$199 Nvidia 1060 3GB launched today RIP AMD

File: Screenshot at 2016-08-18 13-11-00.png (150KB, 1045x572px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 1045x572px

It's available too.

File: 1470852255102.png (860KB, 841x720px) Image search: [Google]

860KB, 841x720px

>3gb
>2016

File: BrVNeMb.png (2MB, 2048x1110px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2048x1110px

>>56145147
WOW

>3gb
KEK

K E K

>>56145313
im fine with this

AYYYYMDEAD

>Rerelease GTX 970 as a 1060
>Give it even less VRAM

Why do Nvidiots buy this shit again?

>>56145151
At least it's better than the rx460 that only has 2 gb

>>56145343
cool, its cheaper than the 970

>>56145343
8 gb? Who wants 4 gb? You don't really need 3.5 gb, do you?

>>56145151

the fury has 4gb and retards still buy that

>>56145343
Fucking this

>>56145120
more like 2.5GB

File: 1471441727797.png (588KB, 1440x810px) Image search: [Google]

588KB, 1440x810px

>3GB
>gimped gpu

>>56145120
>less CUDAs cores
>less vRAM.
>literally 1050 with another name.

They're mentally challanged.

>>56145390
You might need 4GB in a few years if the console remasters catch on and games are made for those specs. Youd also need it for meme resolutions, but if you could afford that youd buy a different card.
The only VRAM hungry games I can think of are GTAV and modded TES/Fallout

>>56145502
and yet it will sell like hotcakes

>>56145519
Maybe in the US.

Its actually a gimped 1060 yet Nvidia kept the same name
Literally the worst Jews known to tech

>>56145575
They're the fucking worst. Gooks know nothing about decency and ethics.

Fuck this company, seriously.

>>56145646
>>56145343
>>56145575

>Supporting a terrorist company

kys

I guess I see how many people have fallen for the MORE VRAM meme AMD has pushed. Mid range cards will never be able to saturate their VRAM before the GPU itself hits a performance wall. The 1060 is more or less a GTX 980. Even the 980 hits a performance wall in most cases where that VRAM is saturated. In recent times the only time I've hit a VRAM limit is in Rise of the Tomb Raider, which caused me to move very high textures to high, as it caused studders from the VRAM being full.
t. SLI 980 owner

The 3 GB 1060 is a 470 competitor.

I certainly advocate for giving more to consumers, but Nvidia understands the limit of their cards and knows superfluous VRAM is just flashy for marketing.

File: 1468500452809.gif (5KB, 500x300px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 500x300px

Is this even legal? Its not a 1060.

worth it to me
it's time to upgrade from my gtx 670

AMD IS FINISHED AND BANKRUPT

File: 1471384912091.jpg (295KB, 746x682px) Image search: [Google]

295KB, 746x682px

>>56145695
>>56145710
>Seriously defending the idea of gimping a card and selling it under the same name

>>56145120
>3GB

Not worth pissing on.

>>56145765
>>56145695

Supporting a gay company.

File: 1471398262812.jpg (14KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 225x225px

>>56145804
MOAR COARS
MOAR VRAM
MOAR SHADER UNITS
MOAR CLOCKSPEED
-AMD

>>56145710
Nice attempt, Shlomo.

>>56145826
uhh how are you going to play gta v at 90 fps then? idiot

Nvidia can't keep getting away with this!

File: NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-1060-3-GB-Announcement.jpg (43KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 600x450px

>>56145120
Buy 6gb version. 3gb has 128 fewer CUDA cores

>>56145826

LESS VRAM
MOAR MONEY

-NVIDIA

>Be average joe
>Hmm, I guess I dont need all this Vram, Ill just get the way cheaper one
>Turns out he bought a 1050 rebranded as a 1060

80% marketshare

>>56145404
>3GB GDDR5
>4GB HBM

>>56145899
nope cheaper

>>56145826
MORE POWER OVER PCIe

File: the perfect goat.jpg (166KB, 700x396px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 700x396px

Where are the reviews?

>>56145929
Cheaper than?
RX480 4GB was $199 then you pulled the sticker off and its was 8GB. lol Yea cheaper than what? The 970? What about the 470?

>>56145949
TOPPEST KEK

>>56145404
This is how I know /g/ has people under 14

>>56145990
i am still getting the 1060 3gb though

File: FB_IMG_1464929173067.jpg (8KB, 305x165px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 305x165px

>3GB
>3GB

>THREE FUCKING GINABOYS

File: ship-ship.jpg (54KB, 864x486px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 864x486px

>>56145120
Idiots will buy it thinking it has the full performance.

>>56145321
I wouldn't. Developers will target GTX 980/970, R9 290/290X and RX 480 that all have 4+ GB of memory (well, it is wonky with GTX 970). These cards are all on similar level of performance, so GTX 1060 will be the only outflier with just 3 GB, it will be harming it as the developers target 4GB with games.

>>56145343
It is not "rerelease of GTX 970", and that argument is dumb (whether used against AMD or Nvidia).

>>56145826
as opposed to?

>>56146156
>I wouldn't. Developers will target GTX 980/970, R9 290/290X and RX 480 that all have 4+ GB of memory (well, it is wonky with GTX 970). These cards are all on similar level of performance, so GTX 1060 will be the only outflier with just 3 GB, it will be harming it as the developers target 4GB with games.
I'm okay with this

>less than 3.5

LOL good luck with large high res textures poorfags

>>56146285
HIGH
RES
TEXTURES

File: img_4301.jpg (47KB, 725x528px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 725x528px

that's okay, i just got this today instead

File: 1461418411188.gif (1MB, 245x245px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 245x245px

>>56146308
>evga

>>56146339
>nerd

File: me-catalyst-bench-1080-hyper[1].png (24KB, 786x412px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 786x412px

>>56146075

ikr? who the f*ck needs more than 4gb vram on a 1440p card >:)

>>56146339
i don't understand this meme

>>56145361
Sapphire makes a 4gb OC'd one for 140$

>>56146285
>inb4 poorfags get 420 shaders per second and high texture rates

>>56146363
there is no meme
evga has loud, cheaply made graphic cards
they are the ones cutting corners
in the past customer service and warranty were worth slightly worse hardware, but they quit doing that

>>56146308
Why is the 1070 a thing.
It's either:
>1080 for "the shit"
Or
>1060 for "budget but great performance"

The 1070 is a middle ground that anyone can save another 150$ to get to a 1080 from
?

