Final Words

Bringing this review to a close, while in the big picture we’re still early in the release cycle of the FinFET generation of video cards, the launch of the GeForce GTX 1060 and its underlying GP106 GPU none the less marks an important turning point in this release cycle. While NVIDIA and AMD were content to initially chase different markets with their respective first product releases – going after the high-end and mainstream markets respectively – now that NVIDIA is further fleshing out their product stack, NVIDIA and AMD can no longer avoid each other. So for the first time in this generation we have some real competition, and importantly for so many gamers out there it takes place in the higher volume mainstream market.

Overall, GeForce GTX 1060 follows a string of well executed NVIDIA launches throughout the Maxwell and now Pascal generations, and GTX 1060 is no different. NVIDIA has continued to focus on balancing performance with power consumption, and the end result is that like its bigger siblings, GP106 and GTX 1060 follow this trend to a T.

Relative to GeForce GTX 1070, GTX 1060 delivers 73% of the performance of NVIDIA’s enthusiast level card. In practice this puts GTX 1060 a bit closer to GTX 1070 than GTX 960 was to GTX 970 last year; the performance gap between these tiers is a bit narrower, likely as a result of the fact that the gap between GTX 1070 and GTX 1080 is greater. The end result, then is that GTX 1060 offers 73% of the performance for what’s (on paper) 66% of the price. Consequently, buyers looking for GTX 1060 to radically alter the price/performance curve of this generation may come away with less than they hoped for, but mainstream gamers looking for a cheaper Pascal card finally have an option.

Looking at generational comparisons then, of all of the Pascal cards launched so far, GTX 1060 offers the best performance gains for a single generation. Relative to GTX 960 it offers an 85% performance improvement at 1080p, and even excluding the outliers this is still an 80% gain. This isn’t quite a 2x performance gain in a single generation, but it is close, and closer than either GTX 1070 or GTX 1080 got. So for current GTX 960 owners, the GTX 1060 offers a tantalizing performance upgrade right off the bat, and for the older GTX 760 and GTX 660 cards the differences are even greater, never mind the newer features NVIDIA has introduced since Kepler.

The one catch to all of this is price. Relative to GTX 960 prices for this generation have gone up, from $199 for GTX 960 to $249 for GTX 1060. This is still on the edge of the mainstream video card market (if only barely so) and it’s a price NVIDIA has sold GTX x60 cards at before, but it means that NVIDIA misses out on the $200 sweet spot right now. Instead what they offer is essentially a greater than previous generational performance increase for a greater than previous price.

As for where the previously mentioned competitive landscape fits in, a lot of it is going to depend on what potential buyers are looking to spend. At the GTX 1060’s MSRP of $249, the card is countered by AMD’s Radeon RX 480 8GB for $239. The RX 480 is a very capable card, but the launch of the GTX 1060 puts an end to AMD’s short-lived exclusive to that market. And to NVIDIA’s credit (and AMD’s chagrin), the GTX 1060 is 12% faster while consuming less power at the same time, more than justifying the $10 price difference and giving NVIDIA a legitimate claim as the superior GPU.

That said, pricing makes all the difference. While GTX 1060’s principle competition is the 8GB RX 480, AMD also launched a 4GB RX 480 specifically to hit the $199 price point and to be a spoiler here. Based on what we’ve seen in the past, I am concerned that a 4GB high-end 1080p card is at risk of being VRAM limited too early in its lifetime. But if that’s something that doesn’t bother you, then the 4GB RX 480’s much lower price makes it a very viable alternative to the GTX 1060 for buyers who need similar performance for a lower price. That is, of course, if you can get a 4GB RX 480.

And this brings up perhaps the most difficult issue for any video card buyer right now, AMD or NVIDIA: supply. Partners for both vendors are regularly restocking video cards, but it’s still not enough, and cards are selling almost as fast as they can be listed. The good news for the GTX 1060 is that post-launch card prices haven’t really gone up, so if you can find a card you’ll likely find it at (or close to) that specific card’s MSRP. But it means you have to find a card in the first place. Of course the video card market is no stranger to launch shortages, but this generation is proving unique in just how long so many different cards are in short supply. On that note, this is also why I don’t consider the 4GB RX 480 a greater spoiler for the GTX 1060; of all of the mainstream cards on the market, it’s the hardest to get, as vendors favor producing higher margin 8GB cards. Consequently, if you want a mainstream card right now, your only viable options are the much more closely priced GTX 1060 and 8GB RX 480.

In any case, it goes without saying that all of the above buying suggestions are based on cards being on the market at or close to their MSRPs. If card prices do finally slip, then all of this goes out the window.

Finally, let’s talk about where the individual GTX 1060 cards we reviewed today fit into the broader picture. With their Founders Edition cards NVIDIA has set out to create what amounts to their own brand for premium video cards, and it’s working. Like the GTX 1080 and 1070 Founders Edition cards before it, the GTX 1060 Founders Edition is a well-built, well-performing card. But with otherwise reference gaming performance, it’s not an easy card to recommend given its $50 (20%) price premium. If you need or want a blower style card then it’s a solid choice, otherwise as nice as the card is, the cheaper vendor custom cards still look very attractive.

