Official NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Announcement @ [H]

Status
Not open for further replies.
noko said:
Well depending how good the 1060 is you maybe be able to find shelves stacked full of 480's ;)
Click to expand...

I've been on igpu since the beginning of June. I actually had the opportunity to pull the trigger on a couple different 480's at MSRP but held back because of all the "wait for this, wait for that" talk. I sure don't want to buy out of desperation because I know I'll regret that. I guess my mistake was selling my 960 too early.:oops:
 
DigitalGriffin said:
AT $300 FE that's cutting it damn close to 1070 non FE at $379

"MSRP will start at $249." for non FE - since this is starting point $249 will be 3GB Card...Extrapolating....

~$300 for NON FE 6GB?
~$300 for FE 3GB?

For that kind of money they better deliver some serious performance bumps over a RX480 8 gig. (at least 25% for a Non-FE)
Click to expand...

There is no 3GB, only 6GB. So $250 for 6GB non FE and $300 for 6GB FE
 
GTX 1060 no SLI support, I really hope this isn't the case. Yes, multi-card can be problematic, and yes it would potentially cannibalize 1080 sales, yes, it probably makes business sense. But it's FUCKING BORING. This is why we need AMD doing interesting things, or else we will see Intel style performance/feature tiers that are locked down to fuck. Remember the good old core 2 days when you could buy a low end dual core that could clock as well as a e8400? Now you want overclocking, time to cough up the extra cash for a K series. You want two more cores than last gen, that will be a 70% price increase (Intel, go fuck yourself with your 6950x). I'm sure the 1060 will be good performance/watt, and a regimented calculated upgrade percent over last generation, and it will be predictable and fucking boring.

It reminds me of this Top Gear segment, NVIDIA GTX 1060, brought to you by the fucking accounting department.
 
DigitalGriffin said:
AT $300 FE that's cutting it damn close to 1070 non FE at $379

"MSRP will start at $249." for non FE - since this is starting point $249 will be 3GB Card...Extrapolating....

~$300 for NON FE 6GB?
~$300 for FE 3GB?

For that kind of money they better deliver some serious performance bumps over a RX480 8 gig. (at least 25% for a Non-FE)
Click to expand...

I agree in theory that a paltry $80 difference between 1060 and 1070 is too close. That said, have you seen any $379 1070s out there for purchase... ever? Even the aftermarket versions are going at $430 on up. Resellers know these cards are moving and have absolutely no reason to drop to MSRP for the 1070/1080s while I have a feeling that 1060 will actually sell around $300.

In any case, nVidia is definitely succeeding in conditioning the market to higher prices as has been their plan.
 
britjh22 said:
GTX 1060 no SLI support, I really hope this isn't the case. Yes, multi-card can be problematic, and yes it would potentially cannibalize 1080 sales, yes, it probably makes business sense. But it's FUCKING BORING. This is why we need AMD doing interesting things, or else we will see Intel style performance/feature tiers that are locked down to fuck. Remember the good old core 2 days when you could buy a low end dual core that could clock as well as a e8400? Now you want overclocking, time to cough up the extra cash for a K series. You want two more cores than last gen, that will be a 70% price increase (Intel, go fuck yourself with your 6950x). I'm sure the 1060 will be good performance/watt, and a regimented calculated upgrade percent over last generation, and it will be predictable and fucking boring.

It reminds me of this Top Gear segment, NVIDIA GTX 1060, brought to you by the fucking accounting department.
Click to expand...

The nature of SLI/Crossfire is changing, we will not need cards sharing frame buffers over proprietary links soon. An update to DX12 should hopefully provide answers soon. What will be interesting however, will be what nVidia will do to block multi GPU setups.
 
harmattan said:
I agree in theory that a paltry $80 difference between 1060 and 1070 is too close. That said, have you seen any $379 1070s out there for purchase... ever? Even the aftermarket versions are going at $430 on up. Resellers know these cards are moving and have absolutely no reason to drop to MSRP for the 1070/1080s while I have a feeling that 1060 will actually sell around $300.

In any case, nVidia is definitely succeeding in conditioning the market to higher prices as has been their plan.
Click to expand...

There is a Gigabyte 1070 that's been out for $399 on newegg. They come in on a regular basis. I missed the batch that came in yesterday, they sell out real quick.
 
harmattan said:
I agree in theory that a paltry $80 difference between 1060 and 1070 is too close. That said, have you seen any $379 1070s out there for purchase... ever? Even the aftermarket versions are going at $430 on up. Resellers know these cards are moving and have absolutely no reason to drop to MSRP for the 1070/1080s while I have a feeling that 1060 will actually sell around $300.

