when will we see a replacement for the 750ti? I'm waiting for a half-height, single slot, PCIe powered sub-75w graphics card. Intel IGPs just arent cost effective yet.
I'm impatiently waiting for new GPUs that don't need more power than the PCIe slot can provide. The last couple generations didn't really bring anything to the table in that realm, possibly because it simply wasn't going to be cost effective to compete with Intel at the low end. Unfortunately, Intel's higher end IGPs that include a little bit of memory are still limited to higher priced SKUs. It leaves those of us who aren't interested in absurdly high wattage, huge graphics cards like the 1060 stuck waiting for either Intel, AMD, or NV to do _something_ to address our market segment. You'd think with three companies all competing for sales, someone in one of them would have the vision and authority to fill in the gap at some point soon. I'd like a replacement for my half-height GDDR5 GT 730 with more VRAM and somewhere in the vicinity of 50% more GPU power without having to deal with an absurdly dual slot cooler and +50 watts of power demand.
The rumor mill says we should be getting a GP107 chip this time around; there wasn't a GM207 a year ago which's why there wasn't a 50-70W 9xx series card.
Single slot and low profile might be too much to ask at that TDP though. The only card in that power class I could find that was both half height and true single slot (a 1 slot backplate by 2 slot cooler doesn't count IMO) was a AMD 7750 from Saphire - a 4 year old model. The one review for it I found measured its fan at an obnoxious 60 dB; which probably has a lot to do with all the other cards in that power bracket being full height or dual slot to have room for a decent sized heatsink and a fan that's not a screamer.
The Radeon RX 460 might fit that bill, it's bus powered anyhow. As long as someone makes a half-height card version, there will be something to upgrade to.
There are GTX 950s without external power connectors. For half height, you will have to wait for manufacturers to provide you with a solution, nothing AMD or Nvidia can do about that.
The 950 is a 90W TDP partat stock. Do we know if the PCIe only cards are heavily underclocked/undervolted/low power binned/etc; or pulling a RX480 at release and significantly overdrawing mobo power?
It is remarkable that Nvidia can squeeze such clocks out of their design. "1280 shader" GPU matches or exceeds in many cases the performance of previous gen "2048 Shader" GPU's.
These cards are actually quite conservatively priced considering the performance they offer. Despite RX480 being a disappointment, I'm quite sure we can thank AMD for this pricing. Had 4GB RX480 been $249 card, GTX 1060 would most likely be more expensive than it is now.
I just hope AMD and GloFo manage to produce some real improvements with Vega so that AMD can deliver at least some downward pressure to Nvidia high-end product pricing. Also, I hope AMD manages to make some profit from some of their products, because otherwise they are in for a rough ride...
I'm actually a bit disappointed on price... GTX 970 launched at $299 and was what a shade over 10% slower than a GTX 980. Give it a decent overclock (and it would overclock) and you were pretty much in the same zip code.
Fast forward to today and GTX 1060 is offering comparable performance to a GTX 980 (i.e. similar to an overclocked 970) and the boards are coming in for $260-280.
Okay there's a bunch of puts and takes here (you could OC your 1060; AIB partners GTX 970s may have been more expensive; you get 6GB of memory etc etc) but the underlying math is that you are getting something like a 10% performance bump for maybe 10% less. So 20% bank for the buck improvement over a period of two years and a full node shrink.
That actually doesn't sound that great. In the old days you'd be looking at a double of performance over 18 months... So partly the issue is that Moore's Law has slowed and there's no getting round that. But partly I think its that the lack of competition from AMD has let NVIDIA make hay with pricing.
(To be fair what you can do at the high end is much better than two years ago - but you pay a premium for the performance both absolute and on a $/TFLOP basis. Which just goes to illustrate that while Moore's Law cost scaling has broken down, transistor scaling is still going for the moment.)
"Moore's law is the observation that the number of transistors in a dense integrated circuit doubles approximately every two years."
Doubling the transistors means that in an ideal world you'd see up to 2x performance, but in real world scenarios it's often less than that. I have no idea what kind of rose-tinted nostalgia goggles you've been using but Moore's law (which isn't even a law, but an observation) has never worked that way.
