will run away when it is apparently the VRAM limits are gimping them - sorry to say this people are not that fine when they spend £200 to £250 on a card and find it starts to deteriorate so quickly.

I should know by now after having to help so many people with builds - enthusiasts need to think a bit longer term on expensive hardware.

This is a £200 card with a fast core and JPR says £200 cards are enthusiast level - people who spend so much money want to turn settings up.

Pfft,if you don't want decent settings why would you spend £200 on a card?? I never spent more than £150 on a card myself.

You might as well buy a cheap R9 380 or GTX960 for £130 then?? Or a console.

From my experience of people spending £200 to £300 on cards,they are graphics whores. The others don't care about graphics so a GTX1060 is not really a card for them,since a GTX960 or R9 380 with settings turned down would be good enough.

Many of those people I know either have older cards or something like a GTX750TI since they could not a give a damn about Ultra settings or massive framerates or even running the game at the monitor resolution.

If you are buying a £200 card for less upgrades,the 3GB card does not make much sense over three years when a GTX1060 6GB is £230.

This middle ground of people wanting a fast card but with having to turn settings down is not one I have personally met.

People also forget,we have two new consoles coming out soon,VRAM usage is probably going to start going up IMHO.

[scaryjim]

... I monitor VRAM usage and more games are breaking 3GB now ...

Games using > 3GB when it's available isn't the same as games needing > 3GB to run smoothly - any reasonably programmed game should be using all of the VRAM that's available to cache textures etc. My Win 10 laptop at home frequently uses over 4GB of its physical RAM, but my 2GB tablet runs Windows 10 very smoothly.

Not that I think 3GB won't become an issue eventually you understand; but as kalniel says you can always turn settings down, and with DCC etc I suspect it will be a bit of a non-issue (like the R9 285 "only" having 2GB of RAM).

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Games using > 3GB when it's available isn't the same as games needing > 3GB to run smoothly - any reasonably programmed game should be using all of the VRAM that's available to cache textures etc. My Win 10 laptop at home frequently uses over 4GB of its physical RAM, but my 2GB tablet runs Windows 10 very smoothly.

Not that I think 3GB won't become an issue eventually you understand; but as kalniel says you can always turn settings down, and with DCC etc I suspect it will be a bit of a non-issue (like the R9 285 "only" having 2GB of RAM).

Which again is not the point - some of the games generally show worse minimums and more stuttering as you hit VRAM limits.

But this is not a £150 card. Its a £200 one - JPR says £200 and above is enthusiast level.

Look at even the Steam figures(which are not the ultimate source of accuracy but we will still use them),what do you think all those 4GB cards are?? GTX970 and GTX980 cards.

If devs are pushing higher settings on games,they will be targetting at least GTX970 level performance and over 3GB of VRAM. Those 2GB cards are all much less powerful and hence will be targetting a lower performance level,so they are not going to be worried about a GTX970.

Literally everybody who I have helped with builds on forums and in real life who spend £200 to £300 on cards are graphics whores or want to have a long lived card. 3GB won't be making this card long-lived. The 8800GTS 320MB,8800GT 256MB,GTX460 768MB and even the HD4870 512MB want to say hi to you. Looked brilliant at launch and not so hot as time progressed. Everytime people said the VRAM was enough and when the fears were confirmed,it was all silence until the next one.

So at this point,I am not sure why some of you seem OK with this card - it has a fast core but with less VRAM than the GTX970 which is the probably the most common enthusiast card out there.

So basically this make belief gamer which exist on hardware forums who wants to spend £200 at least on a card,yet can't afford £30 to £40 more for the superior GTX1060,who wants to run games at lower settings,but wants a fast card.

Yet ALL the gamers I know who don't care about settings,would probably have no interest in a £200 card,since they are probably rocking a GTX750TI,something old or something under £150 or less and the rest who are quite happy spending like £200 to £300 anyway if they want to upgrade every three years or longer,ie,longevity hardware purchases.

I am sorry in the real world I am yet to meet this gamer,after helping out a few 100 people. You learn new things everyday I suppose!

My main worry is if this card is sold as literally being the equal(almost) of a GTX1060 6GB with a similar lifespan and people think they are saving some money getting it whilst spending more in the longterm.

This is why I said I would not have minded if they did something similar like with the GTX660 I had - the last 512MB of VRAM was addressed much more slowly but it was very much faster than system RAM,so it was a compromise but still it was better than NOT having it.

[DanceswithUnix]

I am utterly aware of how RAM has scaled over time. My GTX460 was a 2GB model, and that was more than I needed for the 5 years I was running that card. The difference there is that the 768MB model was released when 1GB was mainstream so was clearly going to be inadequate very quickly. Wanting longevity I went for twice the mainstream VRAM, and it lasted very nicely indeed. Worth the bump in price at the time from £140 to £180.

This is a 3GB card when 2GB is mainstream. That isn't as comfortable as 4GB when 2GB is mainstream, but it if it wasn't for the all important price (hence my opening sentence) I wouldn't see any fundamental problem with 3GB. On a £100 card I think 3GB would be super right now.

