GTX 1060 vs GTX 1070 vs AMD RX 470 or 480 CF

PetarThePro · Mar 30, 2017

Hi guys,
I am researching for a very long time and I didn't get answer on my question(s) yet.
I'm building a BUDGET PC for about 1100 CA and I want to get best BANG FOR MY BUCK so I am very CAREFUL with choosing components. I will play 1080p at most, but after a while I will replace my 1080p IPS monitor with a new monitor with higher resolution. I have made few solutions:
1. GTX 1070 and I3 7300
2. RX 470 CF and i5 7400
3. RX 480 CF and i5 7400
4. GTX 1060 and i5 7500

Frames always need to be 60+...I don't endure less than that, so I don't want to broke my PC first day after arriving in my House.

Thanks!

P.S. Sorry for potential mistakes in my english...I am from Croatia.

bboiprfsr · Mar 30, 2017

no offense, but i prefer i5 7500 and a gtx 1070.

gtx 1070 is much more substantial than a 1060 (IF you have the money).
Also, i5 is more preferable than a i3 because 4 physical cores perform better at games than 2 cores + 2 threads.

All in all, the i5 + 1060 are good sweet spots. I do not recommend crossfire because it only supports a limited number of games.
http://amdcrossfire.wikia.com/wiki/Crossfire_Game_Compatibility_List
Crossfire & SLI are okay if you run multiple monitors or high resolution (such as 4K or VR).

You welcome!

P.S. Sorry for my english... I'm from Louisiana.

PetarThePro · Mar 30, 2017

Yeah...I know...
Actually I have money for that option (i5 and 1070) but only if i took my pc into a 25$ case and 45$ AsRock motherboard...if I spend that much money on investement like PC is (which I will have about 5 years), then i don't want XION XION case on my desk and inside 400$ GPU...you know what I mean...

dextermat · Mar 30, 2017

Hi,

For gaming an i5 is the sweet spot
for 1080, 1060 does the job well but depends on games you play.
Since you are on a budget, it would be the road to take.
But, for solid 60 fps, it depends on game you play.

If the game is cpu intensive the i5 should do good, but for most intensive, i7 would be the better choice but right now not a lot of games uses 4 core or more and even less likely to utilize hypertreading.
While GPU , a 1070 would definitively do better than a 1060.

What games are you going to play ?

JackNaylorPE · Mar 30, 2017

Gaming depends mostly on the GPU and

1070 >>>> 1060 > 480 > 470> 460

The 1070 frankly is a bit much for 1080p so I'd do with the 1060. What else is in the budget for 1100 ?

I don't know what if anything that you would be carrying over from old build but this would be my starting point for 1080p

Note that a Intel 7500 and H170 MoBo would save maybe $140 but be aware that lesser Z270 boards (including many much more expensive ones) as well as most H170 / B259 boards now come with extreme low budget audio solutions (ALC 887 / 892).

The cheapest H170 board with ALC 1150 / 1220 is gonna run about $180 CAN. No not getting a k series processor saves you about $90 including not having to buy a cooler but I don't think is worth it.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i5-7600K 3.8GHz Quad-Core Processor ($308.90 @ Vuugo)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 LED 66.3 CFM Rifle Bearing CPU Cooler ($26.00 @ Vuugo)
Motherboard: MSI Z270 SLI PLUS ATX LGA1151 Motherboard ($188.75 @ Vuugo)
Memory: Corsair Vengeance LPX 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-2400 Memory ($133.89 @ Amazon Canada)
Storage: Seagate 2TB 3.5" 7200RPM Hybrid Internal Hard Drive ($119.99 @ Newegg Canada)
Video Card: MSI GeForce GTX 1060 6GB 6GB GT OCV1 Video Card ($329.50 @ Vuugo)
Case: Phanteks ECLIPSE P400S ATX Mid Tower Case ($89.99 @ NCIX)
Power Supply: SeaSonic S12II 520W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply ($69.99 @ Newegg Canada)
Total: $1267.01
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-03-30 16:17 EDT-0400

PetarThePro · Mar 30, 2017

dextermat :

I will play BF1, Watch Dogs 2, GTA V , Assasins Creed and Far Cry...