Wrong. The 970 was actually launched at $330, despite a rumor of a $300 price. The 1060 is comparable to the 980 at $250. The 980 launched at $550. You shouldn't be buying a 1060 to replace a 970, but to replace a 960, it is a pretty good deal for $50 more than what the 960 cost.
Your post is a mess of faulty reasoning and misinformation. The GTX 970 launched at $330. It is more than 10% slower than the GTX 980. It's almost 20% slower. It can also be overclocked, so an overclocked GTX 970 should be compared with and overclocked GTX 1080. But if the point is to compare the 970 with the 1060 why even introduce the 980 into the discussion at all? It only serves as a mechanism for inaccuracy to creep into the comparison. The GTX 1060 is about 20% faster than a GTX 970 in DX 11 games and more than that in DX 12 and potentially VR, as well as having other architectural enhancements (video encoding/decoding, FastSync, etc). So what you actually get as far as 1060 compared with 970 is a card that costs ~24% less and performs ~20% faster. This is about a 58% increase in performance/price ((1.25/.76) - 1). The increase is greater still in DX 12 games, and the 1060 has 2GB more VRAM and improvement in architectural features. A vastly different situation than the one you tried to portray.
Sorry, I made a couple typos. The fourth sebtence should read "The 980 can also be overclocked, so an overclocked 970 should be compared with an overclocked 980."
AMD just can't catch any breaks. It's faster than the 1060 on Vulkan and DX12 w/async compute games. In other words, future video games. When buying something new, do you care about the future or the past?
If Doom/Vulkan had been released one or two weeks earlier, most reviewers would have included it in their benchmarks and probably would have drawn different conclusions.
Problem is, "future games" will come when both 1060 and 480 are no longer even remotely new. If Vulkan will be anything like OGL in implementation, id games are the only titles we`ll see it in.
The DX12 and Vulkan sample pool isn't big enough to draw any meaningful conclusions. Most of the current DX12 titles aren't even optimized for Pascal's async to begin with.
Yes, it seems that Polaris benefits more from async but there is far more to performance than just that. It'll only become clear enough in the next 6-12 months.
Well I care more about the past because I'm not going to just stop playing the games I already own. I can't justify buying a 480 just because it is better in like 3 games.
The GTX 1060 pricing fits right in with the GTX 1070 and GTX 1080 pricing when relative performance and price is compared with the Maxwell generation cards.
Wow, I understand that custom cards will pull a premium, but the pricing here is all over the map, and in most cases significantly higher than the $249 MSRP. I get that the NVIDIA provided MSRP is suggested, but the STRIX card for instance seems to be way overpriced. It can't be $80 better of a card than say the Zotac Mini. I really wanted this after seeing the benchmarks, but the pricing is going to drive me to the other side of the room towards a custom 480. The price/performance ratio is just much better there. NVIDIA really needs to flex their muscles with their partners and get pricing to be at least a little bit more consistent than this.
The 1060s are still selling out even at the crazy inflated prices. As long as people are willing to pay the absurd price premium to have it first prices are going to stay way up there. Nvidia doesn't care what their partners charge as long as they're still selling out every shipment.
the MSRPs themselves look more or less normal. Most of the OEMs have their most basic card at about MSRP and then ramp it as the market will bare for higher overclocks and more pretentious coolers. The most expensive ones show there're always plenty of suckers willing to pay $tupidly more for a pre-overclocked card. Excluding the Strix though, none of them are listed more than $40 above MSRP; which is the upper end of the normal range of price premiums for factory overclock and custom design cards.
You find a model which is too expensive and conclude that the entire lineup is not worth it, instead of considering a different card of the same series? Weird.
:( It's sad. I like STRIX but it's the most expensive variant. I got the STRIX variant for the 970 when it first released and it was only $350 compared to MSRP or $330. Why is it +$70 for the 1060?!
One important note: the ASUS cards also have 2xHDMI2, 2xDP, 1xDVI-D ports, like the EVGA cards. Since VR goggles use HDMI, HDMI ports have become more valuable recently.