>They know they can't get away with another 3.5GB fiasco
>Sell it as 3GB to avoid any backslash and save up a couple of memory chips in the process

>>56146403
it's over $300 more for a 1080 here

>>56146403
its for 1440p
1080s are pointless because nvidia will announce a HBM counter to AMD within 3 months and render the current high end line obsolete.

Everybody who really wanted a next gen GPU has already decided on or bought a 470, 480, or 1060. This is cashing in on poorfags who decided to stick with what they have and might buy Nvidia now that it's "a little cheaper".

>>56146398
I'd heard their 1060 was pretty good on thermals and quiet.

http://www.legitreviews.com/nvidia-evga-geforce-gtx-1060-video-card-review_184301

>>56145513
Fallout 4 really eats VRAM. It's the only game that made me upgrade my 5850.

>>56145120
>binned to shit 1060
nothx.

>>56146465
I still haven't decided ;_;. Nvidia has multiple AIB's cheaper than AMD's, all those companies have better rep than the AMD ones.

The rx 470 is more tempting than the 480 especially with the 8gb MSI for £220.

>>56145575
Nvidia is just selling the 1060 die's with bad cores as the cut down version.

>>56146550
If you are
>Windows only
>a freetard on ubuntu
>lazy as fuck and running ubuntu
Go with AMD.

If you
>game on Linux and don't like *buntu
>only play old games and don't buy new ones
go with Nvidia.

places like nowinstock can find you stores that have the card you want in stock and not price gouged to hell.

>>56145513

shadow of mordor
dying light
crysis 3
black ops 3
far cry 4
the division
battlefield 4

all vram heavy games.

Feel sorry for anyone that bought a 480.
AMD is just getting fucking wrecked this generation, they have nothing to compete with.

>3GB
Into the trash. 4 is pushing it but barely acceptable. 3 is useless.

>>56145120
any actual reviews?

>>56145710
Yea, no. It's entirely possible and even common to run out of VRAM before graphics performance in today's market. Textures are pretty much the number one when it comes to taking up space, higher resolution textures (this is independent of display resolution) will require more and more VRAM.

>>56146742
just look at the 6gb benches, it's the exact same card

220 to 240€ in germany
just like the rx480
and both are not available

the waiting continues

File: rx 470.png (331KB, 1384x849px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 1384x849px

>>56146637
Are you implying because of the DX 12 benefits? When on an i5 4690, the benefits merely depend on who the game is geared towards or it's a measley 1-2 frames either way.

My main anxiety with AMD cards is the price and unreliable AIB partners that don't have any UK RMA.

RX 480's are expensive but 470's seem alright.

But then they don't exactly outpace the 1060 at full whack.

http://www.kitguru.net/components/graphic-cards/zardon/msi-rx-470-gaming-x-8g-review/18/

I guess it's good if you want a good cool and quiet fan though.

File: 1471314045058-b.jpg (45KB, 500x465px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 500x465px

The question is can it handle roblox as good as mine https://m.newegg.com/Product/index?itemnumber=N82E16814132041&nm_mc=KNC-GoogleAdwords-Mobile&cm_mmc=KNC-GoogleAdwords-Mobile-_-pla-_-Video+Cards+-+Workstation-_-N82E16814132041&gclid=CjwKEAjwudW9BRDcrd30kovf8GkSJAB3hTxFd_6byCY5Kdx9MDpSBdZSWMi9nbzv_gAhNg3DRX8E_BoCwfXw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds

>>56146777
No it's not. It's a fucking gimped version.

>>56146804
>how to spot amf shills

>>56146786
I love the one review for it

>>56146857
Good goy. >>56145871

>>56146857
It was announced by nVidia to be lesser hardware wise than 6gb.

and I'm curious if it's significant difference or not.

>>56146889
I could get a 470 right now. In fact as soon as they were released I could.

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/msi-radeon-rx-470-gaming-x-8192mb-gddr5-pci-express-graphics-card-gx-32x-ms.html

£209

>>56146785
I didn't even consider warranty or an anon being from the UK. My thoughts basically were DX12, Vulkan, and driver improvements. Have you had cards fail in the past? I personally stopped worrying about warranty once I realized the only card I'd had fail on me was a OC'd GTX8800 that was 3 years out of warranty when it burned up.

>>56146785
Who cares if they don't have UK RMA?
I had to send my Motherboard back to ASUS in US to RMA when I fucked it up, they did send me new part free of charge.

>>56146889
some stores list it as "shipping in august" in one place i saw "available: september 02"

it's actually the 1050, nvidia went full USB 3.1 Gen1/Gen2 with it because they are jewish cunts

>>56146992
Sadly the driver improvements aren't that great.

https://youtu.be/dh9Akfu90Gs?t=7m38s

>>56147026
Ease of mind and communication, cost me a fair bit to RMA my power supply to the Netherlands, but if I were able to send it to a UK centre and get one shipped back from there it would feel more secure.

I don't agree with naming it 1060 but I think it's hilarious that Nvidia is actually capable of releasing a VR Ready card for $200. The card will literally be on par with a 480 for less money. What happened to that $200 480 AMD?

File: 1443571631950.jpg (456KB, 994x664px) Image search: [Google]

456KB, 994x664px

>3GB

>>56147098
>3gb
>VR ready

>>56145826
MOAR COWBELL

>>56147150
>muh VRAM
You really drank the fucking cool aid huh?

>>56147098
Supply and demand happened.
Until 480s are in stock for more than 4 minutes at a time they will continue to be their current prices. The same with the <$400 1070.
If you want a new card right now, you're going to have to watch sellers like a hawk and pray you have good latency and their site doesn't shit itself from traffic when it happens.

Also
>3gb
>VR ready
I suppose ultra low res textures can be used in VR resolution, but it's going to look like shit.

