This is a good price historically, but it's not the right price point for this card. There are better cards at lower prices.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_1060/26.html

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/R9_Fury_Strix/34.html

You can pick up a GTX 1060, right now, for £228. That's a significant savings of £61. Not only is the 1060 more energy efficient, it has a much better overclock (14% versus 6%).

An 8% boost in performance puts the 1060 on par with the Fury at 1440p and the 1060 is 8% ahead at 1080p.

So there is virtually no market for this card at this price, unless brand you have a load of brand loyalty to either side.

1060 is a better, cheaper, card.

The 480 would be an option too.

I thought about picking the GTX 1060 or the RX 480 for a long time but as it stands now with the prices being similar is that the GTX 1060 is a vastly superior card for gaming right now but will eventually be outclassed by the RX 480 in a year's time once DX12 games start rolling out. However by then there will be a new generation of cards that are better and have a better price point as well.

In other words, buy a GTX 1060 if you want a card now. Wait if you don't.

Brace yourself..

This is a good price historically, but it's not the right price point for this card. There are better cards at lower prices.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_1060/26.html

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/R9_Fury_Strix/34.html

You can pick up a GTX 1060, right now, for £228. That's a significant savings of £61. Not only is the 1060 more energy efficient, it has a much better overclock (14% versus 6%).

An 8% boost in performance puts the 1060 on par with the Fury at 1440p and the 1060 is 8% ahead at 1080p.

So there is virtually no market for this card at this price, unless brand you have a load of brand loyalty to either side.

1060 is a better, cheaper, card.

The 480 would be an option too.

This or wait for this xfx rx 480 to come out?

​with dx11, DX12 however...

I'd get the nitro 480 but oos everywhere almost

You can overclock the fury pretty high as well to get a 15% performance increase. I can get 17k firestrike score on my fury. The top score for the gtx 1060 is 15.5k @ 2100mhz which is the upper limit of gtx 1060 clocks which is what the fury nitro gets with it's factory overclock.

Maybe so but the efficiency of the 1060 wins out plus the nitro may score higher but in gaming that performance will start to drop when the 4gb limit has hit then the 1060 would take over with it's btr compression and extra 2gb of vram, I don't think doom will give nightmare settings to a 4gb card unless they've changed that.

the 1060 is the best price option although personally I would prefer to see it hit the £200 mark, the 480 is hitting the market pretty well and taken a lot of sales from the 1060 due to future proofing and the 8gb vram, it's pricing will decrease as stock becomes readily available but if NVidia and partners can price there cards closer to the £200 price point it's goodnight for the 480.

As I have stated b4 I was a loyal amd buyer but this year imho it's a huge let down, perf is not there efficiency is not there and in order to get the advertised speeds on the box you have to bump up the slider and as a result push wattage upto 230w and given the 1060 pushes 135w when overclocked to 2100mhz, amd S**t the bed big time, to price there cards at £230-£330 is a joke really.

Then you got super lucky, many reviews show the Fury as a very bad overclocker.

I haven't found a review that has gotten it above 10% OC, even then, most are 5-7% OC.

Even if you get lucky and OC to 15%, it still only *matches* the 1060 at 1080p, for 61 more quid? No way.

Also 4 GB of HBM is worse than 6GB of GDDR5, even if it's faster, it still is a bottle neck if your game asks for >4.

I thought about picking the GTX 1060 or the RX 480 for a long time but as it stands now with the prices being similar is that the GTX 1060 is a vastly superior card for gaming right now but will eventually be outclassed by the RX 480 in a year's time once DX12 games start rolling out. However by then there will be a new generation of cards that are better and have a better price point as well.

In other words, buy a GTX 1060 if you want a card now. Wait if you don't.

That's incorrect. A 980 is on par with a 1060 and I seem to remember a Fury destroyed a 980 especially at newer games and higher resolutions. GCN is just way more future proof than anything nvidia can offer.

Pascal is not a new architecture, it is die shrunk maxwell with higher clocks.

Future proof if you know a significant proportion of titles will use the GCN architecture / DX12 / Vulkan API optimally, otherwise it's just a guess.

Async compute will play a massive factor in performance for years to come. Both consoles support async. The only things that nvidia actually gain more than amd in are tomb raider (DX12 wrapper for DX11 game) and timespy which obviously has been paid by nvidia to show their cards in a better light

If nvidia doesn't update the driver for async, yes the rx 480 is quicker at the moment. In DX12 purely it's not significant and the gap can be closed by said updates. Of course none of us knows what the future holds. All I know that the 1060 reference card is available for £229.99.

Like I said you're guessing as none of us know the future. There's multiple factors at work that no one knows yet, for example the mass adoption of DX12 titles might take longer to propagate the market, they may not all be optimised, the next generation of cards might well be where the real difference is made. I'm guessing, you're guessing, we're all guessing.

If Nvidia doesn't update the driver for Async? So you think a software update can change hardware architecture? Nvidia cards DO NOT support Async Compute, end of story.

Async compute can be done via software or hardware. Don't get the concept confused.

It's asyncrhonous computation. Simply put, you can compute things without waiting for something else to finish, this is a software concept that can be made better by using hardware.

Also, Pascal supports async compute.

Also, don't forget that AMD is actually less compliant than NVIDIA with the feature levels in DX12.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feature_levels_in_Direct3D#Direct3D_12

Also, neither AMD nor NVIDIA support all of DX12, only microsfot does that. And skylake IGPU does it far better than AMD or NVIDIA. That doesn't make the IGPU better. Supporting features doesn't mean good graphics cards.

Either way, http://www.eteknix.com/pascal-gtx-1080-async-compute-explored/

You are wrong about Nvidia and hardware async compute. Pascal offers it, whether it is as good or not as AMD's version is another topic.