In any case, nVidia is definitely succeeding in conditioning the market to higher prices as has been their plan.
Click to expand...


The 1170 will probably be $500+ but faster than a Titan P and looked at as a bargain. Its all marketing and its working. I hope the market doesn't stagnate because I will just buy a console and quit PC gaming. What fun is everyone having the same tech? There used to be so many more options out there.
 
britjh22 said:
GTX 1060 no SLI support, I really hope this isn't the case. Yes, multi-card can be problematic, and yes it would potentially cannibalize 1080 sales, yes, it probably makes business sense. But it's FUCKING BORING. This is why we need AMD doing interesting things, or else we will see Intel style performance/feature tiers that are locked down to fuck. Remember the good old core 2 days when you could buy a low end dual core that could clock as well as a e8400? Now you want overclocking, time to cough up the extra cash for a K series. You want two more cores than last gen, that will be a 70% price increase (Intel, go fuck yourself with your 6950x). I'm sure the 1060 will be good performance/watt, and a regimented calculated upgrade percent over last generation, and it will be predictable and fucking boring.

It reminds me of this Top Gear segment, NVIDIA GTX 1060, brought to you by the fucking accounting department.
Click to expand...

SLI 1060 is a bad idea to start with anyway, since 1080 is pretty much twice of 980, so in that sense there isn't a whole lot of argument for SLI'ing 1060.
 
1) Yeah I have yet to do SLI/XFire, but doing it with budget cards means you have to sell two of them later when you're upgrading :p So overall, that's a non-issue honestly.

2) The more optimistic part is about the AIB availability - something I'm really glad to see being addressed by nVidia.

The GTX 1060 is not a cut down version of the GTX 1080 and GTX 1070 chip, the GP104, it is rather a smaller less expensive chip, the GP106.
Click to expand...
I'm curious on the emphasis of this, unless people were made to think that leftover 1080/1070s sold as 1060s?
At least something speaking to the overall Pascal supply issue anyway.
 
Rvenger said:
The 1170 will probably be $500+ but faster than a Titan P and looked at as a bargain. Its all marketing and its working. I hope the market doesn't stagnate because I will just buy a console and quit PC gaming. What fun is everyone having the same tech? There used to be so many more options out there.
Click to expand...

Yep. The "Flounders Edition" and price hikes is the sort of thing a company can do when they utterly control a market segment. They've been trying to edge up prices through various tactics for the past 3-4 years like a mosquito looking for a vein.

Someone asked me in another forum: "you didn't expect top-end cards to stay $600 forever, did you?". My response to that is "You didn't think that Apple Macintosh from 1987 would still be $5000 in 2010?", my point being the cost of technology generally goes down over time, not notch back up which is what is happening here because nVidia controls the market.
 
ebduncan said:
per the intro article from here
"As the elusive GTX 1060 goes I think the above graphics outline what everyone is wanting to know. The GTX 1060 is faster than the GTX 980, which of course we will put to the test in realworld gaming in our upcoming review. The GTX 1060 will have an MSRP of $249. The GTX 1060 is not a cut down version of the GTX 1080 and GTX 1070 chip, the GP104, it is rather a smaller less expensive chip, the GP106."



Then you must have derped on your release article. :)
Click to expand...
Guru3D, Tech power up, others are also reporting it's a GP106.
 
DooLocsta said:
Damnit and now the wait on reviews begins again. I was heavily leaning towards the RX480 but if this is $20 $30 more and performs at or above a 980 there would be no point.
Click to expand...
Indeed. I have no interest in multi-GPU at all (but was considering RX480 for both availability and price reasons) - an available GTX 1060 (and considering I have an nV card already) could well derail that line of thinking - especially with RX480 availability an issue.
 
chenw said:
SLI 1060 is a bad idea to start with anyway, since 1080 is pretty much twice of 980, so in that sense there isn't a whole lot of argument for SLI'ing 1060.
Click to expand...

Except for the fact that maybe you want to add another 1060 down the line? While I would usually wouldn't recommend that idea, the progression of GPU upgrades has slowed considerably, and this idea is more relevant now. I would much rather have multiple options that I can decide on, rather than NVIDIA removing features because they cannibalize parts of their lineup.
 
dvsman said:
Wow 980 level performance at 120 watts? AMD is definitely in trouble. I'm all for competition but the 480 is @970 level performance and it pulls 150 watts (officially, not OC'ed).
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. I liked the RX 480 and was waiting - still am - for AIB versions and also 1060 reviews. If it truly is 980 performance @120 watts for $250... then my 770 will be replaced by a 1060. Sorry AMD - too much power draw for 970 performance and the 8GB VRAM will never be fully utilized with the RX 480 performance anyway - at least if you don't overclock, which I never do.
 