>not buying at least an 1070

poorfags kys

>>56147178
you really don't know what VR ready means do you, it's not the same as 1080p High ready.

>>56146530
5850 is still boss.

>>56147180
3GB is enough.

>supply and demand
More like AMD lied about the 4GB 480. They LIED. Don't defend this bullshit. It's not as bad as the 970 fiasco but it's still, at the end of the day, a lie.

>>56146091
good goy

File: CoioItsUIAAeZ-t.jpg large.jpg (83KB, 850x506px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 850x506px

>>56145390
Perfect anon

>>56147184
>not the titan XP
LMAO try harder poor boy

File: GX32XMS_14529357a3315966372_800x800[1].jpg (108KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 800x800px

>>56147231

Sorry, I missed out, what did they lie about the 480? The PCI- E thing?

Ah well, at least the AIB's fixed it.

Is it wrong I want this? Because of the quality of the fans it stays silent even full oc.

I'm also selling my monitor and could ge ta freesync.

I know 8gb is overkill but I only ever expect it to get to 5-6.

>>56147277
They lied about the card being available for $200. It's not a good deal otherwise. We know they lied because they never made any actual 4GB reference models, they just flashed a very few number of 8GB models just so they couldn't get called out on their bullshit. They had no intention of actually having the card available for $200. They lied.

>>56147277
>200$
europoors are paying 300€+

>>56147405
http://www.ebuyer.com/751840-xfx-amd-radeon-rx-480-4gb-gddr5-gpu-ebuyer-com-rx-480m4bfa6

200$ equals £151 add 20% equals £180. technically they've kept their word with the shittiest model.

Now is that 470 a good buy? 275$ equivalent including 20% VAT?

>>56147320
>They lied about the card being available for $200.

Just like nvidia lied about 1070 and 1080 prices?

>>56147577
Woah there, that's not glass house situation.

Both companies have mysteriously upped what each series was meant to be in the bracket of.

>>56147658

It isn't, just making a point to the shill over there.
Msrp is never a final price, so none of them lied about it, it's just what they suggest retailers to sell them at

>>56146398
I don't know man, my GPU is an EVGA GTX 960 and it's silent, you don't hear it at all until the fans hit about 40% speed.
Sounds like you got a dud and assumed all EVGA products were shit.

>>56147769
It's just maybe my memory is hazy but didn't the 770 sell for near the same as the 970 at release?

>>56146260
Actual better technology instead of just numbers

>>56145120
>$199 Nvidia 1060 3GB launched today

It has a reduced shader count though, which makes it literally a gimped 1060. It's as if the 480 4gb edition was actually just a 470.

Nvidia: the way you are meant to be played.

>>56147876
What was the MSRP?

>>56147916
You're talking in dollars. Because 4gb is a little under what might be needed and they went overkill and added 8gb. 6gb would have made sense but sadly it's not what they did.

Even then the cooler is above and beyond in thermals and acoustics.

>>56145151
This. Who needs more than 2GB?

https://games.slashdot.org/story/16/08/18/1946221/millions-of-steam-game-keys-stolen-after-hacker-breaches-gaming-site
lmao

File: 1468951154869.jpg (16KB, 480x468px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 480x468px

>>56145151
>>18
>anime

So 2.75GB then?

>>56147405
£257.99 for a MSI RX 480 Gaming X here.

damn I dont even have a desktop right now do to it being in storage but 1060 for 200. i'm not much of a gamer so that would keep me well for years and very solid poor fag price

>>56147223
I think if it had maybe 2GB of VRAM, I'd still be using it to this day.

File: GX18DGI_144683_285x255[1].jpg (18KB, 255x255px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 255x255px

>>56148033
Jeebus, I'm only considering it due to the impressive cooler and I'll happily admit I fucked up if games never even reach 5gb of VRAM on it.

Just wish it was 6gb instead of 8. All the other AMD coolers are crap tier or £50 more expensive, haven't yet seen a review of the gigabyte.

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/gigabyte-radeon-rx-480-g1-gaming-8192mb-gddr5-pci-express-graphics-card-gx-18d-gi.html

>>56145120
4GB 1070 when?

>>56148033
Wait, hang on, 480? eight zero? because that's £290 over here.

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/msi-radeon-rx-480-gaming-x-8192mb-gddr5-pci-express-graphics-card-gx-32j-ms.html

>>56147954
Well then, £209 is even more absurd, cause £1 = $1.33. Anyways, the 470 4GB MSRP is supposed to be £170 including vat. Hopefully once they're actually widely available the price will drop.

>>56148073
It'll serve you well for leagerlegends (what won't though), and other random steam games. If you wait there might be a 1050 that's just as capable for non AAA games.

>>56148115
Ah! The elusive G1 RX 480. 'tis a rare beastie indeed. If you ever spot one in the wild be sure to grab it and smash it in the head before it gets away so we can have proof it even exists.

>>56148138
Yes OCUK are being greedy cunts. Waiting for my delivery from Ebuyer.

>>56148211
No, £209 for an 8gb AIB with a decent cooler. Unless you meant that was to be the MSRP of that.

I'm probably overlooking something.

>>56148221
That for someone reason had me gasping for air the thought of this sole graphics card being hunted in disbelief.

I like gigabyte as a manufacturer they've been alright.

>>56148241
I can't see the RX 480 MSI gaming on ebuyer for £257.

>>56146700

aaand I play none of them.

Me and my 960 will be quite happy with xcom 2 for many years to come.

>>56148349
Currently playing it on my 750 ti. I worry I'll just give up in confusion at this gen and carry on.

>>56146091
But the 6gb is 60 bucks more senpai

>>56148241
Don't be tugging my dick now, if you can show me where you got a 480 MSI Gaming for £257 I will meet you in London dressed as an anime character of your choice.

>>56148324
Yeah they removed the listing after they sold out. Let me see...yeah it's gone.

Use this to put a marker on it

http://www.nowinstock.net/uk/computers/videocards/amd/rx480/

File: Cheap_Laptops,_Tablet_PC,_and_Cheap_LED_TVs_-_2016-08-18_22.08.11.png (6KB, 1029x102px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 1029x102px

>>56148438
Are you a grill? If not then come dressed as Kuro from Illya Prisma.