You need to ask yourself a question,what sort of games need the grunt of a GTX970 onwards cards??

None. Nada. Ziltch.

It is a nice to have, but I have yet to find a game that *needs* it unless you are the most special of snowflakes that demands super ultra duper settings, probably the same people that buy 192KHz audio DACs and directional ethernet cables

Edit to add: I wonder if this is intended as an OEM card, bundled in pre-built PCs. Aftermarket cards often sell on amount of VRAM above all else, OEM PCs sell on tick box lists and bundled software so less VRAM is easily glossed over. Again, if the card had 1.5GB of vram that would be less than mainstream and an immediate issue, but 3GB in a cheapish PC would be liveable with.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I am utterly aware of how RAM has scaled over time. My GTX460 was a 2GB model, and that was more than I needed for the 5 years I was running that card. The difference there is that the 768MB model was released when 1GB was mainstream so was clearly going to be inadequate very quickly. Wanting longevity I went for twice the mainstream VRAM, and it lasted very nicely indeed. Worth the bump in price at the time from £140 to £180.

This is a 3GB card when 2GB is mainstream. That isn't as comfortable as 4GB when 2GB is mainstream, but it if it wasn't for the all important price (hence my opening sentence) I wouldn't see any fundamental problem with 3GB. On a £100 I think 3GB would be super right now.



None. Nada. Ziltch.

It is a nice to have, but I have yet to find a game that *needs* it unless you are the most special of snowflakes that demands super ultra duper settings, probably the same people that buy 192KHz audio DACs and directional ethernet cables

But that is the problem again - if games don't need a GTX970 then there is no reason for a GTX1060 3GB when you can get a cheaper card which will do the same job!

If you are that gamer who wants a card which runs games at higher settings and resolution,then the GTX1060 3GB is pointless since you are more likely to buy a £200 to £300 card anyway.

That is what like 10 years of helping people out with builds has shown me. If you don't care about settings you are more unlikely to spend £200 on a card.

The other issue again is the GTX970 - it most likely is that 4GB card in Steam. So any dev targetting GTX970 levels of performance for a game at higher settings is also targetting a GPU with over 3GB of VRAM.

There are no mainstream cards with 2GB of VRAM and GTX970 level performance,so if a dev is targetting 2GB of VRAM why would you need a GTX970 let alone a GTX1060 3GB? They would be targetting a lower performance card anyway.

Looking back at the last 10 years of people I helped with card purchases,they tend to be one of the following:

1.)Hardware enthusiast

Changes cards more often than their underwear

2.)Graphics whore

Spends at least £200 to £300 on cards

3.)Longevity purchaser

Spends at least £200 to £300 on cards

4.)Somebody who could not really care about graphics and just wants to run games

Well under £200

That is a summation of what I have seen on forums,mates,LANs and helping out with builds in real life.

So,still not seeing this massive justification for the GTX1060 3GB.

So a massively overpowered "mainstream" enthusiast card for £200 with less VRAM than the GTX970 which most devs will be targetting for higher graphics settings and yet massively overpowered for the gamer who does not care about settings,who could get a perfectly fine £100 to £130 card??

Wait,wut??

Edit!!

Also,some of you might want to run ARK and see how even on medium it kills cards!

[kalniel]

The other issue again is the GTX970 - it most likely is that 4GB card in Steam. So any dev targetting GTX970 levels of performance for a game at higher settings is also targetting a GPU with over 3GB of VRAM.

Well, they're targeting the 970's 3.5GB, which maybe close enough to Pascal's 3GB with its better compression tech.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Well, they're targeting the 970's 3.5GB, which maybe close enough to Pascal's 3GB with its better compression tech.

The compression tech is bandwidth orientated AFAIK,so I doubt it,plus Nvidia would have quite happily sold the full GTX1060 as a 3GB card otherwise.

I think this card was not actually meant to be a GTX1060 per se - probably more a GTX1050TI ,but Nvidia spotted a chance,with the RX480 probably not quite getting there in performance.

It was the same with the 8800GT 256MB when they had no 9600GT. It was fighting the HD3870 512MB but IIRC,the former actually started to pull ahead as time progressed,which the 8800GT 512MB didn't suffer.

256MB was also considered "mainstream" too,but we saw how that worked out....

Edit!!

This is the issue too - this is still around £200 which puts it way too close to the GTX1060 6GB with more shaders and more VRAM and even some of the cheaper RX480 8GB cards too. It was one of the criticisms of the RX470 and to some degree the RX480 4GB too.

If it were like £150 to £160 it would be one thing,but at £200ish there are question marks over its longetivity IMHO.

[shaithis]

VRAM requirements moves in slow steps.....and we had the last step when XB1/PS4 released.

Unless the Neo/Scorpio has additional RAM to allow larger textures, I think we will be using the same amount of VRAM for a while yet.

And dropping to one of the new AA forms or dropping down to a less-ridiculously-sized-texture pack also alleviates the issue, allowing you to eek a card out 4-5 years+ before the VRAM becomes a real issue. Lets face it, if your really a "graphics whore" your not going to wait 4-5 years to replace your GPU.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

VRAM requirements moves in slow steps.....and we had the last step when XB1/PS4 released.

