Nvidia makes its GTX 1060 3GB card official

Nvidia made the GTX 1060 3GB card official this morning. As the rumor mill suggested, this card will have one of its SMs disabled, bringing the total number of stream processors on board the chip down to 1152. The card will also have eight fewer texture units, for a total of 72. In exchange for those cuts, Nvidia has set the GTX 1060 3GB card's suggested price at $199.

How the GP106 die might look in its 3GB form

Everything else about the card, including its 1506-MHz base and 1708-MHz boost speeds, is identical to the specs of its 6GB sibling. Nvidia doesn't appear to be releasing a Founders Edition version of the 3GB card, but MSI and EVGA are already taking up the slack with GTX 1060 3GB lineups that range from mild to wild. If stock of the 3GB card is plentiful and the resource cuts don't hurt the lesser 1060 that much, AMD may have reason to worry if it can't begin to meet the demand for the perpetually-out-of-stock Radeon RX 480 4GB card. We'll have to see how that situation shakes out over the next couple weeks.

Comments closed
    • NeelyCam
    • 3 years ago

    This card is unnecesary:

    [url<]http://www.techworm.net/2016/08/intels-i7-kaby-lake-processors-powerful-wont-need-graphics-card.html[/url<] [quote<]"The new 7th generation Intel Processor, Core i7-7700K is said to be so powerful that you wont need a separate graphics card on your PC/laptop to run 4K videos or games." "Earlier Intel lineup including Sky Lake failed to deliver ultra high gaming or videography performances like Nvidia Titan X or Radeon Pro SSD."[/quote<] Good article. Lol

      • mkk
      • 3 years ago

      Reminds me of the good old times when the Pentium 4 were to accelerate the internet.

      • chuckula
      • 3 years ago

      Holy crap.
      You found a site that makes Wccftech look like it’s run by professionals!

        • Chrispy_
        • 3 years ago

        No kidding!

        [quote<]ultra high gaming or videography performances like Nvidia Titan X or Radeon Pro SSD[/quote<] I can't wait for the Titan X vs Radeon Pro SSD benchmarks! I bet the Radeon Pro SSD has more memory capacity for a much lower price than the Titan X and this will be essential for speeding up my MP3 videography, something my touchscreen motherboard has always been terrible at....

    • Klimax
    • 3 years ago

    Why they named it 1060 is beyond me. Bound to make problems for people.

    • jts888
    • 3 years ago

    I’m just still wondering where all the high-end HBM2 cards I remember being promised last year have gone.

    I had expected cards in the same performance bracket at the forthcoming Titan X 2.0 to be in the $600 price range (not $1.2k) and something like the GTX 1080 (a 256b, ~300 mm^2 card) to go for around what the GTX 970 debuted for.

    Everything we got, down to these Polaris and GP106 chips, feels like bait and switch to me still.

    • Krogoth
    • 3 years ago

    Anybody else get Geforce 460 768MiB vibes from this?

    • Tom Yum
    • 3 years ago

    Still think its a bit dodge calling this a GTX 1060 despite the lower shader and texture unit count. Calling it a GTS1060 or 1060SE (assuming they intend to release a 1050 at some point) would have at least let people know at a glance that the differences go beyond the memory size.

      • homerdog
      • 3 years ago

      I agree but at least the cuts are rather trivial, and they are advertising the true specs of the card unlike the 970.

      • flip-mode
      • 3 years ago

      It is definitely shady. People buying will likely assume the only difference is the memory unless they have done their research.

        • Voldenuit
        • 3 years ago

        Didn’t you read the specs? 3 GB 1060 is actually /less/ shady than its 6 GB cousin. :p

        • travbrad
        • 3 years ago

        Then they should do their research. A lot of people running 1080p monitors seem to think 8GB instead of 4GB will do something for them too. Caveat emptor.

        Car analogy time. Ford still calls it a Mustang whether it has a 4 cylinder engine, a V6, or a V8.

          • BurntMyBacon
          • 3 years ago

          TLDR; Car analogies are overused and don’t always fit.

