Is the Gtx 1060 3Gb worth it?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Max_Pare

Max_Pare

Reputable
May 13, 2016
99
0
4,640
Hello, for a while i've been looking to buy a new gpu, since my 1050 that i bought about one year ago is really bottle necking a lot of high end games, like battlefield 1 and DOOM.

Since i know that recent games eat V-ram for breakfast, expecially rainbow six siege, i'm not sure if i should get the 3gb or 6gb version of the gtx 1060. The 3Gb looks like my best bet, because the 6Gb is 100$ more and saving money never hurts. Is getting the 3gb version a huge mistake or is it still viable? I've looked up some benchmark and to be fair the 3gb doesn't run half badly any of the titles i always play on my 1050.

What do you think?
 
Solution
Max_Pare
I see what you are saying, so i will list all the average performances while playing the main games i play.
Temperatures are not a problem because my case is quite big and it has a lot of airflow, the highest i've seen the cpu get to was 70C while running a benchmark and the gpu 60C max.
Battlefield 1:
Every setting at medium (1080p) + V-sync 100% resolution scale
Game runs at 60fps with tiny lag spikes here and there, it drops under 60 when there are multiple smoke bombs/explosions on screen, setting the post processing detail to anything above medium makes the game run at 20-30fps because anything above medium adds reflections and lots of details that ( i think) the gpu cant handle, but generally the gameplay is enjoyable.
Even...
Sort by date Sort by votes
dark_lord69

dark_lord69

Splendid
Jun 6, 2006
3,227
8
22,015
"recent games eat V-ram for breakfast"
That actually depends on the resolution you select and the texture details available from the game. When both of those are high then you need more V-RAM for the frame buffer.

Generally 2 cards with different amounts of VRAM are almost exactly the same in performance.

BUT!!!
The 1060 3GB has a different GPU configuration than the 6GB model. (THIS IS NOT TYPICAL)
So, for that reason I recommend the 6GB for the better performance.

On the other hand I would say it's NOT worth an extra $100... any chance you could fine a cheaper 6GB model?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Max_Pare

Max_Pare

Reputable
May 13, 2016
99
0
4,640
Thank you for clarifying, i think i'll get the 3gb one when the price drops a bit again, because since yesterday the lowest price 1060 raised by 40€, hopefully i won't regret it and if i see some drastic performance issues i can eventually refund it, but i doubt i will because the 1060 is way more powerful than my current 1050 wich has only 2gb of vram.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Max_Pare

Max_Pare

Reputable
May 13, 2016
99
0
4,640
Good point.
I don't think my other components are bottlenecking my games (i5 7600 3.5-3.93Ghz, 8gb ddr 4 2400mhz), games like battlefield 1 and doom (2016) suffer from a lot of lag spikes even when playing at medium details 1080p, and yes, of course i cant lower the settings to lowest, but personally the looks of a game are quite important.

Since im selling my 1050, i think upgading to the 1050ti could be the solution, so that instead of spending 130€ extra, i would pay only 30€ (i'm selling the 1050 for 100€ and two people already contacted me, so i'm quite positive i will sell it, at least i hope). Unfortunately my mobo has only 2 slots for ram so i cant get 12 or 16gb of ram, and any motherboard with 4 slots is 100+€. I don't know, maybe i shouldn't buy anything and settle down until i find something better.
If i manage to sell the 1050 for 80-100€ the 1050ti could be a good investment. So now the question has changed, do i get more ram or a better gpu or stop wasting money and keep the current setup? I feel like the gpu is bottle necking the i5 7600, or is it the ram? I'm confused honestly.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
dark_lord69

dark_lord69

Splendid
Jun 6, 2006
3,227
8
22,015


I disagree. That CPU is quite fast. The GPU is his weakest link...
Battlefield 1 for example:
Average FPS goes from around the low 40's to the low 70's if he upgrades to the 1060 6 GB
CPU's changes from your current one make a much smaller difference.

http://www.userbenchmark.com/PCGame/FPS-Estimates-Battlefield-1/3664/153864.0.0.0.i7
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
S

sizzling

Titan
Oct 18, 2006
27,230
3,301
112,240


While I agree the GPU looks the weakest link we don't know resolution or game settings being used and both of the games mentioned are known to max out 4 core i5's. It costs nothing to check and prove what the bottleneck is before spending any money instead of basing any decision on assumptions.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Max_Pare

Max_Pare

Reputable
May 13, 2016
99
0
4,640
I see what you are saying, so i will list all the average performances while playing the main games i play.
Temperatures are not a problem because my case is quite big and it has a lot of airflow, the highest i've seen the cpu get to was 70C while running a benchmark and the gpu 60C max.
Battlefield 1:
Every setting at medium (1080p) + V-sync 100% resolution scale
Game runs at 60fps with tiny lag spikes here and there, it drops under 60 when there are multiple smoke bombs/explosions on screen, setting the post processing detail to anything above medium makes the game run at 20-30fps because anything above medium adds reflections and lots of details that ( i think) the gpu cant handle, but generally the gameplay is enjoyable.
Even thought i hate input lag and v-sync, battlefield 1 without vsync (60Hz monitor) has a horrible screen tearing, so i sacrifice a couple milliseconds to make my screen not look like absolute dog crap.
CPU sits at 70-90%
GPU around 90-100%

DOOM: All settings to medium with ambient occlusion disabled 1080p60hz
Game struggles to stay above 50fps, i reach 60fps in areas without a ton of stuff to render.
Explosions and effects drop the framerate by 5-10, but the game is still enjoyable since it's not a competitive shooter that requires lightning fast reactions.
No lag spikes whatsoever, but the framerate is very unstable, switching between Vulkan and OpenGL doesn't really make a difference.
CPU: 60%min 85%max
GPU: 90-100% most of the time, V-ram fills up to 100% in the first 10 minutes.

Rust: Every setting to the lowest + nvidia 3d settings set to get the best performance. 1080p60Hz
I lower every setting to the lowest in Rust because i want the most fps i can get to reduce input lag, since i play a lot of PvP servers where quick reactions are needed.
Cpu: 60-90%
v-ram: 90-100% even before any map loads completely.
ram: 6.2-6.8GB, it basically uses every Mb of ram that system isnt using.
Loads of lag spikes, loads of freezes, the game runs somewhat smooth but the lag spikes are really annoying, even if the game runs at 100-150fps (The more bases i load, the more the fps drops, until reaching 20-30fps after 30-60 minutes, requiring a full restart to free up ram).

Killing Floor 2: high-ultra settings 1080p60hz
stable 90-110fps
enabling nvidia PhysiX sends the framerate to s***t, but even the game specifies that a gtx 980 or higher is required to have blood and organs flop around realistically, not a problem honestly.

these are very lightweight but i'll include them just for the sake of statistics:

Team Fortress 2: Ultra settings + custom ultra quality settings, 1080p60Hz
150-300fps
not lag spikes
no issues

CS:GO. Highest settings, anisotropic filtering at 8x, multi core rendering enabled. 1080p60Hz
100-350fps
Csgo actually makes the cpu suffer more than a lot of other AAA games do, while im playing it the cpu fan is constantly running at full throttle and the usage is always above 85%
GPU: why even bother, it's CSGO.

These are rough benchmarks i made in the past couple hours and from what i could remember from previous benchmarks, but they are still quite accurate, since i like to keep performance graphs on screen if the game has them.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom