Not a bad price for the Superclocked 6GB version. The Inno3D 6GB is £5 less, but this is a better card and already factory overclocked. Never been as low as this, shows 1 left but more on the way.
Would be nice in a small rig and powerful enough to play MANY games on the highest settings at 1080p.
The NVIDIA Promotion at the moment with this card is a free game, either For Honor or Ghost Recon: Wildlands.
* It's NVidia, not AMD. Don't compare prices with AMD cards. If you don't like nvidia cards, then buy an AMD card. Stop quoting me with facts.
* It's single fan, it will be slightly louder than dual fan but it fits into small rigs.
* No, it can't run Forza 3 Horizon on Ultra settings on 4K resolution. For that you'll need a GTX 1080. Unfortunately they aren't £214.98.
* I have NOT seen this card cheaper, it has NEVER been this cheap because I've been looking for ages.
* Very low power.
* VERY suitable for small rigs.
* If you can time-travel back to last month, yes, you could of picked up a dual fan MSI card for a similar price. You can also get a second hand Commadore Amiga 1200 in 1994 for less than £50. You've missed that one too.
Top comments
BetaRomeo
5 Apr 174#29
Errr... one of those links is the same article I shared with you - except mine was for people able to read, rather than sit slack-jawed in front of their screens as the article is read aloud to them. :smile: Again, at the risk of repeating myself (and them) - the 480 didn't mostly beat the 1060, no matter how many times you devolve into ALL CAPS.
Your second link shows the 1060 ahead in lots and lots and lots of games - Dishonored 2, Battlefield 1, Watch Dogs 2, Gears of War 4, Civ VI... indeed, they even ended by summarising that the 1060 is "faster on average" than the 480 (literal quote from near the end of the video in your link! :smile:), I'm not sure what your point is...? (Although I hadn't seen the 480 ahead in F1 before, so at least I learned something from your misfire! :smiley:)
Oh, any chance all those tests were run on an i7? No comment on the 480 needing a high-end CPU?
No comment about the hotter 480?
No comment about the increased power consumption?
No comment about the shockingly bad performance in SteamOS and Linux?
I completely understand your position. I'm a bit of a Logitech fanboy, myself - so, of course, any genuine flaws in Logitech products simply DO NOT EXIST for me. :man:
Buy Logitech!
BetaRomeo to ritchiedrama
5 Apr 174#22
Not sure where you get your information.
Ignoring the oxymoron of the 480 both matching AND beating the 1060... :smile: I've seen one source - just one - that claims that the 480 has caught up to the 1060, a few months ago. Not beaten it - caught up to it. Running tests on an i7, that is. A few weeks later, another article with updated tests still put the 1060 significantly ahead of the 480 (again, on an i7 - although the gap has definitely appeared to narrow since release). So I'd like to see where a 480 has overtaken a 1060, "beat[ing] it in MOST titles", if you'd be so kind?
Of course, running on an i7 (and Windows, incidentally) produces the absolute best-case scenario for the 480, as the performance dials back far more quickly with lower CPUs compared with the 1060. Anyone looking for a nice, strong card for an i3, non-overclockable i5, or Ryzen CPU would probably still be better off with a 1060 (although sadly, there are very few reviews using Ryzen with a 480 so far - although I did notice that the 480 gets better performance with Ryzen with some DX12 titles that don't see any improvement on Nvidia. But I digress...).
I don't see anyone claiming Polaris has "heat issues" - but it's a fact that the 480 runs hotter than the 1060. Of course, it uses a lot more power (the power used by the 1060 is ridiculously tiny), so we'd expect it to run hotter. Although that does lead onto the power consumption. There would certainly be people with PSUs that could handle the 1060, but not the 480, so for those people, you'd have to add in the cost of a new PSU. (The cost of the increased wattage on a 'leccy bill would only be an extra ~£5/year for the 480, so not a big deal.)
And anyone interested in gaming on a Steam machine, or gaming in Linux, still cannot consider an AMD GPU. We've finally moved past the point where a 750 outperforms a Fury, but AMD's still far, far behind in any non-Windows PC gaming.
But, yes, if you have an i7, a good enough PSU, and will only use Windows, then the 8GB 480 is certainly a compelling alternative to the 6GB 1060 - a ~£25 saving for slightly less performance with only a small increase in power consumption and temperatures would make it a fairly even choice, so this (~£220 or less) really is the price that a 6GB 1060 needs to be.
A decent Freesync monitor would then make the 480 a no-brainer.
derp1664
5 Apr 174#6
Intel HD grafiks r best !
AmD & NVIDIER sux!
ollie87
5 Apr 173#37
Why is every GPU thread a willy-waving contest?
All comments (59)
DragonChris
5 Apr 171#1
I recommend changing the category to Computers over Gaming :smiley: Heat added.
ritchiedrama
5 Apr 173#2
Just not worth the money when you can get an RX480 8Gb for £175-190
BetaRomeo to ritchiedrama
5 Apr 174#22
Not sure where you get your information.