It seems there is a mistake in this article. On EVGA's site on all of the GTX1060 pictures, there is standard layout of 1xDVI, 1xHDMI and 3xDP... So it looks like only ASUS cards have 2xHDMI
Yup, I count 3 DP 1 HDMI and (sadly) 1 DVI. Wish they'd ditch the DVI so the exhaust had more area. Seriously look at a photo of the I/O and see how much of the heatsink is blocked by this out of date interface. http://www.evga.com/products/images/gallery/06G-P4...
I really hope you'd review the short EVGA 1060s. I usually go for short cards because of the layout of my case. If the temps and noise levels are good, I might pick one of them up, probably the SC.
EVGA has this wonderful idea of stopping goddamn coolers if GPU core is below 60 degrees. I`d avoid buying until confirming they dropped this bullshit.
That`s what the leaflet in my 980 box said, at least. Nature of the workload does not concern me much, but those 50-55 degrees card was routinely hitting while idle sure did. Big Zalman CPU turbine fixed the situation with the airflow it creates in case dropping GPU temp to 40-45, but I`m still eyeing speedfan from time to time.
I think your concern about an idle temp of 55 may not be necessary. The only point where temps become a concern for the functionality/longevity of the chip is when it begins to flirt with its rated maximum. As long as your video card's cooling fan responds correctly to avoid reaching that point, there's no cause for alarm.
Of course it's temperature based, because apart from excessive power draw that's all the card cares for (because it hurts the card). The relation "idle -> fan off & load -> fan on" arises naturally from this, because the GPU hardly generates any heat at idle. Unless there is something keeping it from idling correctly.
I worded it wrong. I do know that fan speed is based on temperature. My point was that the fan kicks in as soon as a 3D workload is applied, regardless of the temperature being low.
Why generate noise and use electricity to spin the fans if there's no benefit in doing so? 60°C does not hurt a regular Si chip, especially if it's almost completely power gated (idle).
Your complaint is the equivalent of a doctor telling you that you are not sick and do not need to take medicine at all but you are insisting that they prescribe you something anyway.
A 980 shouldn't even begin to throttle itself before 80-ish degrees and the very reason for the throttle is to control the temperature from going too high. Fans on at 50-55 is nothing but YOUR preference and does not need to be "baked in" so that everybody else has to listen to their graphics fans just because you are a hypochondraic.
I'd want a card with a short PCB and an open air cooler overhanging that PCB. This way the fan doesn't blow against the PCB and can easily move hot air towards the CPU & exhaust case fans. The Sapphire Fury used this with exceptional cooling & noise performance.
Uh... you state; "For video output EVGA’s offerings all have two HDMI 2.0b ports,..." Are you sure about that? Did you confuse ASUS' offerings with EVGA's?
If I am not mistaken, the only GTX 1060 dual HDMI port cards that I have seen until now are the ASUS cards.
It is remarkable that Nvidia can squeeze such clocks out of their design. "1280 shader" GPU matches or exceeds in many cases the performance of previous gen "2048 Shader" GPU's. https://listofpornsites.org https://bestporn.icu https://bestpornsites.cc These cards are actually quite conservatively priced considering the performance they offer. Despite RX480 being a disappointment, I'm quite sure we can thank AMD for this pricing. Had 4GB RX480 been $249 card, GTX 1060 would most likely be more expensive than it is now.
I just hope AMD and GloFo manage to produce some real improvements with Vega so that AMD can deliver at least some downward pressure to Nvidia high-end product pricing. Also, I hope AMD manages to make some profit from some of their products, because otherwise they are in for a rough ride...
