Nvidia announces GeForce GTX 1060

Yeah, 3GB isn't quite enough. Especially if this card is supposed to be as fast as GTX 980. That 3GB would be rather serious handicap.

 

TBH, I feel both 3/6GB memory config and no sli are both retarded design decisions from Nvidia. Whoever decided on these 2 things needs to be fired.

 

Also that 192bit bus. I still think card will be bandwidth limited even on 1080p, those 190gb/s are not enough this days.

As soon you put any serious filtering card will cripple.

 

You make a big confusion between DX12 and AsyncShader . AsyncShaders is not a feature of DX12. If you want a complete list of DX12 features Fl 12.0 and Fl 12.1 just go to microsoft website.
You can make an engine game in DX11 that have AsynShaders, is that simple.Asyncshader is vendor specific , AMD have used it since old age HD 7970 which is a DX11 card, but is not part of any DX12 features.
Instead Nvidia has preemtion at pixel level (that is also a non DX12 feature) that will enable asyncshaders to run with preemtion.

In this moment if a game will follow ONLY the DX12 features, obviously will run faster on NVIDIA gpu .

But if a game will have Asyncshaders without preemtion(in this moment only such games are like AOS , Hitman ) wil run faster on AMD gpu , make the game aware of preemtion and the same game will run faster on NVIDIA because in that moment NVIDIA Gpu can execute async codes.

The future depends only the developer and how much money NVIDIA and AMD will invest with game developers .

 

Seeing the naked card and the 2 spaces for memory seriously made me say "fo".

A bit more generosity with the shaders would have made this a clear choice like PR said.

As it stands, the situation is the same as RX480; if you're planning on incrementally upgrading, don't bother, just get GTX1070.

I can already see an 8GB version coming due to "popular demand".

However, the positive of this card's release is RX490 coming sooner and hopefully more overall gfx market price drops.

Looking at pascal atm though, the prices here are full-on ott. I'm glad I got in early tbh. It's ridiculous.

 

384bit-512bit never saved AMD from being outsider neither gave them finally the performance crown, enough with the bandwidth myth. It's so 00's gimmick.

 

So yes,NVIDIA has AsyncShaders in hardware, but is tied to pre-emtion .
Sooner or later will appear titles aware of preemtion that will simply destroy AMD benchmarks and from my point of view is very bad for gaming industry

 

You can always go back to last gen and see how nvidia tried to make a gaming card out of gtx960 128bit. A very underperforming and overpriced card. One of the worst gtx x60 cards nvidia had ever made.

 

The issue is that AMDs architecture doesn't scale as well with bandwidth.

Nvdia cards for the past generations have all been bandwidth starved - that's also part of the reason they tend to fall off stronger long term than their AMD counter parts.

AMD on the other hand has the bandwidth but not the computation power that matters (outside of theoretical FLOPS).

If both met half way in their design/architecture decisions we'd be in GPU heaven.

That said, I consider the 480 to be bandwidth starved as well (that's a first, though - in recent history). At least if they wanted a 8gb card to truly matter. That and the missing ROPs make it drop off quite a bit compared to the 390(X) on WQHD and up.

 

Almost as bad as re-branding the Picarin a third time as the R7 370. You know those are still priced at $155. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814202197

 

Where even sli'd couldn't touch GTX970.

 

ill wait until i see some availability & real launch prices. im reserving judgement until then. however they certainly did shoot themselves in the foot a bit with the narrow memory bus & especially the corresponding 3gb card. i understand why they did it - they dont want to detract from sales of the 1070.

thanks for the very quick update, boss.

 

You linked 4GB ver, 2GB is 30$ cheaper. Pitcairn have no use of more Vram.

 

It probably was the same person who thought the gtx 970 3.5 GB with neutered .5 GB memory subsystem was a good idea...

 

Nope $20 cheaper. So $135 for a Picarin. A thrice rebadged Picarin. The 960 is $169 for 2GB and $179 for a 4GB.

So the 960 cost 10-15% more than the 370 but is 25-30% faster. If the 960 is such a **** card what is the Picarin?

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1590?vs=1596

On a lighter note I remember when the Picarin was an awesome choice for 1080p. Wow is it weak now.

 

Typo in the article! Idk if I should be pointing it out D:

 

A Picarin is nothing. A Pitcairn is something

 

Ok, Pitcairn was three times rebranded but still here, still performing. Where is the original nvidia competitor? What was it, gtx650ti? Biting the dust long time ago.

 

I think people should stop obsessing with raw numbers. "oh, 192bit bus, rubbish" talk is hilarious.

 

Pricing wise it was the GTX660 IIRC, but it was released a few months later towards the end of 2012.