PetarThePro · Mar 30, 2017

[PCPartPicker part list](https://ca.pcpartpicker.com/list/v6rLKZ) / [Price breakdown by merchant](https://ca.pcpartpicker.com/list/v6rLKZ/by_merchant/)

Type|Item|Price
:----|:----|:----
**CPU** | [Intel Core i5-7500 3.4GHz Quad-Core Processor](https://ca.pcpartpicker.com/product/QbGj4D/intel-core-i5-7500-34ghz-quad-core-processor-bx80677i57500) | $249.98 @ DirectCanada
**CPU Cooler** | [be quiet! Pure Rock Slim 35.1 CFM CPU Cooler](https://ca.pcpartpicker.com/product/hyQRsY/be-quiet-pure-rock-slim-351-cfm-cpu-cooler-bk008) | $23.97 @ DirectCanada
**Motherboard** | [ASRock Z270 Pro4 ATX LGA1151 Motherboard](https://ca.pcpartpicker.com/product/WxkwrH/asrock-z270-pro4-atx-lga1151-motherboard-z270-pro4) | $129.00 @ Vuugo
**Memory** | [Team Vulcan 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-2400 Memory](https://ca.pcpartpicker.com/product/4QNypg/team-vulcan-8gb-2-x-4gb-ddr4-2400-memory-tlgd416g2400hc14dc01) | $124.99 @ Newegg Canada
**Storage** | [Sandisk SSD PLUS 120GB 2.5" Solid State Drive](https://ca.pcpartpicker.com/product/m34NnQ/sandisk-ssd-plus-120gb-25-solid-state-drive-sdssda-120g-g26) | $63.98 @ DirectCanada
**Storage** | [Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive](https://ca.pcpartpicker.com/product/MwW9TW/western-digital-internal-hard-drive-wd10ezex) | $62.83 @ Vuugo
**Video Card** | [Asus Radeon RX 480 8GB Dual OC Video Card](https://ca.pcpartpicker.com/product/xPWrxr/asus-radeon-rx-480-8gb-dual-oc-video-card-dual-rx480-o8g) | $282.00 @ Vuugo
**Case** | [Inwin 303 White ATX Mid Tower Case](https://ca.pcpartpicker.com/product/6v38TW/inwin-303-white-atx-mid-tower-case-303-white) | $97.00 @ Amazon Canada
**Power Supply** | [EVGA BQ 500W 80+ Bronze Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply](https://ca.pcpartpicker.com/product/8P7CmG/evga-bq-500w-80-bronze-certified-semi-modular-atx-power-supply-110-bq-0500-k1) | $69.99 @ Amazon Canada
| *Prices include shipping, taxes, rebates, and discounts* |
| **Total** | **$1103.74**
| Generated by [PCPartPicker](http://pcpartpicker.com) 2017-03-30 17:20 EDT-0400 |

JackNaylorPE · Mar 30, 2017

1. MoBo - Again, the MoBo you have chosen has a substandard audio solution (Realtek ALC892)for a gaming box. Asus started the trend w/ Z170 and now other manufacturer's have picked it up.

2. You have a tiny SSD which will get you booted fast but has little room for anything else. Your HD is not exactly a speedster.

SSD - boots windows in 15.6 seconds.
SSHD boots widows in 16.5 seconds
HD Boots Windows in 21.2 seconds

SSHD - 9.78 MB/s in THG gaming test
WD Blue - 4.01 MB/sec

What is more important to you.

A. 120 GB SSD + 500 GB WD Blue:
a) Booting 0.9 seconds faster
b) Having 0.64 TB of storage
c) Playing games at 40% of the speed of SSHD
d) Spending $127

A. 2 TB SSHD:
a) Booting 0.9 seconds slower
b) Having three times as much TB of storage @ 2 TB
c) Playing games at 250% faster than the HD
d) Spending $8 less at $120

3. That's not a very good PSU, made by Andyson, it's really, really low budget

dudeman509 · Mar 30, 2017

GTX 1060 + i5-7400 (7500 if you can work it in) is the best of options listed. There is zero need for a 1070 at 1080p.

SSHD's are completely overrated. Don't buy one. Sound nice in theory, but my experience was that they're useless. Best option would be SSD (you can pick up a 250 OCZ or something of the like for pretty cheap these days) + 1 TB HDD.