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
55 Comments
Back to Article
redfirebird15 - Thursday, July 21, 2016 - link
when will we see a replacement for the 750ti? I'm waiting for a half-height, single slot, PCIe powered sub-75w graphics card. Intel IGPs just arent cost effective yet.BrokenCrayons - Thursday, July 21, 2016 - link
I'm impatiently waiting for new GPUs that don't need more power than the PCIe slot can provide. The last couple generations didn't really bring anything to the table in that realm, possibly because it simply wasn't going to be cost effective to compete with Intel at the low end. Unfortunately, Intel's higher end IGPs that include a little bit of memory are still limited to higher priced SKUs. It leaves those of us who aren't interested in absurdly high wattage, huge graphics cards like the 1060 stuck waiting for either Intel, AMD, or NV to do _something_ to address our market segment. You'd think with three companies all competing for sales, someone in one of them would have the vision and authority to fill in the gap at some point soon. I'd like a replacement for my half-height GDDR5 GT 730 with more VRAM and somewhere in the vicinity of 50% more GPU power without having to deal with an absurdly dual slot cooler and +50 watts of power demand.DanNeely - Thursday, July 21, 2016 - link
The rumor mill says we should be getting a GP107 chip this time around; there wasn't a GM207 a year ago which's why there wasn't a 50-70W 9xx series card.Single slot and low profile might be too much to ask at that TDP though. The only card in that power class I could find that was both half height and true single slot (a 1 slot backplate by 2 slot cooler doesn't count IMO) was a AMD 7750 from Saphire - a 4 year old model. The one review for it I found measured its fan at an obnoxious 60 dB; which probably has a lot to do with all the other cards in that power bracket being full height or dual slot to have room for a decent sized heatsink and a fan that's not a screamer.
Mr Perfect - Thursday, July 21, 2016 - link
The Radeon RX 460 might fit that bill, it's bus powered anyhow. As long as someone makes a half-height card version, there will be something to upgrade to.Death666Angel - Thursday, July 21, 2016 - link
There are GTX 950s without external power connectors. For half height, you will have to wait for manufacturers to provide you with a solution, nothing AMD or Nvidia can do about that.DanNeely - Thursday, July 21, 2016 - link
The 950 is a 90W TDP partat stock. Do we know if the PCIe only cards are heavily underclocked/undervolted/low power binned/etc; or pulling a RX480 at release and significantly overdrawing mobo power?britjh22 - Thursday, July 21, 2016 - link
I mean, if you want a really thin flat card, just wait for the GTX 1050 Flounder Edition!redfirebird15 - Saturday, July 23, 2016 - link
Typo or not, Flounder Edition wins best comment!extide - Saturday, July 23, 2016 - link
Probably was intentional, considering the shape of an actual flounder, hehzepi - Thursday, July 21, 2016 - link
It is remarkable that Nvidia can squeeze such clocks out of their design. "1280 shader" GPU matches or exceeds in many cases the performance of previous gen "2048 Shader" GPU's.These cards are actually quite conservatively priced considering the performance they offer. Despite RX480 being a disappointment, I'm quite sure we can thank AMD for this pricing. Had 4GB RX480 been $249 card, GTX 1060 would most likely be more expensive than it is now.
I just hope AMD and GloFo manage to produce some real improvements with Vega so that AMD can deliver at least some downward pressure to Nvidia high-end product pricing. Also, I hope AMD manages to make some profit from some of their products, because otherwise they are in for a rough ride...
Jon Tseng - Thursday, July 21, 2016 - link
I'm actually a bit disappointed on price... GTX 970 launched at $299 and was what a shade over 10% slower than a GTX 980. Give it a decent overclock (and it would overclock) and you were pretty much in the same zip code.Fast forward to today and GTX 1060 is offering comparable performance to a GTX 980 (i.e. similar to an overclocked 970) and the boards are coming in for $260-280.
Okay there's a bunch of puts and takes here (you could OC your 1060; AIB partners GTX 970s may have been more expensive; you get 6GB of memory etc etc) but the underlying math is that you are getting something like a 10% performance bump for maybe 10% less. So 20% bank for the buck improvement over a period of two years and a full node shrink.
That actually doesn't sound that great. In the old days you'd be looking at a double of performance over 18 months... So partly the issue is that Moore's Law has slowed and there's no getting round that. But partly I think its that the lack of competition from AMD has let NVIDIA make hay with pricing.