Unless the Neo/Scorpio has additional RAM to allow larger textures, I think we will be using the same amount of VRAM for a while yet.

And dropping to one of the new AA forms or dropping down to a less-ridiculously-sized-texture pack also alleviates the issue, allowing you to eek a card out 4-5 years+ before the VRAM becomes a real issue. Lets face it, if your really a "graphics whore" your not going to wait 4-5 years to replace your GPU.

Yet people like you said the same of the 8800GT 256MB,8800GTS 320MB,GTX460 768MB and yet the silence which followed after that was telling.

I remember the last time when I said the HD6950 2GB would probably hit limits less quickly than the GTX560TI 1GB,when a few of you jumped on me then - oh the hilarity of how that worked out. LMAO.

Its always the same when this situation happens,and the people justifying performance cards with low VRAM amounts,will fight to justify the low VRAM and then a year or so down the road,then become suddenly all quiet.

That is the last 12 years of what I have seen on tech forums.

It is so predictable I could see where this thread would go even before reading the first reply.

But it is funny when graphics cards enthusiasts keep ignoring things.

1.)Hardware enthusiast

Changes cards more often than their underwear

2.)Graphics whore

Spends at least £200 to £300 on cards

3.)Longevity purchaser

Spends at least £200 to £300 on cards

4.)Somebody who could not really care about graphics and just wants to run games

Well under £200

I am repeating it again since you made sure what I said was confused by you on purpose.

Yet,hilarious you are so desperate to recommend this card,you ignore the fact the people who are graphics whores will put up settings,so why would they want a GTX1060 3GB,so they can start putting down settings??

Yet,the person who wants to keep their card for years,why would they want a GTX1060 3GB?? So for £30 maybe £40 less they would buy a card with low VRAM amounts?? You mean that £10 a year they save so they can run more and more games at worse settings or have to buy an upgrade quicker. The GTX1060 6GB also has more shaders too.

Oh its people who want speed but want to turn down settings?? This seems to be this magical new type of gamer invented on hardware forums.

Funny,all the gamers I know who don't care about graphics buy a cheap card like a GTX750TI,etc or the ones who CBA upgrading just spend £200 to £300 on cards anyway.

All those 100s of people I have helped and yet I never seen this new type of gamer?? The person who wants to spend £200 on a card to drop settings as quickly as possible since they don't care about graphics but wants a fast card. Or they could just drop settings on their current card or buy a new £100 one??

Why not a console then??

Funny coming from a person who has a £400+ card as their main one!

Don't worry everybody on forums and review sites would have forgotten about the GTX1060 3GB next year when Nvidia refreshes their range,and it will be quietly buried under the carpet like the 8800GT 256MB and similar cards were,which were considered +100 awesome at launch until they weren't.

Its going to great looking back at this in another year or two!!

[shaithis]

Suddenly quiet?

You mean, "had nothing to say because there wasn't a problem"?

I'm sorry people don't fit into your neat little boxes but thats life!

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Suddenly quiet?

You mean, "had nothing to say because there wasn't a problem"?

I'm sorry people don't fit into your neat little boxes but thats life!

No its suddently quiet when all the excuse making the VRAM was fine wasn't,and more and more evidence indicated the cards were starting to suffer the lack of VRAM. This is because a lot of the enthusiasts making the big low VRAM sells,only care for winning the argument and that point and could care less how they spend somebody elses money since why do they care what happens in another year or so. Yet they also contradict themselves when they themselves purchase cards with larger VRAM amounts! But,but,there is no problem,right??

It was like when some of you jumped on me about the 1GHZ GTX560TI cards (against the HD6950 2GB cards),since "core speed" was important,and how all the cards would do 1GHZ(or something silly) and lo and behold the cards were hardly available and were actually withdrawn. Did a single one of you here say anything after that?? NAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Exactly the same with the 8800GT 256MB and so on. Yet I never saw any of the people fighting for that card actually buying it!

Its funny when its the same arguments made over the last decade. It is so predictable since we have been here before.

If you are so desperate to prove 3GB is enough - sell your both your current cards and use a GTX1060 3GB for the next two to three years in both your rigs then!

In fact how about a GTX960 2GB then?? OcUK sell them for £130.

Like I said a year or so down the line,its going to be fun!

But by then it will be the RX580 or GTX2060 or Volta and it will be all forgotten,apparently like async compute for my card,that was promised by many on forums last year - its coming!!

[watercooled]

For me it's just a little concerning that they're selling a slightly different card under the same name. The cut isn't massive but it's actually a bit bigger than e.g. 290 vs 290X; this '1060' has 90% of the proper 1060's shader count, the 290 has 90.9% of the 290X's shaders. I wonder what clock speeds will be like?

It just seems a bit sly/misleading to be selling two clearly different cards under the same name - people who don't follow the market closely will likely assume a 1060 is a 1060, look at 1060 6GB reviews and buy based on that, even though the card they assume they're getting a bargain is on is actually not the same GPU.