JackNaylorPE · Mar 30, 2017

Could please detail this experience ? With today's games running 95 GB (GTAV) 60 GB (Wither 3 w/ all expansion packs) how ya gonna fit that within his 120 GB SSD / $125 budget ? Going to 250 GB / 1 TB is over budget

Cheapest OCZ 250 / 256GB on partpicker (Canada) is an ancient vertex 3 design 6 years old at $204 ... other brands, decent options, are around $112
https://ca.pcpartpicker.com/product/fNtCmG/ocz-internal-hard-drive-vtx325sat3256g

Adding in a slow as molasses 1 TB HD for all ya games is at least $55 ... so you are $50+ over budget

I haven't tested every possible scenarior so wondering what physical user action based tests have you performed ? How many blind user tests ? This isn't a SSD versus SSHD contest, its a SSHD versus HD that the latter can in no way compete. And I am talking "real world usage" not benchmarks or fake actions tests which have no bearing on the user experience. Having this discussion with a coworker he tried to show me that running a word script of several dozen sequential activities was completed a fraction of a second faster. But what happened when the files were not the SSD but on a file server ? What happens when user interaction is required to press keys in between those 127 actions in the script ? Advantage disappears. If Joe Corporate is evaluating whether to put SSDs in 500 desktops, then whether they complete the Word Script twice is fast is immaterial, he has to show that office productivity increased and with the user as the bottleneck, that just doesn't happen.

We had 5 users test a desktop and 5 users test laptops, both for gaming and CAD workstations configured such that we could boot from either storage device. Only time users caught us making the switch was when a HD was used. The big annoyance for me was that the 120 GB SSD / 1 TB HD combo on the laptops used in the test was annoying as the 120 GB SSD kept running out of space and needed to be flushed of dmp files, OS update backup files, etc. A 120 GB storage device has no place in a modern system.

How do you justify buying a 1 TB performance HD like the WD Black when the SSHD is 50% faster ... and the Black costs 25% more ? When 10 users sit down at PCs / laptops for 6 weeks and no one ever says "Hey, my system seemed to boot slower today ?" or "My system feels sluggish today", with no productivity increase, how you do you justify the additional expense ?

Yes, I can prove that the SSD is faster, there's a youtube video where a guys opens Chrome w/ 100 windows and times it versus a HD ... but how many times have you done that IRL ? I can copy 100 GB and show that it's faster but I have never done that, well at least while I was awake, backups happen while I'm sleeping.

Other than for testing on the test bed, we have not purchased a HD in over 7 years, installing well over say 24 SSHDs (all still in use) and 16 SSDs (11 still in use) in that time just at this location (not counting builds for others). If your intent is to build a gaming box, I'd like to understand how the user in any way benefits from having all their games on a 500 GB slow HD which delivers just 4.01 MB/second versus having all their games on a 2.5 times faster 9.76 MB/sec SSHD with 4 times the capacity ?

Now if you are a gamer with ADD, who plays 16 games a night, you will see little if any benefit. But most of the world whether in office or gaming tends to work on the same projects play the same games day to day ... when playing Fall Cry 3 for 3 weeks, all the game files will be on the SSD portion ... finish game and move onto FC4 and the 1st 1 or 2 loads will be just like the HD... but by the 3rd and 4th load, those files are coming off at SSD speeds and will for the enxt several weeks till you finish the game .... with a HD, you never get that.

Most of our builds get a 250 GB SSD + 2 TB SSHD (my box has two of each) .... when budget limited, we install the SSHD for less $ than a 120 GB SSD and 500 GB HD costs. The OS goes on it's own partition. The system is set up with SSHD on the 2nd lowest numbered SATA port and as soon as the user is able to afford a 250 GB SSD, just pop it in, disconnect SSHD data able and reinstall windows. Now if the SSD breaks or OS gets fudged, the system boots off the small partition on the SSHDs is what we have seen over the last 7 years. Perhaps there's some real world scenario that we haven't seen that you can tell me about that we can look at that would change this outlook.

I have been looking at everything I can find on the subject and the only thing that says otherwise is benchmarks that have no bearing on how we use computers every day. Outside of rendering and video editing, I just haven't found anything that allows a user to complete a task faster to an extent that has a real benefit. When I bot to Windows off the SSD, it takes 15.6 seconds, when I boot off the SSHD it takes 16.5 ... yes it is faster, but as of yet I haven't been able to get any more work done in a day because of those 0.9 seconds. I wasn't even at my desk as after pushing the ON button, I was listening to phone messages, taking off my jacket or getting coffee.