>>56148480
Oh! Even if you are a grill

>>56145120
TWO DOT FIVE
W
O

D
O
T

F
I
V
E

Clearly the 3GB 1060 is the new 1080p card.

I wouldn't quite brand it "VR Ready" as they are doing but it is only slightly less powerful than a 980 so I can see how they are based on a performance standpoint. Main issue with VR is going to be VRAM in some cases.

The 6 GB 1060 is equal to the 980 and sports another 2 GB VRAM for 1440P or VR.

In my mind its pretty clear cut.

GTX 1060 3 GB for maxed out 1080p. Also, competition at the ~$200 price point (RX 470) against AMD.

GTX 1060 6 GB for maxed out 1080/1440p and entry level VR capable card.

The 1060 3 GB had to be gimped slightly to maintain 1060 6 GB sales.

Nvidia knows the market and probably has done research on how many people that buy mid tier cards need more than 3 GB routinely. They probably found that a small percent really need more than 6 GB.

So, in an effort to protect 6 GB sales they gimped the 3 GB card so everyone wouldn't just buy those only.

The performance difference is 5% according to Nvidia and they probably said well that is too close to consider calling it a 1050 or 1050 Ti.

>>56148697
>really need more than 6 GB.

*Sorry meant 3 GB

>>56148445
Thanks to you as well.

>>56148480
Fucking hell, thanks. I nearly went for the Rx 470 over the MSI cooler alone, this makes it a much easier decision.

Wonder how long it'll be til it comes back in stock?

Best work on my tan right? But my peen will hang from that pink dress.

Seriously this has really made me rethink getting a 480.

>>56148500
Love how that's a second preference, never change /g/.

File: wewlad.png (145KB, 960x531px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 960x531px

>>56147180
>Watching sites manually.
lel

>>56148427
oh shit i didnt know that.
might as well

>>56147871
>better technology
>No Async

wew

Nvidia probably doesnt want to look autistic like AMD releasing a very nearly identical card (RX 470) to one already released (RX 480 4 GB).

>>56148755
Why not just name it the 1050?

>>56148707
My guess is end of the month but don't quote me on that. If you can get the 1060 cheaper and are not bound to Freesync for some reason grab that and upgrade to Vega later or something.

>>56148748
Async is so irrelevant that Nvidia just does it through software

>>56148910
>Async is so irrelevant that Nvidia just does it through software
[citation needed]
Pascal has hardware async.

>>56148773

The performance is way too close to the 1060. Everyone in the mid segment market would just buy the "1050" for $199 or less (probably $150 during sales) since it would only perform 5% worse on average. Of course you could easily OC and be above stock 1060 performance.

Not to mention having 6 GB of VRAM in the mid segment isnt as important as it is in the higher end segments.

Thats why the 3 GB 1060 exist. Anyone with a business/marketing degree and little tech knowledge understands.

>>56148894
True, it would make more sense to get a 1060 than an rx 470 MSI I guess.

>>56148697
Ehh, they're probably just 1060s that didn't meet QC specs. Usually that's what lower end versions of nearly identical cards (like Intel k vs non k chips).

I still do gayming with 1GB gpu.
Battlefield3, csgo and LoL Run just fine and smooth.

>>56148935
Under normal circumstances the card wouldn't exist but Nvidia needed something NOW to compete at the $200 price point.

Its true that they are probably lower yield chips but probably not all.

Would be funny if they pulled a classic "AMD" and left the extra 128 cuda cores BIOS/software locked and not lasered off.

File: 1467306857187.jpg (138KB, 653x726px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 653x726px

>>56145120
we need more threads like this. fuck AMD, seriously

>>56146629
Calling the card a 1060 is misleading. It's not just 3GB less memory.

>>56149103
Hush child, they had a similar thing with the GTX 460's...

File: gooose.gif (4MB, 313x238px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 313x238px

>>56145120
>no async
>no DX12
>no Vulkan
>nvidia gimpworks
>selling a defective product under the same name
How can nvidia keep getting away with this?

Just looked at some benches for Nu Males Sky. 1060 shits all over the 480. AMD just don't do OGL well.

I really want to be an RX 480. But they're NEVER EVER in stock and, the few times they're in stock, they cost like $300! WTF!

The GTX 1060 is lame but at least it's priced fairly.

>>56145147
>in stock

AMDkeks on suicide watch

The fact that it's in stock means that Nvidia won by default. How can you win a battle if you don't even show the fuck up

>>56145120
>doom refuses to run on less than 5gb
>makes a 1440p card with only 3gb
This proves that nvidia knows that nvidiots are indeed idiots and will buy anything they shit out.

>>56149135
because its Nvidia
what are you going to do, buy an AMD and blow up your computer/never have working drivers?

File: a_real_life_anime.jpg (66KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 720x960px

The 480 hardly exists. It's like a 5 year old's imaginary friend. AMD can't even compete at mid range...

>>56149301
you make a point but doom fucking sucks and you probably have a low IQ for playing it

>>56149318
epic memes bro upboated

geez worse than the 970

>>56149328
>>56149318
>>56149328
>>56149242
>>56149001
>>56148924
>>56147871
>>56145826
>>56145760
you do realize that this amount of blatant shilling just hurts nvidia's rep even more and makes everyone hate them and their autismal fans

File: terry.jpg (321KB, 1971x1971px) Image search: [Google]

321KB, 1971x1971px

>>56149436
>caring

>>56149493
being autistic

>>56149436
Why do AMDrones continue to try to argue Pascal doesn't have hardware async? It's almost as retarded as claiming Time Spy isn't a fair DX12 benchmarks because AMDrones want a tech demo rather than a benchmark tool.

File: 1470522651670.jpg (326KB, 660x546px) Image search: [Google]

326KB, 660x546px

>>56149959

>>56150278
Great argument.

>>56149644
>caring

>>56149959
>Why do AMDrones continue to try to argue Pascal doesn't have hardware async?
What do you mean "try to argue"? That's not really up for a debate. Pascal does not have hardware async.