On the Nvidia full specs page for the GTX 1060 is says "Nvidia SLI Ready: NO". That is such a shame, I have a co-worker who was looking at getting dual RX480 cards but was waiting to see what the GTX 1060 had to offer first. Guess there is no option now since the GTX 1060 doesn't support SLI.
 
J Macker said:
fixed. "Cluster at best" yeah... just doesn't work.

Smart business, remove sli so people can't buy 2 cards and have 1.5x times the performance of the 1080 for $200 cheaper.
Click to expand...

Considering a 1080 was marketed as being roughly equivalent to 980 SLI (70% gain) why would you expect 2x 1060 (with marketed performance = 980) to suddenly gain an extra 50% performance on top of that?
 
bildad said:
Survival of the fittest.
Click to expand...

That will also apply to our wallets once is only Nvidia left.

Stereodude said:
You're willing to buy an inferior product to help keep the company afloat? :confused:
Click to expand...

For the greater good, yes.

Also, maybe I missed, but where are the benchmarks in this article showing that is already faster or that much faster than a RX480 to guarantee a purchase?
 
When you review it, please compare an overclocked RX-480 versus an overclocked GTX 1060 and an overclocked GTX 970-- that's what people reading [H] actually care about, if they care about mainstream cards at all.

We already know the 1060 is probably 10-15% faster than the 480 at stock. It's great to confirm that as a fact, but isn't actually new information.
 
Last edited:
i do not for the life of me understand the wish for another company to die. i wish brand loyalty did not come with the obvious stupidity. Regardless of what company you support and products you use we are all apart of the #PCmasterrace and should turn our ire towards the video game developers and the console peasants.
 
Last edited:
harmattan said:
I agree in theory that a paltry $80 difference between 1060 and 1070 is too close. That said, have you seen any $379 1070s out there for purchase... ever? Even the aftermarket versions are going at $430 on up. Resellers know these cards are moving and have absolutely no reason to drop to MSRP for the 1070/1080s while I have a feeling that 1060 will actually sell around $300.

In any case, nVidia is definitely succeeding in conditioning the market to higher prices as has been their plan.
Click to expand...

The only reason that you see a $250 GTX 1060 is because AMD has the RX 480 in the same price bracket. I don't see a reason for the AIB partners to "discount" their superior aftermarket cooling solutions to the $250 range when they are going to be better than the $300 Founder's Edition. If $300 is good enough for the Founder's Edition then $300 should be equitable for a superior aftermarket edition. If the GTX 1060 is faster than the RX 480 then it makes even more sense to raise the minimum price to the $300 range for vendors such as NewEgg even if the MSRP of the aftermarket cards is closer to $250.

Why? Because people will support the price increase looking at GPU pricing trends for the last few generations.
 
schizo said:
When you review it, please compare an overclocked RX-480 versus an overclocked GTX 1060 and an overclocked GTX 980-- that's what people reading [H] actually care about, if they care about mainstream cards at all.

We already know the 1060 is probably 10-15% faster than the 480 at stock. It's great to confirm that as a fact, but isn't actually new information.
Click to expand...

I've noticed the German hardware sites consistently cover OC vs OC - something I do wish our domestic review sites did with more frequency :p
 
cageymaru said:
The only reason that you see a $250 GTX 1060 is because AMD has the RX 480 in the same price bracket. I don't see a reason for the AIB partners to "discount" their superior aftermarket cooling solutions to the $250 range when they are going to be better than the $300 Founder's Edition. If $300 is good enough for the Founder's Edition then $300 should be equitable for a superior aftermarket edition. If the GTX 1060 is faster than the RX 480 then it makes even more sense to raise the minimum price to the $300 range for vendors such as NewEgg even if the MSRP of the aftermarket cards is closer to $250.

Why? Because people will support the price increase looking GPU pricing trends for the last few generations.
Click to expand...

Via the EVGA website:

2 of their 3 custom 1070s are below the FE price.
All 5 of their custom 1080s are below the FE price.

Why do you assume that the FE price is a baseline for the AIB cards when almost every single custom card from the biggest NA company is cheaper, despite better cooling, higher clocks, etc? Why would the 1060 be any different from the 1070 and 1080?
 