Ignoring the oxymoron of the 480 both matching AND beating the 1060... :smile: I've seen one source - just one - that claims that the 480 has caught up to the 1060, a few months ago. Not beaten it - caught up to it. Running tests on an i7, that is. A few weeks later, another article with updated tests still put the 1060 significantly ahead of the 480 (again, on an i7 - although the gap has definitely appeared to narrow since release). So I'd like to see where a 480 has overtaken a 1060, "beat[ing] it in MOST titles", if you'd be so kind?
Of course, running on an i7 (and Windows, incidentally) produces the absolute best-case scenario for the 480, as the performance dials back far more quickly with lower CPUs compared with the 1060. Anyone looking for a nice, strong card for an i3, non-overclockable i5, or Ryzen CPU would probably still be better off with a 1060 (although sadly, there are very few reviews using Ryzen with a 480 so far - although I did notice that the 480 gets better performance with Ryzen with some DX12 titles that don't see any improvement on Nvidia. But I digress...).
I don't see anyone claiming Polaris has "heat issues" - but it's a fact that the 480 runs hotter than the 1060. Of course, it uses a lot more power (the power used by the 1060 is ridiculously tiny), so we'd expect it to run hotter. Although that does lead onto the power consumption. There would certainly be people with PSUs that could handle the 1060, but not the 480, so for those people, you'd have to add in the cost of a new PSU. (The cost of the increased wattage on a 'leccy bill would only be an extra ~£5/year for the 480, so not a big deal.)
And anyone interested in gaming on a Steam machine, or gaming in Linux, still cannot consider an AMD GPU. We've finally moved past the point where a 750 outperforms a Fury, but AMD's still far, far behind in any non-Windows PC gaming.
But, yes, if you have an i7, a good enough PSU, and will only use Windows, then the 8GB 480 is certainly a compelling alternative to the 6GB 1060 - a ~£25 saving for slightly less performance with only a small increase in power consumption and temperatures would make it a fairly even choice, so this (~£220 or less) really is the price that a 6GB 1060 needs to be.
A decent Freesync monitor would then make the 480 a no-brainer.
Burnz0
5 Apr 17#3
Editted the post to counter some of the arguments, but yes AMD cards are cheaper. They also run hotter, and arn't any good with GSync monitors. It's down to preference.
ritchiedrama to Burnz0
5 Apr 17#4
Gsync monitors are expensive, over-priced nonsense.
AMD old stuff runs hot, not their new stuff, and none of the good branding non-reference cards have heat issues, either.
I'm not sure where you get your information.
Burnz0
5 Apr 17#5
Are you saying AMD cards are suitable for people who already own GSync monitors?
derp1664
5 Apr 174#6
Intel HD grafiks r best !
AmD & NVIDIER sux!
ritchiedrama
5 Apr 171#7
No-one with a brain would buy a 1060 if they had a Gsync monitor already.
Burnz0
5 Apr 17#8
GSync is for when the fps varies, 144Hz monitors are for fps rates up to 144. You can play games at above 60fps on a 1060.... but you know that right?
ritchiedrama
5 Apr 17#9
You'll never understand, I give up, you're the kind of person who goes to PCWorld to buy stuff, or the kind of person who thinks 60fps is a good gaming experience.
You didn't even understand my point, like, I am speechless.
![Fresh Breakfast Meat Box (Using code) @ Campbells Meat [Haggis / Lorne Sausage / Bacon / Black Pudding & More]](/images/topics/208684_1.jpg)
![[Xbox One] Q. u. b. e: Director's Cut on Deals with Gold](/images/topics/208716_1.jpg)
Opening post
Would be nice in a small rig and powerful enough to play MANY games on the highest settings at 1080p.
The NVIDIA Promotion at the moment with this card is a free game, either For Honor or Ghost Recon: Wildlands.
* It's NVidia, not AMD. Don't compare prices with AMD cards. If you don't like nvidia cards, then buy an AMD card. Stop quoting me with facts.
* It's single fan, it will be slightly louder than dual fan but it fits into small rigs.
* No, it can't run Forza 3 Horizon on Ultra settings on 4K resolution. For that you'll need a GTX 1080. Unfortunately they aren't £214.98.
* I have NOT seen this card cheaper, it has NEVER been this cheap because I've been looking for ages.
* Very low power.
* VERY suitable for small rigs.
* If you can time-travel back to last month, yes, you could of picked up a dual fan MSI card for a similar price. You can also get a second hand Commadore Amiga 1200 in 1994 for less than £50. You've missed that one too.
Top comments
Your second link shows the 1060 ahead in lots and lots and lots of games - Dishonored 2, Battlefield 1, Watch Dogs 2, Gears of War 4, Civ VI... indeed, they even ended by summarising that the 1060 is "faster on average" than the 480 (literal quote from near the end of the video in your link! :smile:), I'm not sure what your point is...? (Although I hadn't seen the 480 ahead in F1 before, so at least I learned something from your misfire! :smiley:)
Oh, any chance all those tests were run on an i7? No comment on the 480 needing a high-end CPU?