>Time Spy
>Fair
You have zero idea what you're talking about if you think Time Spy is fair.

>>56150441
Does pascal use software scheduling? There's a popular webm going around showing the two approaches to A sync.

Even if it is using a different kind it still did well in Tomb Raider in DX 12.

>>56149959
>A benchmark must not lean on the competing vendors superior capabilities because it would be unfair on the other vendor.
>Calls it a tech demo if it does.

Just die already.

>>56149959
AMDrones argue that Pascal doesn't have hardware async because if it did Nvidia would boast "PASCAL HAS HARDWARE ASYNC" and shut everyone up. They have not. I know this is a logical fallacy but Nvidia's reluctance to comment on the matter speaks volumes.

Pascal has a lot of improvements over Maxwel. It can handle simultaneous jobs much more elegantly and is far more effective at using the resources available to it. This makes it really good at handling simultaneous workloads similar to how AMD's cards with hardware async do, but that doesn't mean it has hardware async.

I'm team green here, but it's time to face facts. Pascal doesn't have hardware async.

>>56150757
Seems to be doing alright in games like Tomb Raider and AMD is doing alright in Hitman.

Unles Vulkan takes off I couldn't really give a fuck either way.

>>56151053
Tomb Raider is a Nvidia sponsored game. It leans heavily on Nvidia and only uses light loads of async on DX12 that keeps AMD from gaining any ground. If they utilized AMD's intrinsic shaders it would at least make them level pegging.

>>56150560
>Pascal does not have hardware async.
Repeating the same claim does not make it any more valid than the first time. I still await a citation that supports this claim.

>>56150562
>Does pascal use software scheduling?
As far as I am aware no it does not.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10325/the-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-and-1070-founders-edition-review/9
I see the myth repeated over and over and over again and yet no one has been able to do anything but claim it is software.

>>56150757
>Nvidia would boast "PASCAL HAS HARDWARE ASYNC" and shut everyone up
Why would Nvidia boast this when reviewers make it clear for them?

>>56151165
>Why would Nvidia boast this when reviewers make it clear for them?
Oh, and I should note, stating that Pascal is DX12 compatible is not "boasting" Pascal has hardware async?

>>56145120
>not actually a 1060
>cut down so much it should have been a 1050
>3GB in 2016
another false advertising lawsuit when?

>>56150757
>if it did Nvidia would boast "PASCAL HAS HARDWARE ASYNC"
You're a retard. Nvidia wouldn't "boast" about a DX12 feature that AMD does better at. If you're a part of "team green" I'm the Mary Queen of Scots.

>>56151165
>Why would Nvidia boast this when reviewers make it clear for them?
It's called an official source. The word of reviewers means jack shit and everyone knows it. This is not in any way shape or form a valid argument.

>>56145120

Like the 1060 3GiB better when it was called Geforce 460 768MIB.

>>56151237
>It's called an official source.
Nvidia has had hardware async since Fermi.

You've got a retarded standard. That's like claiming AMD doesn't have hardware tessellation because they don't boast about it with the 480.

>>56151237
>This is not in any way shape or form a valid argument.
It is as valid as claiming "Nvidia would boast about it."

>>56151281
Just for clarity's sake, you are arguing from ignorance (an invalid argument) if you are trying to claim a lack of evidence is evidence of lacking hardware async.

>>56146447
It isn't enough to push it past 100fps in demanding titles. Which most people at 1440p have 144hz displays

>>56145361
The RX460 is a low end gaming card while the 1060 is a high middle class card.
If you absolutely have to compare and cannot just accept that 3GB is simply too less for a card like this these days you should compare it with a RX480.
Only problem is this one comes with 4GB which is bare minimum these days for this price class.

I don't see 1 reason to ever recommend or use the 3GB 1060 in any build ever.

>>56145120
It's literally shit, going to end up slower than the 480 with the lower core count

>>56150562
>Does pascal use software scheduling?
If Pascal used software scheduling then Nvidia could just include async support to Maxwell and Kepler. The dynamic load balancing is one of the hardware improvements involved with Pascal.

>>56149218
Wanted 480, see a shit ton of them for $199 sold out. Wait a week. Still sold out. Had to get a 470 for $199 instead. Feels bad man, but not that bad desu, 470 is one of the best "bang for your buck" cards out right now.

>>56151375
Doesn't matter. The 1060 false advertising will sell these turds like they were cotton candy. Also they will only send highly OC'd custom models to press so they can compare those to stock 480 performance.
Nvidia is evil, but not stupid.

>>56151414
Well ya, if AMD actually had any kind of marketing team they'd be set

>>56145120
This is the behavior of a company that's convinced it has no real competition.

>>56145710
You know I would have agreed with you a couple months ago, but now that I have run into vram issues playing Doom 4 with vulkan and async enabled on my 2gig 270x i can see why people would want more vram on mid range cards. I get good framerates on high with a card I bought cheap 2 years ago until the vram fills up.

>>56145120
>2016
>2.5gb
toppestkeks

>>56146729

What Nvidiots actually believe.

>>56145343
IT'S LITERALLY A GTX 970 BUT THEY ROUNDED THE VRAM DOWN INSTEAD OF UP LMAO

>>56151335
Pretty sure you don't even get close to stable 144fps in "demanding" titles with a goddamn titan x at least not in 1440p. Always makes me wonder why people buy 1440p gaming shit, you either play on runescape graphics or I'm just a poor fag and everyone but me can afford quad sli titan x's for those smooth 144fps in every single game

Why in the fucking fuck didn't they called it 1050 like they said they would?
I got the answer:
>"hey bro, I'd like to get a 1060, bro"
>"just get the 3GB one, it's 199 and as powerful as the 6GB one, you'll not need more than 3GB on most games anyway"
>"thanks bro, saved my life, also it's still called 1060, so I will not sound poor at all, thank goodness they did not call it 1050"
>"no probs"

>>56149959
>Why do AMDrones continue to try to argue Pascal doesn't have hardware async?