          [quote<]Car analogy time. Ford still calls it a Mustang whether it has a 4 cylinder engine, a V6, or a V8.[/quote<] nVidia still calls it a GeForce whether it comes with 1280 SPs, 1920 SPs, 2560 SPs. Of course they do add on a model indicator: GTX 1060, GTX 1070, and GTX 1080 in this case. Then again, so does Ford: EcoBoost (4 cylinder), V6 (err, V6), and GT (V8). Of course they also use descriptors like "Convertible" and "Fastback" in the model name to describe other features and the Shelby name is reserved for their best models (kinda like Titan X), but cars are more than just engines so the analogy breaks down here anyways.

    • torquer
    • 3 years ago

    Weird. Its almost like it was inevitable…

    [url<]https://techreport.com/news/30408/review-roundup-gtx-1060-impresses-at-its-price-point[/url<]

    • tviceman
    • 3 years ago

    This card would have been better off in every imaginable way using 6 gb of slower VRAM (6-7ghz), and pricing it at $209. But I guess this is not much different than when Nvidia released the GTX 460 768mb card.

    • DragonDaddyBear
    • 3 years ago

    With weaker cards like this variable frame rate becomes more important. There is a significant premium for G-Sync over freesync. If the purchaser is looking for a monitor to go with this I think the card loses some value.

    • Chrispy_
    • 3 years ago

    Would love to see some blower versions of these.

    [b<]I know many of you PCMR gerbils despise blowers[/b<] but they are far more desirable in SFF PCs as well as many of the off-the-shelf PCs that this class of card is likely to go into, bought by Joe Average from [i<]BestMart[/i<] or wherever. Like it or not, those people outnumber us ten to one. Those cruddy things have one exhaust and perhaps an intake if you're lucky, the last thing they need is another 120W of GPU heat dumped into the case.

      • oldog
      • 3 years ago

      Does anyone make a video card blower that doesn’t sound like my gardener’s leaf blower?

        • cegras
        • 3 years ago

        Founder’s Edition 😉

        • Chrispy_
        • 3 years ago

        What cegras said.

        I’ve been buying “Founder’s Edition” since the Titan cooler was put on a GTX770.

        They’re just really well-made over-engineered coolers. Considering the effort that goes into some of the high-end open coolers, you’d figure one of the other vendors would have made a blower that isn’t “as cheap as it’s possible to manufacture” by now.

    • sweatshopking
    • 3 years ago

    Not buying one. I almost was able to buy a asus turbo 1060 (I want a blower as i have a smaller case) at midnight two nights ago. In stock, sale went through, but verified by visa screwed up on me and cancelled the sale. Fixed it, went back to Newegg, and out of stock. My family laughed at me.

      • tay
      • 3 years ago

      It wasn’t the first time I bet. Hey at least they find you entertaining!

    • SoundChaos
    • 3 years ago

    I am confused as to why so many people are against the smaller memory sizes on midrange cards, as its been proven time and time again for over a decade that it makes much less of a framerate difference than people assume. The only time the memory size usually matters is at 2560×1600+ resolutions, and even then its the difference of only a few percent. The GTX 1060 / RX480 are barely good enough to handle some of the more demanding titles at 1080p with max settings/60fps…

    I can almost guarantee that the 3gb 1060 will still be significantly faster than the 8gb RX 480 at 1080p and under in almost all titles, and probably still faster at higher resolutions too.

      • Voldenuit
      • 3 years ago

      Overwatch uses less than 3 GB of VRAM at 1440p Ultra on my GTX 1070.

      But it seems to be the exception rather than the rule for modern games (probably because Blizz is very sensitive to accesible hardware specs).

      A 4 GB RX 470 for $20* less than the [s<]1060[/s<]1055 makes infinitely more sense. * assuming we ever get MSRP on those.

        • selfnoise
        • 3 years ago

        I can tell you that at 1080p it uses maybe 1.5 gigs on Ultra/Epic. But yeah, that game is not anything close to as demanding as other AAA games. That’s what happens when your target is probably 30+ million sales. FWIW, I think Blizzard has the right idea. (also that game’s brilliant)

        • SoundChaos
        • 3 years ago

        Well thats my confusion. Why does it make more sense, why even bring the gb into the value equation of comparing AMD to Nvidia cards? From most reviews I’ve read, the 6gb GTX 1060 crushes the RX 470 by as much as 20-50% in non-vulcan/dx12 titles at 1080p. If the 3gb version is even close in performance to the 6gb (which it will be), I would gladly pay the $20 more and lose 1gb vram . IMO the RX 470 doesn’t even make sense vs the 4gb RX 480.