(To be fair what you can do at the high end is much better than two years ago - but you pay a premium for the performance both absolute and on a $/TFLOP basis. Which just goes to illustrate that while Moore's Law cost scaling has broken down, transistor scaling is still going for the moment.)
JoeyJoJo123 - Thursday, July 21, 2016 - link
That's not how Moore's law had ever worked."Moore's law is the observation that the number of transistors in a dense integrated circuit doubles approximately every two years."
Doubling the transistors means that in an ideal world you'd see up to 2x performance, but in real world scenarios it's often less than that. I have no idea what kind of rose-tinted nostalgia goggles you've been using but Moore's law (which isn't even a law, but an observation) has never worked that way.
Rampart19 - Thursday, July 21, 2016 - link
Wrong. The 970 was actually launched at $330, despite a rumor of a $300 price. The 1060 is comparable to the 980 at $250. The 980 launched at $550. You shouldn't be buying a 1060 to replace a 970, but to replace a 960, it is a pretty good deal for $50 more than what the 960 cost.Yojimbo - Thursday, July 21, 2016 - link
Your post is a mess of faulty reasoning and misinformation. The GTX 970 launched at $330. It is more than 10% slower than the GTX 980. It's almost 20% slower. It can also be overclocked, so an overclocked GTX 970 should be compared with and overclocked GTX 1080. But if the point is to compare the 970 with the 1060 why even introduce the 980 into the discussion at all? It only serves as a mechanism for inaccuracy to creep into the comparison. The GTX 1060 is about 20% faster than a GTX 970 in DX 11 games and more than that in DX 12 and potentially VR, as well as having other architectural enhancements (video encoding/decoding, FastSync, etc). So what you actually get as far as 1060 compared with 970 is a card that costs ~24% less and performs ~20% faster. This is about a 58% increase in performance/price ((1.25/.76) - 1). The increase is greater still in DX 12 games, and the 1060 has 2GB more VRAM and improvement in architectural features. A vastly different situation than the one you tried to portray.Yojimbo - Thursday, July 21, 2016 - link
Sorry, I made a couple typos. The fourth sebtence should read "The 980 can also be overclocked, so an overclocked 970 should be compared with an overclocked 980."Yojimbo - Thursday, July 21, 2016 - link
And oops, should have written ((1.2/.76) -1). But the written percentage is correct.masouth - Monday, July 25, 2016 - link
don't forget you are also getting all that performance at a 20+ watt lower TDP to boot.bryanlarsen - Thursday, July 21, 2016 - link
"Despite RX480 being a disappointment"AMD just can't catch any breaks. It's faster than the 1060 on Vulkan and DX12 w/async compute games. In other words, future video games. When buying something new, do you care about the future or the past?
If Doom/Vulkan had been released one or two weeks earlier, most reviewers would have included it in their benchmarks and probably would have drawn different conclusions.
Zertzable - Thursday, July 21, 2016 - link
I care mostly about the past and right now when buying video cards actually! By the time the future comes, I'll be ready to upgrade again.Michael Bay - Thursday, July 21, 2016 - link
Problem is, "future games" will come when both 1060 and 480 are no longer even remotely new. If Vulkan will be anything like OGL in implementation, id games are the only titles we`ll see it in.eddman - Thursday, July 21, 2016 - link
The DX12 and Vulkan sample pool isn't big enough to draw any meaningful conclusions. Most of the current DX12 titles aren't even optimized for Pascal's async to begin with.Yes, it seems that Polaris benefits more from async but there is far more to performance than just that. It'll only become clear enough in the next 6-12 months.
