KitGuru KitGuru.net – Tech News | Hardware News | Hardware Reviews | IOS | Mobile | Gaming | Graphics Cards
Last week, Nvidia officially announced the latest addition to its Pascal lineup with the GTX 1060. At the time, we heard about the 6GB version of the card, but prior to its announcement, there were rumours pointing towards a cheaper 3GB model and now, it appears some of the key specifications for that version have landed on the web.
According to a leak coming from the site Benchlife, the GTX 1060 3GB will feature the GP106-300 GPU, while the 6GB version features the GP106-400. According to the report, this 3GB GTX 1060 will feature less CUDA cores and Texture Mapping Units.
Aside from that, we still don't know much in terms of clock speeds or pricing but according to Videocardz this GTX 1060 will be coming out in August, around the same time that Nvidia is currently rumoured to announce its Pascal Titan GPU. If the timing is accurate, then we don't really have much longer to wait to learn more details but as always, it is a good idea to remain sceptical of unofficial information.
KitGuru Says: If Nvidia is planning a 3GB GTX 1060, then perhaps we will just see a quiet launch for it, rather than a big announcement, like we had for the 6GB version. That is just speculation on my part though. Would any of you be tempted by a cheaper 3GB GTX 1060?
You’d have to be a total fool to buy a 3GB card in 2016.
I see this card absolutely irrelevant. Might as well stick to iGPU.
When GTA5 can overexert a 2GB card at 1080p, having 3GB isn’t much more head room to work with. Then this card seems quite irrelevant in today’s world. 4GB minimum should be required for anything even in the “Mid-range” class. As much as I don’t like AMD I’d take the RX480 4GB over the 1060 3GB.
But I’ll continue sitting on my GTX 770 for now till these new card wars have settled down some time before figuring out what card I should upgrade to.
Or someone with a budget that doesn’t care about 4k like those elitist assholes that have to own the best equipment possible.
If it has less cuda cores etc etc thenit better not be called a 1060 card maybe a 1050 would be a better fit for it. besides 3GB video memory is to low these days.
I sure like the out-of-touch elitist morons that post on these forums.
We’re trying to get more people into PC gaming by implying anything is better than IGP/console, so maybe they’ll eventually upgrade to something better once they see how green the grass is on this side. But no, some of you treat PC gaming like a cult and your passion bar is so high that if someone can’t ‘go big or go home’, you don’t care if it is a recipe for the death of PC gaming because the sheer number of those that can afford the best can’t keep the industry afloat on it’s own.
It doesn’t matter. It isn’t scaring away droves, a minor issue.
People game on pc not because of what people say in comments across the web, but instead because we have modding, we have the mmos, we have more games, few exclusives we miss *and what we do miss we can emulate someday eventually anyways*, we have the best indy games, and many other reasons.
Most people who game on pc don’t have 4k, and don’t have VR, and yet would prefer PC over console. It would not matter if consoles had better graphics at this point. We got the games, and we got the gameplay so deep you might as well be in the Mariana trench.
I wouldn’t mind this card. I only game at 1080p, I should be fine I would think. By the time games come out that just need more ram *couple years or so*, I’d be ready to upgrade again anyways..
I currently earn about 6,000-8,000 dollars a month for freelancing i do from my home. For those of you who are prepared to complete easy computer-based jobs for 2-5 hours every day from your living room and get good income while doing it… Try this work SELF93.COM
Cock?
even if you with a bdget, depending on what games you wan play btw, a3gb card is a really no go zone, most modern cards stuggle with 4gb but you wanna go down to 3 ?
If called a GTX1050, then the GTX950 debuted with 2GB, so 3GB is a gain and not a loss. Low compared to high-end cards with games played at max details, but who cares, we’re not talking about the needs of high-end users.
Struggle? Do you realize the debut reference models of GTX950 and GTX960 were 2GB? There isn’t a “wanna go down to 3” here.
I for one welcome this addition. As a rather poor student, I’d take the 1060 with 3GB if it’s cheap enough. Incase you wondering how poor I am, I’m still gaming on a 9800GT.
Elitist comments may not scare away the majority, but it isn’t helpful to new comers.
It was a loud card, the 9800GT, I had a FTW version from EVGA. But I Stepped it up to a 55nm GTX260, which BTW, I’m still using too. 🙂
No, I’m saying it’s a waste of money since the performance is bottlenecked by the VRAM. Who said anything about 4K?
Do you réalise as time goes on those lower vram limits will bottleneck your performance in games ? i aint got nothing against you going for the card but in my opinion i would always aim to get a 4 gb variant minimum of any card. Better safe than sorry
this is why the 1060 6gb will be called founders edition just like they do with 1080, Nvidia make their own rules that benefit only their pockets
this is a major myth, there is offloading to system as well when VRAM is much faster and with way Nvidia heavily tunes things, 3gb will sometimes be a nasty bottleneck, most times with proper settings it will NOT be, but I do agree with others they should have made default of 4gb not 3, unfortunately the more memory is there, the more devs want to use, then you need more and more, even when it truly is not needed for anything other then BS effects and poor given performance cause they are not as attentive to code optimization.
It’s not a myth, it’s the truth. I’m a 1080p gamer (and play a lot on console too) and I feel so limited by 2GB VRAM on so many games even with the settings turned down. And it’s rarely because my GPU isn’t powerful enough, but because of the memory requirements. And using system RAM results in lots of stuttering and variable framerates. Heck, I’m even a bit hesistant of the 6GB 1060 because who knows how long that’ll last. IMO it’s pointless investing in a powerful GPU if you can’t make use of it because it doesn’t have enough memory.
You might as well wait for the RX 470 instead.
To a degree, I do; although I have some skepticism mainly as reviewers hardly ever look into Vram usage with variable settings.
I have yet to see a review where more Vram compensated for another graphics card in terms of additional performance. Furthermore, in reviews of newer hardware, both reference and double-VRAM card should be included with future game tests to compare how they do now versus before.
Newer games would need more space to render them, but the frame rate would drop like a rock without another graphics card for multi-GPU or a better graphics card.
I’d wager someone would, over time, lower their expectation to avoid having to upgrade the card often. They may not admit it for fear of ridicule by those that upgrade often to avoid lower expectations.
I think this would be a great card to replace either the Geforce 950 or 960 depending on where it falls for performance it could be called a Geforce GTX 1050 or 1050 Ti and replace the older gen cards in that area of performance. Also going to 3GB from the older gens 2GB is just progress to support the newer games. Tis is if the leaked specs are even right who knows the card could have the same amount of CUDA core and other specs the same just a lower amount of memory. If that is the case then it should be called a GTX 1060 and at a lower price than the 6GB version so it opens the gates for more new card buyers to be able to upgrade the older cards they have at a better price point than the 6GB version.
6gb will be more than enough for the next 3-4 years
4k requires more Vram for the higher Textures, basically anything over 3.5gb is overkill for 1080p.
If you’re playing above 1080p, sure.