Because it doesn't?
Blocks of shader ALUs have to be partitioned off at the driver level, and switching between graphics/compute queues takes something on the order of 100k cycles (reportedly down from ~1M in Maxwell).
The entire point of GCN is that any shader blocks can process from any queue on a cycle-by-cycle basis as transient pipeline stall conditions happen.

Nvidia's GPUs as a whole can technically process work from both queue types, but there's essentially zero reason to as has no impact in reducing shader idle time.

>>56148826
this is actually hilarious.

File: letdown.png (609KB, 854x640px) Image search: [Google]

609KB, 854x640px

>>56152007
Well anon
I said past 100fps
Non 144, which as you said is still unrealistic unless you lower settings and don't play the current most demanding games
1070 is a weird card in the middle that doesn't exactly do well at any resolution for its price point
Xx80 series is always overpriced garbage
The TI should he nice if it comes out
Even though I own dual 980tis I'm an amd fanboy so hopefully Vega does well though
>it won't
>pic related

>>56152046
>Blocks of shader ALUs have to be partitioned off at the driver level, and switching between graphics/compute queues takes something on the order of 100k cycles (reportedly down from ~1M in Maxwell).
It's isn't hardware because the hardware takes longer than AMD's hardware does?
As to the specific timing you claim:
[citation needed]

Also, what does asynchronous compute mean?

>>56145120
I would get this to replace my 960
but most likey will be about 600 dingo dollars

>>56152714
It's actually something like 150k cycles (very roughly, or <=0.1 ms at 1.5-1.7GHz) in Pascal for a complete pipeline flush and context switch whether from a timer interrupt (for VR stuff) or an empty queue detect and array repartition, and the old numbers for Maxwell was ~1 ms for the same.

The big mistake is that AMD has a very specific form of functionality that is actually useful and gave it a very generic, confusing, and non-trademarked name of "async compute shaders", which is distinct from the more generic concept of asynchronous processing.

Async compute shaders are what everyone understands to be "hardware async" in the context of GPU discussion, except for semantic parsing shills.

>>56152877
>It's actually something like 150k cycles
More
>Source: My ass.

Do you just post online to see yourself posting online or are you paid by AMD to make shit up and see if other AMDrones will pick it up?

>>56153177
source was actually AnandTech reporter talking with Nvidia:
> http://www.anandtech.com/show/10325/the-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-and-1070-founders-edition-review/10
> The actual time cost for preemption varies with the workload, but at the most basic level, when the GPU is ready to execute the context switch, NVIDIA tells us that it can be done in under 100us (0.1ms), or about 170,000 clock cycles.

but feel free to keep shilling

>>56145513
Gta5 is not vram hungry. With gtx980 I have vram usage under 3gb. These cards are even weaker than a 980.

>>56153177
Holy shit do you just enjoy getting owned or what? Stop posting, Huang.

>>56153311
Did you miss this part
>the Pascal architecture includes another major feature update related to how work is scheduled
>another major feature
In other words, the two are separate but you conflate the two.

>ultimately I’m choosing to pursue it on its own page, and not on the same page as concurrency. Why? Well although it is an async compute feature – and it’s a good way to get time-critical independent tasks started right away – its purpose isn’t to improve concurrency.

>>56153469
I got owned by a retard who conflates two different but similar features as the same thing?

>>56145120
ITS FUCKING over

>>56153550
Nothing about that statement confirms that what Pascal does is different than Maxwell at a hardware level. It could just as easily be marketing speak for shit being done at the driver level exclusively for Pascal chips.

Either way, the argument that Pascal has async compute is already basically over in so much as it has been shown to get dumpstered by GCN in real world application already. See: Doom running on Vulkan.

>>56153598
That should be "hardware level async compute" in that last sentence. Point still stands.

>>56153598
>Nothing about that statement confirms that what Pascal does is different than Maxwell at a hardware level.
What was the major feature discussed on the previous page? The author explicitly differentiates the two and you just disregard not only the author's intent but effort to argue fine grained preemption is the same as asynchronous compute on Pascal.

If you are going to ignore the words of your own citation I have no reason to believe you are going to believe what anyone who doesn't work for ADM's PR department writes.

>>56153538
the point is that a best-case pipeline flush and reconfiguration on Pascal is still a costly operation, but even if it were zero cycles, it would still be worse than GCN, which can have any CU processing work from either an ACE or the GCP on any cycle.

that is the entire point of async compute shaders a.k.a. hardware async.

I look forward to hearing from you in a year or two about how Volta is the best thing ever because it supports Nvidia Dyna-Balance™ shader technology or whatever.

>>56145120
>different GPU configuration from the GTX 1060
>Sold as the GTX 1060 3GB
This is not ethical. From the name, people will think it is exactly the same card, with less VRAM.

Shame on you, nVidia.

>>56153679
holy fuck you imbecile.

Pascal (and Maxwell) only support either graphics or compute work in any given sub-block of shaders and need a driver-mediated partial or complete context switch (at ~0.1 ms cost) to change between modes.

The chips can process both types of work queues concurrently, but there is either a lot of waste (keeping the partitions static and sometimes idle) or a little (switching modes/contexts) depending on how you do things.

As shown by the behavior of their recent drivers, they usually just splice together compute and graphics shaders manually in per-game optimizations to avoid using the functionality altogether, with the exception of using timer-based interrupts for VR timewarp type stuff.

>>56153815
>Pascal (and Maxwell) only support either graphics or compute work in any given sub-block of shaders
No wonder you conflate the two. You just ignore the entire ninth page of the article because you've already come to a conclusion despite the facts.
>For Pascal, NVIDIA has implemented a dynamic load balancing system to replace Maxwell 2’s static partitions

>>56153720
>the point is that a best-case pipeline flush and reconfiguration on Pascal is still a costly operation
I'd ask for a citation for this but I've done so previously and all I got was some idiotic shit conflating Pascal's dynamic asynch with Pascal's fine grain preepmtion as if the two are the same even when the author made it clear they are separate.

File: PBalance_575px.png (20KB, 678x317px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 678x317px

>>56153908
>>56153933
you're a moron if you can't tell, even from that shitty AnandTech article, that all Pascal does is to have the driver detect a stall in the shader dependency graph and issue an automatic repartition.

even Nvidia's press slides show as much.