        [url<]https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/RX_470_STRIX_OC/10.html[/url<] [url<]http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-rx-470,4703-5.html[/url<] [url<]http://kotaku.com/amd-radeon-rx-470-review-almost-the-next-best-thing-1784946075[/url<]

          • Voldenuit
          • 3 years ago

          3 vs 4 or 6 or 8, it depends if games are using more than 3 GB RAM (and some are: ROTTR, SoM, DOOM Etc). The 6 GB 1060’s performance is great, but if it hits a memory bottleneck at 3 GB (I am comparing the 3 GB version to the 470 as a guess at its intended competitor), things might not look so pretty.

          The 4 GB 480 is a great deal. I have not seen one in stock, ever. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, since it could be a case of demand outstripping supply. We’ll see when AMD’s promised 100K shipped cards hit the shelves.

    • djayjp
    • 3 years ago

    For the review I really hope we get a good breakdown of just how viable 3GB is. Or, more interestingly, how green team’s 3GB compares to red team’s 4GB when taking into account texture compression mojo.

      • selfnoise
      • 3 years ago

      Seems like a bad idea to me (the card). I have a 6GB 1060 running at 1080p, and at the max settings in DOOM my card was reporting 4.4gigs of memory usage.

      I think 6gigs is probably just about fine for 1080P, but 3 gigs seems like “nah” territory. The 470 is probably a better buy at that price area in the realm of “cards that actually exist to be bought”.

        • cobalt
        • 3 years ago

        Prefaced with an “I’m not completely sure about this”, but isn’t DOOM designed to chew up all the memory you throw at it? In other words, it might work fine with less memory, the game’s just using it as cache, right?

          • synthtel2
          • 3 years ago

          Id tech tends to do a lot of that, yeah.

        • ColeLT1
        • 3 years ago

        I have a 8gb 1070 w/1440p gsync, and yet to see >4GB usage in afterburner, ever, and am tempted to say I have never seen >3GB ever (Crysis 2 makes me think like 3.2GB when all was on ultra)

        Here is my recent game list on steam currently, most recent games all the way to crysis2 when I got my 1070, all set on max settings if that will hold >60fps.

        Far Cry 3 (4x MSAA, not 8x and post process on low)
        Elder Scrolls online
        Borderlands TPS (physx high, not ultra)
        Dead Space (uninstalled after 5 mins, so doesn’t really count)
        FEAR 3
        Metro Last light
        Metro 2033
        Portal Stories: Mel
        Crysis 2

          • Voldenuit
          • 3 years ago

          Well, your games are pretty old: 2010 (assuming original Metro 2033, 2014 for rehash), 2012 (FC3), 2014 (ESO).

          Rise of the Tomb Raider will use up to 6-7 GB of VRAM, depending on visual settings.
          [url<]https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Performance_Analysis/Rise_of_the_Tomb_Raider/4.html[/url<] As mentioned, DOOM will use over 4 GB VRAM. Far Cry Primal likes to hover at 3 GB for sub-4K resolutions. I'm with selfnoise, 3GB sounds a little crippled for a mainstream card today. For the paltry amount of money being saved, I'd rather get a 4, 6 or 8 GB SKU instead.

            • DPete27
            • 3 years ago

            Like cobalt said, more and more new games are just not clearing data out of VRAM until it’s necessary (until the cached data starts to reach the VRAM max). It definitely makes it more difficult to monitor how much VRAM a game actually NEEDS.

        • djayjp
        • 3 years ago

        The nightmare texture setting (above ultra) is likely a little over the top though– is it even visually discernible?

        • Firestarter
        • 3 years ago

        I finished DOOM on my 3GB HD7950 just fine, “high” settings at 1080p and great framerates (well beyond 60 most of the time)

      • tay
      • 3 years ago

      This would be very helpful!