PetarThePro · Mar 31, 2017

Hi guys,
I don't want even think about SSHD. I wan't to have 120-240gb boot drive and all my media I will storage on my HDD (games, movies and stuff). I think that's the smallest problem. I also mean, if I can go with RX 480?
And this motherboard is Z270...why is it so bad?

CRO5513Y · Mar 31, 2017

@Dudeman, SSHDs are not "useless" and are most definitely faster than HDDs not sure if you even know what an SSHD is.... I can agree most the time they are priced a little steep for the speed gain they offer over standard HDDs but as someone who recently went from a WD 1TB HDD to Seagate FireCuda 1TB SSHD (Because said HDD died after 4 years recently) i can without doubt say my game load times improved as well as the light CAD work i do. (Can't talk about boot times on the OS since that is on a SSD). I'm not saying go buy one to replace your current HDD if you use one but if you can get an SSHD for the price of a HDD or cheaper for the same capacity then the SSHD all the way no reason not to.

@Petar, I agree with the suggestion already made about trying to grab a bigger SSD if you can since a 120GB will fit very little. The RX 480 should be fine is offers very little performance drop from the GTX 1060 6GB (Sometimes beating it actually in AMD/Vulkan titles) so you can grab better parts elsewhere. I think the concerns with your Z270 board was brought up since you are buying a locked i5 and the main thing a higher Z270 has to offer other than ports is Overclocking ability. Better grabbing a cheaper B250/H270 and spending the saved money elsewhere. Hope this helps

PetarThePro · Mar 31, 2017

I know what SSHD is...that is Hybrid between SSD and HDD...I am picking up this mobo because I can't get ATX mobo H270, B250 or Z270 under 110 CA...I am picking up this one also because it's white... thank you for advices

JackNaylorPE · Mar 31, 2017

PetarThePro :

Your answers are in the previous posts.

1. Your HD is one of the slowest that can be bought. Look at the link and find the WD Blue on the list. (its way at the bottom). Now look at what is 1st...the fastest drive available ... 5 year warranty ... The WD Black in the same capacity also gives you a 5 year warranty ... but the SSHD is 50% faster, and the WD costs 40% more.
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/hdd-charts-2013/-17-PCMark-7-Gaming,2915.html

2. 120 GB is woefully inadequate for a boot drive. Unless you are an astute windows user, and given the questions, can only assume you are not. You will spend a lot of time following up messages saying Disk C:\ is too full. We refuse to install anything less than a 240 GB SSD as with less, the user is calling or dropping the box off asking us to "clean out C:\".

3. Why that MoBo is so bad was explained in above post. You are building a gaming rig, and important part of the gaming experience is the sound quality. Many features of gaming are provided for example the one that lets you locate and opponent by where the sound comes from. The "gaming standard" for sound has long been recognized as ALC 1150 which has been superceded w/ Z270 with ALC 1220.

For one, if a manufacturer is sticking you with ALC 887 / 892 in a market segment which up till now always included 1150, you are "getting taken". have to wonder how many other components are being replaced with cheaper lower quality components. Using a substandard sound system not only means lower sound quality but also puts you at a competitive disadvantage.

4. As for the 480, if you go this route, make sure you get a good one such as the MSI. The following is a collection of data taken from TPUs reviews of the 480 and 1060,

===========================================================
The correct choice will ultimately depend on what games you play. What we know:

1. Which one - Not all cards are created equal but this is especially true with the RX 480. Techpowerup writes:

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/RX_480_Gaming_X/28.html

In my opinion, this [MSI 480 Gaming X] is thus far the only RX 480 that looks like it can compete with the GTX 1060 and its custom designs.

2. Out of the Box performance - So let's compare two cards from the same (MSI) manufacturer and model line (Gaming X). From above link:

As a result, the card is 4% faster than the RX 480 reference and 6-7% slower than the [reference] GeForce GTX 980, GTX 1060, and Radeon R9 Fury, which all have roughly the same performance at 1080p.

3. AIB Cards - From the above, we see that the MSI RX 480 is 7% faster overall in TPUs 16 game test suite. From Below, the MSI 1060 Gaming X is 3% faster than the reference 1060 ... so we can can conclude that at the time of testing the MSI 1060 Gaming was 10% faster than the MSI 480 Gaming in the 16 game test suite

4. Overclocking - We see there that the MSI 480 overclocks 8.6% and the MSI 1060 overclocks 15.1%.. So when the 1060 (10% performance advantage) is overclocked, the relative difference would be:

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/RX_480_Gaming_X/26.html
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1060_Gaming_X/27.html

110% x (115.1 / 108.6) = 116.6% of the 480s speed or the MSI Gaming 1060 X 16.6 % faster than the MSI 480 Gaming X

As for difference between brands ... the various brands trade wins depending on generation and model line but the EVGA SC is one to avoid as, unlike the competition, they use a reference PCB / VRM and reference style PCB cooling.