nastasimp - Thursday, July 21, 2016 - link
Well I care more about the past because I'm not going to just stop playing the games I already own. I can't justify buying a 480 just because it is better in like 3 games.Yojimbo - Thursday, July 21, 2016 - link
The GTX 1060 pricing fits right in with the GTX 1070 and GTX 1080 pricing when relative performance and price is compared with the Maxwell generation cards.prime2515103 - Thursday, July 21, 2016 - link
I think EVGA is going to sue GEVGA for copyright infringement.Jon Tseng - Thursday, July 21, 2016 - link
Wonder if you could passively cool this puppy e.g. get a triple slot mega heatsink which would fit mATX...Shadowmaster625 - Thursday, July 21, 2016 - link
With a minor undervolt, you probably could.ZeDestructor - Thursday, July 21, 2016 - link
Is it just me or are these tiny cards getting just a tad overbuilt with alarming regularity?lunarx3dfx - Thursday, July 21, 2016 - link
Wow, I understand that custom cards will pull a premium, but the pricing here is all over the map, and in most cases significantly higher than the $249 MSRP. I get that the NVIDIA provided MSRP is suggested, but the STRIX card for instance seems to be way overpriced. It can't be $80 better of a card than say the Zotac Mini. I really wanted this after seeing the benchmarks, but the pricing is going to drive me to the other side of the room towards a custom 480. The price/performance ratio is just much better there. NVIDIA really needs to flex their muscles with their partners and get pricing to be at least a little bit more consistent than this.LostWander - Thursday, July 21, 2016 - link
The 1060s are still selling out even at the crazy inflated prices. As long as people are willing to pay the absurd price premium to have it first prices are going to stay way up there. Nvidia doesn't care what their partners charge as long as they're still selling out every shipment.DanNeely - Thursday, July 21, 2016 - link
the MSRPs themselves look more or less normal. Most of the OEMs have their most basic card at about MSRP and then ramp it as the market will bare for higher overclocks and more pretentious coolers. The most expensive ones show there're always plenty of suckers willing to pay $tupidly more for a pre-overclocked card. Excluding the Strix though, none of them are listed more than $40 above MSRP; which is the upper end of the normal range of price premiums for factory overclock and custom design cards.MrSpadge - Thursday, July 21, 2016 - link
You find a model which is too expensive and conclude that the entire lineup is not worth it, instead of considering a different card of the same series? Weird.nastasimp - Thursday, July 21, 2016 - link
:( It's sad. I like STRIX but it's the most expensive variant. I got the STRIX variant for the 970 when it first released and it was only $350 compared to MSRP or $330. Why is it +$70 for the 1060?!eddman - Thursday, July 21, 2016 - link
Prices seem quite fine to me. The stock clocked variants are selling exactly at MSRP. Lightly OCed cards, like EVGA's SC is a mere $10 more.Dual-fan variants at high OC clocks cost $20-50 more which is normal.
bryanlarsen - Thursday, July 21, 2016 - link
One important note: the ASUS cards also have 2xHDMI2, 2xDP, 1xDVI-D ports, like the EVGA cards. Since VR goggles use HDMI, HDMI ports have become more valuable recently.ShuffleInc - Saturday, July 23, 2016 - link
It seems there is a mistake in this article. On EVGA's site on all of the GTX1060 pictures, there is standard layout of 1xDVI, 1xHDMI and 3xDP... So it looks like only ASUS cards have 2xHDMIjtd871 - Monday, July 25, 2016 - link
Yup, I count 3 DP 1 HDMI and (sadly) 1 DVI. Wish they'd ditch the DVI so the exhaust had more area. Seriously look at a photo of the I/O and see how much of the heatsink is blocked by this out of date interface. http://www.evga.com/products/images/gallery/06G-P4...Xanavi - Thursday, July 21, 2016 - link
AMD could have avoided so much crap talking if they named their RX480 a RX470 instead. Jeez people are ruthless.extide - Saturday, July 23, 2016 - link
Ehh, it's more about where it's priced than what it's called.eddman - Thursday, July 21, 2016 - link
I really hope you'd review the short EVGA 1060s. I usually go for short cards because of the layout of my case. If the temps and noise levels are good, I might pick one of them up, probably the SC.Michael Bay - Thursday, July 21, 2016 - link
EVGA has this wonderful idea of stopping goddamn coolers if GPU core is below 60 degrees. I`d avoid buying until confirming they dropped this bullshit.eddman - Thursday, July 21, 2016 - link
Are you sure it's temperature based? I thought fans only stop while idling (non-3D workloads), and once you launch a 3D application they kick in.Michael Bay - Thursday, July 21, 2016 - link
That`s what the leaflet in my 980 box said, at least. Nature of the workload does not concern me much, but those 50-55 degrees card was routinely hitting while idle sure did.Big Zalman CPU turbine fixed the situation with the airflow it creates in case dropping GPU temp to 40-45, but I`m still eyeing speedfan from time to time.
