How so?Looks like nV lost a good deal of Perf/watt over its bigger cores.
How so?Looks like nV lost a good deal of Perf/watt over its bigger cores.
How so?
It has probably to do with the relative size of the shader cores: the un-core units like PCIe, display, video encoder/decoder stay the same size irrespective of the size of the shaders. In the case of the GTX 1060, the memory/shader ratio is also different compared to the 1080.Actually I'd noticed that as well..For Nvidia it seemed like the higher end parts got quite a bit better in performance per watt..but the lower end parts not so much. I did some research and here are TPU's numbers:
It has probably to do with the relative size of the shader cores: the un-core units like PCIe, display, video encoder/decoder stay the same size irrespective of the size of the shaders. In the case of the GTX 1060, the memory/shader ratio is also different compared to the 1080.
Actually I'd noticed that as well..For Nvidia it seemed like the higher end parts got quite a bit better in performance per watt..but the lower end parts not so much. I did some research and here are TPU's numbers:-
Fermi - GTX 580 has 84% of the performance per watt of 560 Ti. - https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_560_Ti/28.html
Kepler - GTX 680 has 96% of the performance per watt of 660 - https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Zotac/GeForce_GTX_660/28.html
Maxwell - GTX 980 has 125% the performance per watt of 960 (1080p) - https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GTX_960_STRIX_OC/30.html
Looks like Pascal will be similar to Maxwell.
Yes.Edit: Anyone know what time the GTX 1060 reviews go live?
Reviews have popped up all over the place.
To summarize:
1 - In DX11 the GTX 1060 trades blows but is generally faster than a RX480
2 - In DX12 the GTX 1060 trades blows but is generally slower than a RX480
3 - In Vulkan Doom the RX 480 is ridiculously faster, though it's only one game on Vulkan so far so..
4 - Performance/watt is substantially better than the RX480 (~35W difference)
5 - Performance/dollar for the "regular" version's MSRP is similar though a bit worse than the RX 480 8GB.
6 - Performance/dollar for the "Founders Edition" at $300 is crap.
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_1060/28.htmlIf GTX 1060 was more like $279, then the $50 difference would certainly lure in buyers to save up just a bit more money to be able to afford the GTX 1060. Soon we will be seeing custom design cards for GTX 1060 (some even today) and custom design RX 480s should be out real soon too, which could shift the balance slightly, but overall I'd say GTX 1060 comes out a winner over RX 480. All these considerations were assuming that GTX 1060 pricing will gravitate towards the Founders Edition price of $299 - just like it is happening right now with GTX 1070 and GTX 1080. Should there be actual GTX 1060 cards in the market at $249, then this will destroy any hopes of AMD, because then GTX 1060 will beat it in Performance per Dollar too, with no clear wins left for AMD to convince potential buyers.
7 - performance/production cost is way better for the 1060.
Performance/dollar actually is bit better than RX 480 if you can get card at $249.
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_1060/28.html
Seems like a nice card and there are custom cards in the stores today.
Point 9. No SLI vs Crossfire option 480, but personally I would prefer comparable single GPU card even at a premium due to issues with mGPU support, although this does not bother everyone.
That is what I am saying in general, but some tests I have seen with the latest DX12/async patch of RoTR actually has the Fury X now about 3-5% faster than the 980 ti where before it trailed ever so slightly.Actually no, R 480 maintains strong DX12 performance in AMD supported titles, not in general. For example, Tomb Raider has a large lead with the 1060, even with the new patch. In fact even Maxwell cards are faster in DX12 compared to their AMD counterparts.