GTX 1060 3 gig any good for fps games.

[lightning]

will the GTX1060 with 3 gigs of ram do the job or do i really need to get a GTX 1070. my current computer is getting old and just not preforming like it used to. i usually buy gaming laptops but i want a desktop this time and i am on a budget.

i found a really nice prebuilt computer that i can afford, i like everything they have built this compute with except i am not sure if a 3 gig GTX 1060 will do the trick.. for example its got a nice auss gaming mother board, great ram cards ECT..... just good all around parts that its built with. im just not sure what the power supply is but im sure the one they have in there will work just fine.

if i look at building one my self with the same or simular parts it's actually going to cost more than what i can get this computer for since its on sale at the moment. at this price its a amazing deal.. im just not ure if that graphic card will do the trick or not.

so what do you all think, will the 3 gig GTX 1060 do the trick at running newer multiplayer First person shooter games.

[Bro-BQ]

The 1060 is a great card... But I would recommend at least the 6GB version.

[ted]

I use a 1060 3gb with only 8gb of ram and an i7 4790k and it preforms just fine. I would recommend it, mate 🙂

[EolSunder]

most of the time a higher gb version only increases your minimum frames per second, not a whole lot more. The actual video card is what does most of the work, the memory is just 2ndary. A 1060 3gb compared to a 6gb, your FPS won't ever be low with the 6gb version, but its not like its going to greatly increase your max fps. Most of the time that extra 50 bucks won't make a huge difference, so if your getting 20-40 fps, getting a 6gb version might bump it up to 35-50. Ok, but not a huge deal.

Most of the time its usually better to use that extra 50 bucks not on extra memory on the card, but a better card.

Spend 150 bucks on a card or 200 bucks on the card with more memory, or just buy a better 200 dollar card. 2nd choice is best. Spend 200 bucks on the 1060 3gb, or spend 250 bucks on the 6gb version.. maybe just get a slightly better 250 dollar video card which probably will outperform the 6gb version anyway. Card always first, gb memory, 2nd.

[-shhfiftyfive]

the minimum (not average) frames per second can be a major issue, when there's stuttering all throughout your (certain) games, such as moving in a big open world where the things process on the go, or trying to process an explosion, or special effects.

[InfinityJosh]

EolSunder eredeti hozzászólása:

most of the time a higher gb version only increases your minimum frames per second, not a whole lot more. The actual video card is what does most of the work, the memory is just 2ndary. A 1060 3gb compared to a 6gb, your FPS won't ever be low with the 6gb version, but its not like its going to greatly increase your max fps. Most of the time that extra 50 bucks won't make a huge difference, so if your getting 20-40 fps, getting a 6gb version might bump it up to 35-50. Ok, but not a huge deal.

Most of the time its usually better to use that extra 50 bucks not on extra memory on the card, but a better card.

Spend 150 bucks on a card or 200 bucks on the card with more memory, or just buy a better 200 dollar card. 2nd choice is best. Spend 200 bucks on the 1060 3gb, or spend 250 bucks on the 6gb version.. maybe just get a slightly better 250 dollar video card which probably will outperform the 6gb version anyway. Card always first, gb memory, 2nd.

minimum frames are the most important thing for me, I prefer 55-70 than 45-100, and 10 fps on 60 are many many fps.

[Kurt der Kuhle]

I would suggest getting an RX480 4GB or, if you really want to stick with NVidia for some reason, an 1060 6GB, because both of these cards perfom a bit better and have got some additional VRAM, that might be useful in the future or in badly optimized games.
Anyway, I personally wouldnt buy anything below 4GB these days.

[InfinityJosh]

RX 470 is not that bad too, slighest below 480.

[MaddDoktor [Linux]]

A YouTube video comparing 3 GB with 6 GB GTX 1060 said that if you run 1080p, the 3 GB GTX 1060 should be good enough for most people for years from now. The 6 GB would just help farther down the road if using 1440p. There may be a 10% difference in fps, but as long as it is faster than the refresh rate of your display, that may not be an issue at all.

I don't know if 6 GB vs. 3 GB or OC result in some using a different power connector (6-pin vs. 8-pin), but my 7 year old Dell XPS 8100 with i5 650 3.2 GHz, 8 GB, only has a single 6-pin connector on its OEM PSU, so I got the best with that connector in stock at Fry's at the time, a 3 GB Asus Dual GTX 1060 OC. I am running Steam in 64-bit Ubuntu 16.10 Linux. Power use is 210 watts max AC input (measured) with OEM 350w PSU.

PS: At this time Nvidia drivers work best in Linux.

[upcoast]

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/73737-nvidia-gtx-1060-3gb-review.html

It's more than ram that's been castrated ^, simply put the 6GB and 3GB are different cards however NVidia thought it would be a good idea to name them the same as in GTX1060.

[-shhfiftyfive]

nvidia continuing the habit of lying through marketing....

the gtx970 still says 4GB when its only 3.5GB... we called them out on it and they couldn't even be bothered to change the specs. they kept advertising it as 4GB after the fact...

[[☥] - CJ -]

-shhfiftyfive eredeti hozzászólása:

nvidia continuing the habit of lying through marketing....

the gtx970 still says 4GB when its only 3.5GB... we called them out on it and they couldn't even be bothered to change the specs. they kept advertising it as 4GB after the fact...

it does have 4GB, its only that 500mb is slower than the majority.

In truth
Theres a minor performance difference between the 6GB and 3GB which is shown in all reviews
The MAIN difference is when it comes to games using Graphic settings that use more than 3GB, which is also shown in reviews.


"Despite its 20% lower price, the GTX 1060 3GB boasts the exact same specifications of its 6GB-totting big brother, at least on the frequency side. There’s also a truncated core layout with 1152 CUDA cores and GDDR5 running at 8Gbps. The secondary allocations of ROPs, L2 cache and memory controllers remain identical as well. The only differentiation point and the reason behind its $50 lower cost is that 3GB memory layout along with a slightly cut down core which actually means it has less memory than the much less expensive GTX 1050 Ti."

[-shhfiftyfive]

yeah, independent reviews is different from nvidia marketing...

and the 500MB on the gtx 970 is reserved. its false advertising.

[ハイイロギツネ]

For Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare, I wouldn't recommend a 1060 3GB. The textures are dynamically scaled and will lower in quality even if you set the textures to high.

It will be fine for certain games at 1920x1080, Battlefield 1 doesn't use up 3GB of VRAM at ultra settings and it will easily max that out at 60FPS and 1920x1080.

[InfinityJosh]

Damn Nvidia, they should have put 3 gb on 1050ti and 4 on 1060, so it would have been more rational.

[lightning]

well, maybe ill just save up some more money and get one with the 1070 just to be safe.. i been thinking about i and every computer i get i always skimp a little on something to kep the price low and this laptop i have now is running the games just fine if i turn downt he graphics and textures and what not.. im fine with that for now. but i think ill save up and get what i want this time. i get kind of mixed emotions on here and allot of the other stuff i have read bout that 1060, it would probably do the trick but i think something with a 1070 is probably the way to go.. i woul dlike to thank everyone for their replys