BrokenCrayons - Thursday, July 21, 2016 - link
I think your concern about an idle temp of 55 may not be necessary. The only point where temps become a concern for the functionality/longevity of the chip is when it begins to flirt with its rated maximum. As long as your video card's cooling fan responds correctly to avoid reaching that point, there's no cause for alarm.MrSpadge - Thursday, July 21, 2016 - link
Of course it's temperature based, because apart from excessive power draw that's all the card cares for (because it hurts the card). The relation "idle -> fan off & load -> fan on" arises naturally from this, because the GPU hardly generates any heat at idle. Unless there is something keeping it from idling correctly.eddman - Thursday, July 21, 2016 - link
I worded it wrong. I do know that fan speed is based on temperature. My point was that the fan kicks in as soon as a 3D workload is applied, regardless of the temperature being low.MrSpadge - Thursday, July 21, 2016 - link
Why generate noise and use electricity to spin the fans if there's no benefit in doing so? 60°C does not hurt a regular Si chip, especially if it's almost completely power gated (idle).nastasimp - Thursday, July 21, 2016 - link
You can override any of that "zero-fan" stuff on any card. Just set a custom fan curve.Michael Bay - Friday, July 22, 2016 - link
I don`t want to have a special process always running for what should be baked in in the first place.masouth - Monday, July 25, 2016 - link
Your complaint is the equivalent of a doctor telling you that you are not sick and do not need to take medicine at all but you are insisting that they prescribe you something anyway.A 980 shouldn't even begin to throttle itself before 80-ish degrees and the very reason for the throttle is to control the temperature from going too high. Fans on at 50-55 is nothing but YOUR preference and does not need to be "baked in" so that everybody else has to listen to their graphics fans just because you are a hypochondraic.
Mr Perfect - Thursday, July 21, 2016 - link
Here's hoping that someone makes a blower style card that doesn't have half of the exhaust blocked by a DVI port!If not, I'm tempted to clip the damn thing out with wire cutters.
MrSpadge - Thursday, July 21, 2016 - link
I'd want a card with a short PCB and an open air cooler overhanging that PCB. This way the fan doesn't blow against the PCB and can easily move hot air towards the CPU & exhaust case fans. The Sapphire Fury used this with exceptional cooling & noise performance.vläd - Friday, July 22, 2016 - link
Uh... you state; "For video output EVGA’s offerings all have two HDMI 2.0b ports,..." Are you sure about that? Did you confuse ASUS' offerings with EVGA's?If I am not mistaken, the only GTX 1060 dual HDMI port cards that I have seen until now are the ASUS cards.
ShuffleInc - Saturday, July 23, 2016 - link
I have noticed this too. It looks like EVGA have the standard layout of 1xDVI-D, 1xHDMI and 3xDPShaggedHobo - Friday, July 22, 2016 - link
Must be a Nvidiot fanboy writing this piece. All i heard was BLAH BLAH BLAHyoqeyabu - Thursday, September 30, 2021 - link
It is remarkable that Nvidia can squeeze such clocks out of their design. "1280 shader" GPU matches or exceeds in many cases the performance of previous gen "2048 Shader" GPU's.https://listofpornsites.org
https://bestporn.icu
https://bestpornsites.cc
These cards are actually quite conservatively priced considering the performance they offer. Despite RX480 being a disappointment, I'm quite sure we can thank AMD for this pricing. Had 4GB RX480 been $249 card, GTX 1060 would most likely be more expensive than it is now.
I just hope AMD and GloFo manage to produce some real improvements with Vega so that AMD can deliver at least some downward pressure to Nvidia high-end product pricing. Also, I hope AMD manages to make some profit from some of their products, because otherwise they are in for a rough ride...