5. Driver improvements - AMDs driver improvements have improved the performance of the 480 since originally tested. As we can see from the link here, TPU tested the results from the latest driver improvements and found an increase if 2.1% at 1080 p average across 21 games:

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Radeon_Crimson_ReLive_Drivers/6.html

Unfortunately, we have no info on what improvements have resulted from newer nVidia drivers but suffice to say, those improvements have not erased that 10% gap outta the box (16.6% in both overclocked).

6. Cost - Last I looked (yesterday) the MSI 1060 6GB was about $15 more than the MSI 480 8GB on newegg. But there are other costs worth considering

7. Power - There is a significant difference in power usage between the two cards. One of the reasons for the MSI 480s performance,as stated in the review, is because it is able to use more power than many other 480s. That's 75 watts in typical gaming and 99 watts peak

The MSI 480 draws from 196 - 224 watts
The MSI 1060 draws from 121 - 125 watts

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/RX_480_Gaming_X/21.html

8. Power Costs - While this is something you normally wouldn't consider, when cards are very close in performance, it may be of significance to many users, especially those in Europe and especially in urban / suburban locales.

75 watts x 35 hours per week x 52.14 weeks per year x 3 years usage x $0.131 US average electric cost per kw-hr / (1000 watts per kw=hr x 85% efficiency) = $63.28

9. Case Cooling - The rule of thumb for case fans in a relatively quiet system is one (1) 120mm case fan per 50 - 75 watts for power. So for comparable interior case temps, you might want to include the cost of an extra case fan(s).

10. Noise - The 480 is 3 dbA louder than the 1060

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/RX_480_Gaming_X/22.html
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1060_Gaming_X/23.html

So ... that's the data ... it's up to you to look at and then decide what you want to do with it ...

- If you don't use MSI Afterburner, then the OC advantage may be of no interest to you
- If you wear headphones, then the noise advantage will be of no interest to you
- Initially the 480 has an apparent cost advantage but the larger PSU requirement and extra case fan(s) eats that up. Considering power costs along with the preceding, the 1060 is the more cost effective buy by far
- If you already have an oversized PSU then the power advantage is of no interest to you
- If you don't pay for electricity cause it's included in rent, then the power advantage is of no interest to you
- But most of all, if those 16 - 21 games that TPU uses for testing are not ones you play, then you need to pay specific attention to how each performs in games you do play... so start here and see how each performs in the games you are interested in.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/RX_480_Gaming_X/6.html
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1060_Gaming_X/6.html

How each individual arrives at their choice will be different for everyone, there is no "wrong choice" here.

dudeman509 · Mar 31, 2017

Yes, I purchased a Seagate SSHD. It was slower than my Toshiba 3 TB 7200 RPM at R/W operations by almost 40%, and the only performance improvement was really that it booted Windows quickly. A standard SSD will launch almost anything you use frequently (Chrome, Office apps, etc) much more quickly than the SSD cache on a SSHD.

WD Blue has gone through several generations; the 1 TB Blue is within 5% of the day-to-day performance of a current 1 TB Black.

Don't know if it was just my luck, but I also had to RMA 2 of the SSHD's as they started to develop bad sectors in a matter of month. Gave up after the 3rd. I don't trust Seagate.

OP, RX 480 and GTX 1060 regularly trade blows depending on the game. Neither one is a bad investment. For my money, I'd pick up the 1060, but supposedly the 480 has better DX12 support for newer games coming out.

Search

GTX 1060 vs GTX 1070 vs AMD RX 470 or 480 CF

PetarThePro

Commendable

JackNaylorPE

bboiprfsr

Honorable

PetarThePro

Commendable

dextermat

Splendid

JackNaylorPE

Titan

PetarThePro

Commendable

PetarThePro

Commendable

JackNaylorPE

Titan

dudeman509

Dignified

JackNaylorPE

Titan

PetarThePro

Commendable

CRO5513Y

Expert

PetarThePro

Commendable

JackNaylorPE

Titan

dudeman509

Dignified

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page