KrylonArt said:
On the Nvidia full specs page for the GTX 1060 is says "Nvidia SLI Ready: NO". That is such a shame, I have a co-worker who was looking at getting dual RX480 cards but was waiting to see what the GTX 1060 had to offer first. Guess there is no option now since the GTX 1060 doesn't support SLI.
Click to expand...

980 SLI = 1080

1060 SLI would be $600

Just have him buy a 1080.
 
Mav451 said:
I've noticed the German hardware sites consistently cover OC vs OC - something I do wish our domestic review sites did with more frequency :p
Click to expand...

It would make a more apples to apples comparison. Problem is overclock is never consistent between cards. So data would be dicey without a "expected overclock range"-high and low bracket, and compare that to the high and low bracket of the other oc card.
 
Solhokuten said:
You have got to be kidding me. :eek:
Click to expand...

i would be surprised if SLI was available on this card price range, because it would cannibalize 1070 and 1080 sales.
I am not that convinced that it will kill the 480: costs more, no SLI, less RAM.
What kind of user will be better with this than with a single 480?

-1080p gamers are getting more than enough muscle with the 480
-1440p gamers have more RAM with the 480
-4k gamers have crossfire with the 480.
-it is too big to replace the R9 nano on SFF builds.

The only gaming market when the 1060 could make a dent are the budget 1080p 120Hz gamers. But how many 1080 120Hz gamers would save pennys with a single 1060 over CrossFire 480 or a single 1070? Assuming the 1060 can deliver 120fps at 1080p max settings...
 
maxius said:
i do not for the life of me understand the wish for another company to die. i wish brand loyalty did not come with the obvious stupidity. Regardless of what company you support and products you use we are all apart of the #PCmasterrace and should turn our ire towards the video game developers and the console peasants.
Click to expand...
I don't see anyone here saying they want to see AMD go under.

But that doesn't mean consumer should bail them out, otherwise what motivation would there be for any of these companies to compete. We should get the best product for the money we are paying, and let these companies earn our money.

So I really don't see whats the point of bringing up AMD's situation in this discussion.
 
Stryke1983 said:
Via the EVGA website:

2 of their 3 custom 1070s are below the FE price.
All 5 of their custom 1080s are below the FE price.

Why do you assume that the FE price is a baseline for the AIB cards when almost every single custom card from the biggest NA company is cheaper, despite better cooling, higher clocks, etc? Why would the 1060 be any different from the 1070 and 1080?
Click to expand...

And custom RX480s are just so going to be sold at $240 reference instead at a premium. *sarcasm*
 
Napoleon said:
I assume we'd also see it versus a GTX 980 to test out their claim (although it admittedly is not a price competitive comparison)
Click to expand...
Most likely.

ebduncan said:
Then you must have derped on your release article.
Click to expand...
This is an ANNOUNCEMENT as is spelled out. And no, what I wrote it dead on correct. I can tell you what NVIDIA has given us to pass onto you, but as far as sharing information that I have gathered from the hardware personally here in the lab, that information is embargoed.

maxius said:
What am i seeing here a PAPER LAUNCH and no tear into nv's rectum?!
Click to expand...
This is an ANNOUNCEMENT, not a LAUNCH. AMD talked about Fury and Nano well before those launches. If you want to consider it a paper announcement, knock yourself out. Launch date has always been considered a day that review embargoes expire. While I cannot comment on the review embargo date, I do not expect this to be a paper launch.
 
harmattan said:
Yep. The "Flounders Edition" and price hikes is the sort of thing a company can do when they utterly control a market segment. They've been trying to edge up prices through various tactics for the past 3-4 years like a mosquito looking for a vein.

Someone asked me in another forum: "you didn't expect top-end cards to stay $600 forever, did you?". My response to that is "You didn't think that Apple Macintosh from 1987 would still be $5000 in 2010?", my point being the cost of technology generally goes down over time, not notch back up which is what is happening here because nVidia controls the market.
Click to expand...
It's simply economics. They're charging what the market will bear. The market will correct itself if the price gets too high and Nvidia gets out of control. Some other company will see an opportunity to come into the market and sell an equivalent card for half the price if Nvidia really is gouging. Sure you can counter by saying that Intel has held the price of their Enthusiast products steady for several generations, but they haven't really increased performance much either.