As for ASUS’s ROG Strix GeForce GTX 1060 OC, ASUS has gone for premium market and it shows. Everything from the overbuilt cooling and power delivery system to the RGB lighting and factory overclock put it a step above the other cards, including NVIDIA’s own Founders Edition. However this also contributes to its drawback, which is its price. Which is not to say that there isn’t a place in the market for premium cards – that they are so popular with gamers is clear proof that there is – but ASUS is clearly playing in a niche market with a $314 GTX 1060. For those buyers who can pay ASUS’s price premium, I have no doubt they’ll be happy with the card. Otherwise the mainstream masses will want to look elsewhere, as this isn’t a card aimed at them.

Overclocking
Comments Locked

189 Comments

View All Comments

  • anandreader106 - Friday, August 5, 2016 - link

    First thought: Still no Doom benchmarks being factored in?

    Ryan,

    You are my favorite GPU reviewer. Period. However I do think I need clarity on your Final Words.

    It's my opinion that DirectX 11 performance is "good enough" from Nvidia and AMD thus far in this new generation. So I'm left wondering, why aren't you going more in-depth with DirectX 12 and Vulcan titles/performance? Wouldn't that give us the best indication of what to expect going forward?
  • cknobman - Friday, August 5, 2016 - link

    The best indication you will get is that when reviewing Nvidia cards none of these things will be addressed?

    Why, because Nvidia is not doing so hot at them and it would not make their cards look better than AMD's.

    Look at the other 1060 benchmarks and comparisons and you will see that:
    A. Nvidia is behind on dx12 and the 480 => 1060
    B. @1080p the 1060 is overkill and a $200 480 4gb (or even a $180 470) is all you need
    C. Because of Nvidia's "founders edition" price gouge model most 3rd parties are trying to get away with charging more than $250. Reality is most 1060's are >= $270 which makes the AMD 480 the better buy.
  • StrangerGuy - Friday, August 5, 2016 - link

    It's funny the AMD fanboys always harp about the evil $300 1060 and never mentions how their favorite $200 480 is essentially vaporware and 8GB versions price gouged to death.
  • Ryan Smith - Friday, August 5, 2016 - link

    "It's my opinion that DirectX 11 performance is "good enough" from Nvidia and AMD thus far in this new generation. So I'm left wondering, why aren't you going more in-depth with DirectX 12 and Vulcan titles/performance? Wouldn't that give us the best indication of what to expect going forward?"

    The benchmark suite only gets updated periodically. It's a lot of effort to design and validate a testing sequence, and then run (and possibly re-run) 30 some-odd cards through it. So adding games has the net effect of slowing things down even further.

    At this point we're updating the testbed to Broadwell next month, at which point we'll refresh the games list as necessary.

    Though I will note that there's a reason we run so many (9) games: one game is too small of a sample size. Right now Doom is the only Vulkan game on the market,* so while it's a very interesting first look at Vulkan, it's not something that's going to be representative of Vulkan as a whole.

    * We'll ignore DOTA 2 since it's not meaningfully GPU limited on these fast cards
  • CHADBOGA - Friday, August 5, 2016 - link

    Doom is one of those few games out there that will inspire people to go one way or the other and should be included in your benchmark suite.
  • Scali - Saturday, August 6, 2016 - link

    Aside from that, the Vulkan implementation in DOOM is not yet complete.
    As you can read in the DOOM FAQ, they use AMD shader intrinsics extensions, but no equivalent for nVidia. Likewise, on AMD hardware, async compute is enabled, on nVidia it is not yet. The FAQ says they're still working on optimizing the code with nVidia.

    While it may be interesting to benchmark DOOM's Vulkan implementation to get an idea of where we currently stand, I don't think it is mature enough at this point to say anything about performance in Vulkan games in general, or how AMD and nVidia stack up, since you're comparing apples to oranges at this point.
  • rhysiam - Friday, August 5, 2016 - link

    I too am curious as to why the whole DX11 vs 12 comparison wasn't even raised. DX12 does not appear once in the conclusion page. The 1060 is the better DX11 card, no question. It's early days for DX12, but what we're seeing so far is enough to suggest things may well be quite different. The three DX12 titles in the review (Hitman, RoTR & AoS) are the three strongest games for the 480 by far. Add Doom via Vulkan into the mix and you have 4 NextGen API titles that put the 480 at or above 1060 performance. Of course we can't make hard and fast recommendations based on a few titles like this, but surely it's worth mentioning at least, if not exploring in detail?

    This might be a minor point except for the fact that you dismiss the 4GB 480 based on speculation/extrapolation that its VRAM won't be enough to keep it competitive future demanding titles. Surely those demanding titles will increasingly be (or at least offer) DX12 though? So if you're advocating a 1060 over the 480 4GB based on longevity and future performance, the DX12 question has to be raised doesn't it?
  • rj030485 - Friday, August 5, 2016 - link

    Think Ryan needs to work on his math. He says the 1060 is 17% faster than the 480 in GTA V when the difference more like 30%.
  • Ryan Smith - Friday, August 5, 2016 - link

    Oh geeze. This is what happens when you read the wrong column in a spreadsheet. Thanks!
  • onemoar@gmail.com - Friday, August 5, 2016 - link

    I don't know why anands witcher 3 scores are so low
    I am pushing 80FPS in places with everything turned up to ultra and post effects on with no hairworks

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now