GTX 1060 vs RX 480: How Much Difference Does 2 Gb Make?

KnightPlutonian

Commendable
Jun 8, 2016
36
0
1,540
I've been debating between the two newest mid-range cards and I'm wondering exactly how much the 2 GB difference is going to make in the long run. I know from the benchmarks that the GTX 1060 runs better, but are there any possible problems that arise from the 6GB limit? Do any games currently use up more than that amount? Does it make a difference at resolutions higher than 1080p? Will it have an effect on limiting VR?
 
Solution
The "for as long as it's viable" is an invalid or extremely ambiguous (rather than technical) argument. The 980 would still be viable, but guess why it is not? VRAM. Not much different for the 970. Performance can be almost the same, yet when RAM runs out the whole card or at least whole settings (even pretty normal ones) don't become viable anymore.

It doesn't answer the question to say "the 1060 gets more frames, dude!" The only answer would be if games in at least a year (not much time for games) don't use more than 6GB or if 6 somehow happen to be enough for most games to work with and the slightly higher speed making up for any performance drop. This is a more involved technical question that seems to warrant an objective...
For as long as the 1060 will be viable and for it's meant scenarios(1080p) the 6GB will suffice.
If the 1060 could do SLI, 8GB would have been merited as, by the time you'd add another, 6 gb might not be enough, but, seeing as that's out of the question, i think NV made a correct decision.
 
Just adding a comment to look for more information, I hope to make a move to one of these cards this fall, I'm not willing to play doom 4 on my 2 GB GTX 670 despite it's incredible performance considering it's age. I feel these two cards would be about the performance ceiling for my xeon, does everyone somewhat agree with that... I never really considered anything more than a 980 but the price is just too high and in canada it hasn't budged an inch.
 


I don't think that those cards are teh performance ceiling for your Xeon. It could handle even any card coming out this year in it's proper resolution(obviously it would slow down a 1080 in 1080p, but that card's not meant for that)
 

If it's just to adjust the power draw and not a performance issue as they say what difference does that make?

Not saying it doesn't make a difference, I'm just asking for your opinion.
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
The 480 itself isn't defective, it is only the reference design that has been poorly thought out and needed a power balance tweak to make it safer. Non-reference designs will do what AMD should have done in the first place and put nearly all the 12V load on the PCIe AUX connector which can easily deliver 200W continuously.
 

Mathias_8

Commendable
Apr 8, 2016
58
0
1,640
The "for as long as it's viable" is an invalid or extremely ambiguous (rather than technical) argument. The 980 would still be viable, but guess why it is not? VRAM. Not much different for the 970. Performance can be almost the same, yet when RAM runs out the whole card or at least whole settings (even pretty normal ones) don't become viable anymore.

It doesn't answer the question to say "the 1060 gets more frames, dude!" The only answer would be if games in at least a year (not much time for games) don't use more than 6GB or if 6 somehow happen to be enough for most games to work with and the slightly higher speed making up for any performance drop. This is a more involved technical question that seems to warrant an objective, unbiased answer (perhaps in a real article).
 
Solution

TRENDING THREADS