At some point a company can no longer keep prices constant and continue to make significant advances to the product, especially if costs of the components to make it are going up.
 
cageymaru said:
The only reason that you see a $250 GTX 1060 is because AMD has the RX 480 in the same price bracket. I don't see a reason for the AIB partners to "discount" their superior aftermarket cooling solutions to the $250 range when they are going to be better than the $300 Founder's Edition. If $300 is good enough for the Founder's Edition then $300 should be equitable for a superior aftermarket edition. If the GTX 1060 is faster than the RX 480 then it makes even more sense to raise the minimum price to the $300 range for vendors such as NewEgg even if the MSRP of the aftermarket cards is closer to $250.

Why? Because people will support the price increase looking at GPU pricing trends for the last few generations.
Click to expand...

what?. if you look at the Asus STRIX GTX 1080 the price is below FE Price at 679$, and that card is considerably superior to the GTX 1080FE.. EVGA ACX 3.0 GTX 1080 have a price of 619$, the standard blower EVGA Edition cost 609$ wow that's much of a price bump. and all the way the most expensive card is the EVGA GTX 1080 FTW at 679$..

Stryke1983 said:
Via the EVGA website:

2 of their 3 custom 1070s are below the FE price.
All 5 of their custom 1080s are below the FE price.

Why do you assume that the FE price is a baseline for the AIB cards when almost every single custom card from the biggest NA company is cheaper, despite better cooling, higher clocks, etc? Why would the 1060 be any different from the 1070 and 1080?
Click to expand...

Because as always, he want any possible reason to speak bad about Nvidia and when he can't then just try to fabricate/invent something...
 
I have posted this in a couple other threads but is worthy of being here as well as it pertains to mGPU going forward.

This is an interesting quote from AMD on mGPU in DX12, OGL, and Vulkan. We were talking to AMD about CrossFire support in DOOM and AMD made this statement.

I don’t believe there are plans to have mGPU enabled in OGL path for DOOM, and the Vulkan guys haven’t figured out what mGPU looks like yet.

Understand please that as games move to the newer APIs, the mGPU work has to be done by the developers, it’s not in the driver anymore…
Click to expand...
 
I've been telling my brother to pony up for a 1070 when he upgrades his card this year, but he's balking a bit at the price. If the 1060 ends up being around 980 level and can be found for $250, this might just be exactly what he's looking for. He's still using a 7870xt, so anything is going to be a huge upgrade. However, if availability sends the 1060 north of $300, I don't think I could recommend it over the $399 Gigabyte 1070 that goes in and out of stock on NE.
 
geok1ng said:
i would be surprised if SLI was available on this card price range, because it would cannibalize 1070 and 1080 sales.
I am not that convinced that it will kill the 480: costs more, no SLI, less RAM.
What kind of user will be better with this than with a single 480?

-1080p gamers are getting more than enough muscle with the 480
-1440p gamers have more RAM with the 480
-4k gamers have crossfire with the 480.
-it is too big to replace the R9 nano on SFF builds.

The only gaming market when the 1060 could make a dent are the budget 1080p 120Hz gamers. But how many 1080 120Hz gamers would save pennys with a single 1060 over CrossFire 480 or a single 1070? Assuming the 1060 can deliver 120fps at 1080p max settings...
Click to expand...

The reason why MSI and Asus put the OC bios on their cards as the default was to get 1 or 2 more frames on a benchmark. 1 or 2 more frames at 1080p will sell more cards to the general public. (I'm not trying to say that Nvidia is doing the same for their benchmarks.)

Again at 1440p, 1 or 2 more frames makes one card more attractive than another. Charts matter.

@4K even though conventional wisdom says that you're better off with buying a higher tier card initially, most are going to buy the card that got 1 or 2 more frames in the tests above. I doubt most people read past the first benchmark before making their choice; look at how many times Kyle has to say RTFA in the review discussion. Thus they will just have to suck it up and run games at a lower resolution or buy something better later on. Just don't expect them to plan for gaming @4K when they only have $200 - $300 to spend at the onset.

Gigabyte already shrunk the GTX 1070 for SFF builds I believe.
 
DrLobotomy said:
No SLI.. The cluster fuck continues.

Welcome back AMD.
Click to expand...

Huh? How many times have people mentioned the price of the 480? The whole point of the 480 was to go after this large budget market that spends less that $300 on a single GPU. Not supporting multi-GPU on a card like this might turn off a very few top end enthusiasts but that's it. I really have no idea why anyone would at least initially by two 1060s or 480s for real world use. While I get the allure of the getting single top end card performance at a much lower price point, multi-GPU at this point simply isn't effective enough across the board. Maybe for specific titles and maybe as a add on upgrade at a latter date but buying these kinds of cards just isn't worth it and almost everyone these days says buy the SINGLE faster card you can.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top