>>56154013
>you're a moron if you can't tell
Translation:
>I'm going to call you a moron for reading what is actually written and catching me on trying to make up my own shit.

File: M2Balancing_575px.png (27KB, 678x312px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 678x312px

>>56154053
let me dumb it down for you a little more.

Pascal "dynamic" async is granular to the boundaries of work queue stalls and just controls load balancing at a partition level.
If their hardware was capable of anything more, their marketing material would be playing it up.

>>56145695
you forgot you trip. it's like "be.4we5ome" or something.

>>56146398
i don't know who you called but their service is still top notch.

still running two 760's from them and i rarely hear them

>>56154122
>Pascal "dynamic" async is granular to the boundaries of work queue stalls
Translation: I'm still ignoring my own citations distinction and conflate the two.
I'm done wasting words on someone who is ignoring his own citation.

>>56146700
>flop
>flop
>old
>console game
>console game
>flop
>console game

and nothing of value was lost.

File: 1471411217604.jpg (60KB, 540x354px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 540x354px

>>56145120
all I really play is world of warships and sometimes The Division, and my GTX 760 is showing it's age, is 3gb enough really?

File: 1467462161034.jpg (33KB, 480x405px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 480x405px

>>56154221
>BF4
>console game
nigger are you retarded?

>>56154359
no

>>56154917
>BF4 isn't a console game
>This deluded cuck

>>56154928
Battlefield development (except for bad company) has always been led by PC, consoles are a after thought

>tfw 6gb 1060 is already cheaper than 8gb 480 by $40/$50 (conversion equivalent)

I can't wait to see how much cheaper this 3gb version is compared to the 4gb 480. Knowing nvidia they get their europe prices right so it'll probably be the same price difference as between a 6gb 1060 and 8gb 480.

amdfags on suicide watch

>>56149242

b/c nobody buys them

>>56149345
doom is the first wave of a tsunami of vulkan games

>>56145120
>cut down processors
why is this not a 1050?

>>56145695
>made in new york
yes.
those jews are terrorists.

>>56146390
420? Blaze it son.

>>56146358
i just bought a 260x 1GB for $60.
problem?
plays mgs v fine at 1080 high post processing low.

File: download (2).jpg (4KB, 200x144px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 200x144px

>>56146729

>>56154122

let retards be retards
don't waste time explaining to a shill
it's like talking to a goldfish

Nvidiots will claim Pascal has hardware async compute even when evidence is presented to them. Even Futuremark stated it is ignored at the driver level by Nvidia in Time Lie. If it had it it would do it. Simple as that.

>>56156431

silky smooth 20 fps

epic bro tell 'em :P

File: 1470464827652.png (39KB, 650x450px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 650x450px

>>56156566
okay

>>56156589
I said it ignores hardware computer not software preemption.

File: untitled-34.png (35KB, 686x808px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 686x808px

>>56156589
We can all play that game.

File: 1469846964381.png (637KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

637KB, 1920x1080px

>>56156627
>nvidia can do shit via the software without cpu load

People don't give a fuck about that. They want their ''gameworks''. AMD will never understand that, I will bought a AMD card when they will fix the fucking GVR on Twitch.

>>56156651
It's very close, with a non ref 1060 you will get the same fps...

File: how do i compute.png (111KB, 1248x620px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1248x620px

costs the same as the 480 here, and both wil give me more fps than my monitor can handle

But which one is better for programming?
nvidia has this CUDA thingie, which has plenty of implementations in various languages, how easy is it to interface with AMD GPUs? i think it can be used with OpenCL, is it just as comfy?

1060 has double the pixel fill rate and much higher clock frequency, but at the same time it has half the shaders and TMUs but at the same time its raw processing power is significantly worse, especially the half-precision (unless its a typo)

whic one is better suited for non-professional scientific use like n-body simulations, linear algebra with big matrices and DSP?

>>56156938
If you use CUDA, your work can only be used on Nvidia GPUs. AMD GPUs don't have this limitation and are a lot better if you just want raw hardware.

>>56145120
>3GB
>It's actually 2.75
Enjoy your console ports

I'm happy I got my 980ti for $450AUD hahahahaha you mad cucks

File: 1444493642479.gif (1MB, 300x169px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 300x169px

Oh shi...imma replace all my cards with 1060's now.

Thanks man! Close call!

>>56157047
good point, i remember downloading some tech demo which said "looks like your system cant into CUDA, its ok, we just use the CPU instead, enjoy waiting 2 hours instead of 2 minutes"

I mostly emulate rather than play native PC games.

Will a 4GB 480 be good for me?

I know it will be plenty for CEMU but I want to be prepared for Citra/Xenia/RPCS3

Guys someone wants to sell his 980ti for 340€

should I get it?

>>56157166
Isn't most GPU rendering done in OpenGL with those emulators?
Nvidia would be better suited for this.

>>56157166
If you're going to get a 4GB version of an AMD card I think the 470 is the best deal on the planet for new right now. If you want more oomph then get the 8GB 480.

>>56157310
Anything OpenGL then yes rule of thumb is always Nvidia at this point.

>>56157350
Nvidia has no good cards in the $200 range though.

>>56157379
1060 is plenty for emulation.

>>56157391
Including Future PS3/360/3DS re-rendering significantly?

>>56157350
This. PCSX2 OGL plugin is faster and more accurate than DX. RPCS3 has vulkan support but ps3 emulation without constant crashes/bugs is still not there.

>>56145151
I have a 512 MB AMD 4670 HD and I've had it since 2010.

>>56157411
ps3 emulation is where ps2 emulation was 10 years ago. By the time it's acceptable, you'd need a new pc. Also emulation is more cpu reliant than gpu.

>>56157166
Consider PS2 has 32 meg RAM and 4 meg VRAM.
Forcing the GPU pipe to draw a 4x larger , 16x total pixels more and then anti aliased frame can use up north of 1GB, depends on game, heading into and beyond 16M pixels per frame

When PS3 emulation is acceptable I would consider 4GB to be the safe minimum level if scaling down by moderate factors, but your GPU is going to be quite outdated by then.