No comment about the hotter 480?
No comment about the increased power consumption?
No comment about the shockingly bad performance in SteamOS and Linux?
I completely understand your position. I'm a bit of a Logitech fanboy, myself - so, of course, any genuine flaws in Logitech products simply DO NOT EXIST for me. :man:
Buy Logitech!
Ignoring the oxymoron of the 480 both matching AND beating the 1060... :smile: I've seen one source - just one - that claims that the 480 has caught up to the 1060, a few months ago. Not beaten it - caught up to it. Running tests on an i7, that is. A few weeks later, another article with updated tests still put the 1060 significantly ahead of the 480 (again, on an i7 - although the gap has definitely appeared to narrow since release). So I'd like to see where a 480 has overtaken a 1060, "beat[ing] it in MOST titles", if you'd be so kind?
Of course, running on an i7 (and Windows, incidentally) produces the absolute best-case scenario for the 480, as the performance dials back far more quickly with lower CPUs compared with the 1060. Anyone looking for a nice, strong card for an i3, non-overclockable i5, or Ryzen CPU would probably still be better off with a 1060 (although sadly, there are very few reviews using Ryzen with a 480 so far - although I did notice that the 480 gets better performance with Ryzen with some DX12 titles that don't see any improvement on Nvidia. But I digress...).
I don't see anyone claiming Polaris has "heat issues" - but it's a fact that the 480 runs hotter than the 1060. Of course, it uses a lot more power (the power used by the 1060 is ridiculously tiny), so we'd expect it to run hotter. Although that does lead onto the power consumption. There would certainly be people with PSUs that could handle the 1060, but not the 480, so for those people, you'd have to add in the cost of a new PSU. (The cost of the increased wattage on a 'leccy bill would only be an extra ~£5/year for the 480, so not a big deal.)
And anyone interested in gaming on a Steam machine, or gaming in Linux, still cannot consider an AMD GPU. We've finally moved past the point where a 750 outperforms a Fury, but AMD's still far, far behind in any non-Windows PC gaming.
But, yes, if you have an i7, a good enough PSU, and will only use Windows, then the 8GB 480 is certainly a compelling alternative to the 6GB 1060 - a ~£25 saving for slightly less performance with only a small increase in power consumption and temperatures would make it a fairly even choice, so this (~£220 or less) really is the price that a 6GB 1060 needs to be.
A decent Freesync monitor would then make the 480 a no-brainer.
AmD & NVIDIER sux!
All comments (59)
Ignoring the oxymoron of the 480 both matching AND beating the 1060... :smile: I've seen one source - just one - that claims that the 480 has caught up to the 1060, a few months ago. Not beaten it - caught up to it. Running tests on an i7, that is. A few weeks later, another article with updated tests still put the 1060 significantly ahead of the 480 (again, on an i7 - although the gap has definitely appeared to narrow since release). So I'd like to see where a 480 has overtaken a 1060, "beat[ing] it in MOST titles", if you'd be so kind?
Of course, running on an i7 (and Windows, incidentally) produces the absolute best-case scenario for the 480, as the performance dials back far more quickly with lower CPUs compared with the 1060. Anyone looking for a nice, strong card for an i3, non-overclockable i5, or Ryzen CPU would probably still be better off with a 1060 (although sadly, there are very few reviews using Ryzen with a 480 so far - although I did notice that the 480 gets better performance with Ryzen with some DX12 titles that don't see any improvement on Nvidia. But I digress...).
I don't see anyone claiming Polaris has "heat issues" - but it's a fact that the 480 runs hotter than the 1060. Of course, it uses a lot more power (the power used by the 1060 is ridiculously tiny), so we'd expect it to run hotter. Although that does lead onto the power consumption. There would certainly be people with PSUs that could handle the 1060, but not the 480, so for those people, you'd have to add in the cost of a new PSU. (The cost of the increased wattage on a 'leccy bill would only be an extra ~£5/year for the 480, so not a big deal.)
And anyone interested in gaming on a Steam machine, or gaming in Linux, still cannot consider an AMD GPU. We've finally moved past the point where a 750 outperforms a Fury, but AMD's still far, far behind in any non-Windows PC gaming.
But, yes, if you have an i7, a good enough PSU, and will only use Windows, then the 8GB 480 is certainly a compelling alternative to the 6GB 1060 - a ~£25 saving for slightly less performance with only a small increase in power consumption and temperatures would make it a fairly even choice, so this (~£220 or less) really is the price that a 6GB 1060 needs to be.
A decent Freesync monitor would then make the 480 a no-brainer.
AMD old stuff runs hot, not their new stuff, and none of the good branding non-reference cards have heat issues, either.
I'm not sure where you get your information.
AmD & NVIDIER sux!
You didn't even understand my point, like, I am speechless.