      • crystall
      • 3 years ago

      Texture compression is the same across all cards; the compressed texture formats are identical and standardized. What might make a difference is how the driver handles situations where it can’t keep all the textures needed for drawing a frame in the card’s RAM at the same time. It seems that nVidia used to have an edge there and I’m not sure if AMD caught up with them (though they vowed to at some point last year IIRC).

      That being said this is relevant for DX11 games and older. On DX12 & Vulkan it’s the application itself that handles GPU memory allocation so driver improvements won’t apply there.

        • synthtel2
        • 3 years ago

        I think he meant framebuffer traffic (delta color compression), not S3TC and friends.

          • crystall
          • 3 years ago

          Same difference, framebuffer compression applies only to the data being transferred, not to the actual storage. The frame-buffer needs to be allocated as if it was uncompressible (because it might be!).

            • homerdog
            • 3 years ago

            It is as you say. I’m surprised folks still think otherwise.

            • synthtel2
            • 3 years ago

            Yeah, but at least there are differences in how AMD and Nvidia handle such things (unlike texture compression), so the OP still makes more sense that way (I think).

    • Voldenuit
    • 3 years ago

    Yeah, no interest in a crippled G106.

    Perf/$ may prove me wrong, but I’d rather get a 480 than this, even if it costs $20 more. And this is someone who ‘pooh poohs’ at Polaris’ performance/watt*.

    * Power-Efficiency Pundit Pooh Poohs Polaris Performance/Watt, Posits Pruned Pascal Product Sub-Par.

    EDIT: /Fail. No ‘Purported’.

      • AnotherReader
      • 3 years ago

      The alliteration award is yours.

      • tviceman
      • 3 years ago

      The efficiency between 100-150 watt cards doesn’t really matter to anyone from a use case perspective. I do tend to purchase more efficient cards though even if it costs a few more dollars out of pocket, because Polar Bears and melting ice caps and what not. I’ll spend a little extra here if it means rewarding manufacturers/designers for their more efficient designs. I’m not going to forgo modern standards of living, but I will do my part (within reason) to lessen my carbon footprint when choosing between two products.

        • Voldenuit
        • 3 years ago

        Efficient card = less heat, less noise (assuming adequate cooler). That’s my biggest draw (no pun intended).

      • taisserroots
      • 3 years ago

      In the Uk at least a 4gb reference 480 should be cheaper than this

      • travbrad
      • 3 years ago

      Yeah I will see what benchmarks show but I’d lean more towards the 4GB 480 at this point….[url=http://www.nowinstock.net/computers/videocards/amd/rx480/<]if they were actually in stock anywhere[/url<]

    • derFunkenstein
    • 3 years ago

    Interesting. I figured there was no way this thing existed as anything other than an OEM card and that the 3GB mantle would be carried by a 1024-ALU GTX 1050 (or perhaps a 4GB 1050 with a 128-bit bus).

      • selfnoise
      • 3 years ago

      Rumor has it that they still intend to launch a 1050 in September. Which would be quite a torrid summer for Nvidia. Refreshing their entire lineup in a matter of months? What’s the 2017 encore? .tis for everybody!

        • Meadows
        • 3 years ago

        Enjoy it while it lasts, for you’re going to keep seeing these same cards for at least 2 years.

    • DancinJack
    • 3 years ago

    I really wish they’d differentiate it somehow. GTS vs GTX or something, at least.

    Also, AMD better hurry up and get some SKUs in stock.

      • xeridea
      • 3 years ago

      470s are pretty much always in stock, at least 1-3 different cards. Performance will likely be similar. The 480… yeah, really hard to find except for Ebay. It is a popular card for crypto, Newegg has one per customer limit, but you can get one from each model. There was the report that 100,000 will be hitting the market “soon” though.

        • PBCrunch
        • 3 years ago

        470 is available because the pricing is completely nuts; some of the AIB 470s cost as much as 8GB RX 480 is supposed to cost.

          • xeridea
          • 3 years ago

          The price of every Pascal and Polaris card is inflated right now due to high demand. The AIB 480s are $30-60 higher than reference, 470s are $20-30 more than what they could be, 1060s $20-40 more, 1070s and especially 1080s are way over MSRP $80-150 over. They are all still good values vs previous gen (except 1080, it is faster than 980 Ti but similar perf/$).

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This