That's not true, the 1060 is basically a 980 with less power consumption. The Fury generally beats the 980 across the board and especially in DX12 games gives it a spanking. The performance of a Fury in some DX12 titles is even on par with an overclocked 980Ti.

It's quite a lot more than a die shrink and speed boost. Admittedly it's not as bigger change as Keplar to Maxwell, but there's a lot more changes than AMD brought in with Polaris in the 480 RX.

Async compute does not mean the same thing for amd and nvidia. In Nvidia’s case is only used when switching between graphics contexts. And even this is broken in the current drivers. Dx12 does not require the implementation of async compute. It also doesn't mean that there is no benefit to it. As you said both consoles are using amd so most likely amd 's version is going to be prominent. Yes, a driver update can help a lot in Nvidia’s case cause we are going from not having anything to having something :smiley:

You guys realise that async-compute isn't the only reason why AMD sees performance gains in low-level API's like Vulkan and DX12?

There's reduced CPU overhead that has plagued AMD when running anything DX11 (or below) or OpenGL.

Why would you pay so much for a card?>???? Just get an xbox one instead, games are all the same anyway.

Pascal doesn't offer the concurrency support via dynamic load balancing to fill execution bubbles by vastly changing the architecture in the same way GCN offers it. So Async Compute is more than Async Compute, the hard facts are AMD has the forward thinking more advanced architecture which simply doesn't exist in Pascal. Whether this affords them a near future win is dependent on the software i.e. amount of games which can utilise the beneficial aspects of GCN over Pascal.

AMD is better in theory in real world practice, there's 3 games that can utilise Vulkan and Vulkan is where my money or rather lack of money as it's open source. DX12 offers benefits to AMD architecture over Nvidia. However this is all theory, we need software and the lack of software is deafening.

lrn2read

I never said it was a feature, I'm just correcting idiots who believe async compute is the only reason why AMD is seeing gains.

Pascal does see improvements in DX12, unlike Maxwell. Also Nvidia are rich and will stop there being too many games that run lots faster on their cards with specific profiles. Not how it should be bit that is how it likely will be

The fury nitro with a cheap freesync monitor would be a better option than 1060 with a non gsync monitor.

I posted a similar deal a couple of weeks back and folk voted cold :/


Better cards? - This is pretty subjective statement...TimeSpy Async DX12 would beg to differ in this...I can even supply you with my Valid result of TimeSpy if you like..Hell I can even give you OC3D's DX12 board of people with different cards...you'll be interested to see where a 480 or 1060 is in comparison to the Fury

You try playing a game at 1440P or 4K on a 480 or 1060 and see what frame rates you get..It's got nothing on HBM which is bigger bandwidth.

So in the first screenshot, there's a 12% performance gain with the fury without overclock...a 22% increase on the next....So as you say you can overclock the 1060/480..doesn't then this go against your power efficiency crap..can't have it both ways!





Now considering, I can get an overclock on my Sapphire R9 Trixx Fury and unlock CU's and get it to near enough Fury X speeds, you're essentially getting an Air cooled Fury X.....Then look at the difference of Fury X and Fury and then compare to 1060....Bang for buck easily!!!!

These are the cold hard stats, not subjective opinion

I would invite you to look at EuroGamer
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-amd-radeon-r9-fury-review

Not far off the Fury X...How much is the Fury X?....Perspective.

So all this about energy saving....does this mean we should all drive 1.0 litre cars then because they are fuel efficient? Course not..Some people want raw power and that's why they don't buy a fiat 500 but an Audi S1......When people whack out this argument it doesn't have make chuckle.

In short..pipe darn, for the price of the Fury, it's worth it.

Also remember that Guru3d dont update all gpu's, the 1060 will have the latest drivers and the fury's drivers will be a year old or so, whenever they carried the fury bench. So expect another few % increase. Computerbase.de have the best graphs although some unsual games/settings used...pcgameshardwarde.de graphs are wicked to.
You also used GTA V which is a Gamesworks title to..change that to HItman or Black Ops 3[/b]...:laughing:

Do you have a link at all to their bench graphs?

OC3D have their own user submitted DX12 TimeSpy table.

See the difference between an overclocked Fury and a overclocked 1060 there..Better card..haha, aye alright!..people these days eh lol

https://www.computerbase.de/2016-07/geforce-gtx-1060-test/3/#diagramm-ashes-of-the-singularity-1920-1080

they have it around 10% faster than the 1060, Guru3d have it around 30% +-10%... so seems a bit strange to me... although they used 'dirt' rally' 'anno' and total warhamemr DX11 only.... so the fury is probably around 20% faster on average than the 1060

Yeah but you get better quality on console and you can use large TV. The same games are often better on xbox because consoles are better optimized for gaming, have no drivers that often crash etc.

Interesting results there, particularly ashes at 1440P and Hitman...Granted, these appear to work better on an AMD platform but when you look at Doom on Vulcan in 1440P, Far Cry, you can see its better value for money.

​I've had more crashes on my ps4 since I have owned it than I've had on my PC, that's no joke.

It's not even about that. You can do loads more on a PC than one console.

If you unluck those extra Cu's on this card, it makes it the best bang for buck around this price range. Take this card over a cheaper 1060 for sure.... I think the 470 4gb is a very good card, if you can get it for a reasonable price as well.

​I know, my ps4 is just a media device to me. All my gaming is done on PC, don't see the point in paying over the odds for the games on console when I can get them cheaper on PC and play on vastly superior graphical settings.

So tempting, huge performance boost on Doom Vulkan. Wish it had 8GB, as I can't fork out £290 on a gpu that may be hindered by the 4gb limit in future.