>>56157166
GPU is irrelevant for emulation, you need a fast intel CPU
its only used for crude stuff like anitaliasing and displaying the frames but there is basically no difference between emulation with a 1080 or gtx 950 with the same CPU

>>56157518
>GPU is irrelevant for emulation

t. I plug my output into old CRTs for maximum h̶i̶p̶s̶t̶e̶r̶ ̶p̶o̶i̶n̶...nostalgia

>>56157518
If you wanna re-render games with AA, GPU is highly important.

>>56157518

>GPU is irrelevant for emulation, you need a fast intel CPU

I laugh in your direction. My heavily overclocked 8320e does a decent job of pcsx2 emulation but when I use the hardware rendering (namely DX11) my 290x doesn't flinch running a lot of games at 8x native resolution.

Your gpu is very important for a lot of emulation.

>>56157518
This.
>rpcs3 running on igpu
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Y5FhZNWafAI

>>56157555
any gpu can handle AA
i run dolphin with an 10 5800k and there is no difference in framerate between native 640x528 rendering or fullHD with AA

File: Screen 2016-08-19 13-29-45.png (95KB, 1247x752px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 1247x752px

>>56157572
source
https://www.reddit.com/r/emulation/comments/1vijyx/dolphin_cpu_benchmark_please_provide_data/

>>56145120
>RIP AMD
every week for years now

it's fucked that there's no real competition on the hardware market tho

>>56157598
VRAM usage is the part that matters, GPU power after that.
Try and play Gran Turismo 3 fullHD with AA on that APU and tell me the framerate doesn't get fucking crushed during races.

>>56145120
3GB literally isn't enough to run any upcoming or recently released AAA game on the highest setting without extremely noticeable issues.

>>56157659
Latest pcsx2 OGL plugin commits make use of >4GB vram.

>>56145120
I have a 3gb card, literally can not play games without maxing it out due to the system using 1gb on its own, which leads to stuttering bad, i mean when the average fps in a game is 70 but the minimum is 2.5 and it hits it constantly, shit feels horrible, 6gb of vram would get me by, but 8gb is the norm on any card i would consider getting.

>>56146411
This is the most retarded thing I've ever read.

>>56157636
Would be interesting to see how the Skylake i3 6100 performs.
I imagine it would be pretty much on par with the similarly clocked Haswell i7's.

>>56157694
First day on /g/ huh?

>>56157636

So what you're telling me is AMD's performance line (i.e the fx chips) are fast enough for dolphin emulation as they run the benchmark faster than the actual hardware?

>>56157661

It's a fucking $199 card you colossal retard.

Just ease off on the x16 MSAA or whatever placebo, stupidly RAM heavy setting that the highest settings inevitably include, and you'll be fine.

>>56157685
Why the fuck is your system eating up 1GB of dedicated VRAM?

More to the point: Why are you allowing it to? You are a retard.

>>56150560
Time Spy isn't fair? Tell me then how AMD gains far more from async, in fact even more than in any DX12 game so far.

>>56151053
tomb raider didn't even support async until recently

>>56145120
Looks good, except
>3 display ports

I want that meme to end.

File: 1459705509423.jpg (87KB, 804x349px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 804x349px

>>56157722
>when the post is so true you have no words or reaction pic but you wanna give them the (you) they've earned anyway

>>56157755
>It's a fucking $199 card you colossal retard.
so is the 480 and that has 4GB.

>>56157838

Yeah but muh Nvidia.

>>56157838
I'd actually buy the 4GB 470 instead of the 4GB 480 which is even cheaper or similar if you get a nice AIB Sapphire.

>>56157838
The RX 480 at the 200$ price point is nonexistent.
At release there were a handful of BIOS switched 8GB versions so AMD could market the 200$ price point but they were never in stock again now after nearly 2 months.

>>56147246
>not the Titan V

kek pastfags

>>56157876

>The RX 480 at the 200$ price point is nonexistent.

So were any pascal cards at msrp.

File: stocked.png (150KB, 651x554px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 651x554px

>>56157888
1060 3GB is in stock right now and the 6GB version for MSRP often gets restocked if you manage to grab it first unlike the RX 480 4GB reference which doesn't even exist.

>>56156574
55-60 fps.
:^)

AMD, why can't they fucking OpenGL?
Needing rescue by VUlkan and DX12 just to stay competitive
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZJXV4dzoCE

>>56157572
if you actually want every game you play to run at full speed, you get an intel processor.

>>56158623
not enough pajeet.

>>56158660
wait for zen

>>56145494
>>56145151
samefagging

>>56147821
I have had a 660 under awful conditions and it is still trucking just fine.

I think I will finally get a 6GB 1060 though because I do wonder how long the 660 will last.

>>56158660

That isn't what the data is suggesting.

>>56158623
holy shit.
the terrain just pops out of nowhere.

>>56158712
ok my man try running gran turismo 4 on that dinky poodriver cpu you got.

>>56158623
No Mans Sky isn't a good game for OpenGL IMO. I have a 7950 and 290 that play it just fine on launch no issue. No clue if the recent update does anything different as of yet though. I can't tell a difference between either AMD card and even the 960 in the other machine. All of them are i5's 2500k or 4690k and I have a Phenom II x4 B60 Deneb out there too that couldn't play but should with the update.

>>56157876
If you place an order for a 199 4gb nitro 480
You will get it within 7 days or whenever the next shipment arrives.

If you dont, you will never see this card because miners are buying out all the stock

>>56145120
Lol it has even less memory than 970 meme and no dx12

File: skepticalscoob.jpg (38KB, 600x499px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 600x499px

>>56157572
Why would someone lie on the internet

I have a 8350 system with a 380 and it stutters all the time unless you drop all settings

An i5 breezes it and dolphin and can do this on its integrated gpu

>>56159015

>380
>compared to a 290x

One of these gpus is considerably more powerful than the other.

>>56145361
>rx 460 =/= 1060

>inb4 2.5GB lol

>>56157636
You have to go back.

File: 1470457029422.jpg (41KB, 263x383px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 263x383px

>>56157943
>>56158623
oy vey