MSI - Nvidia GTX 1060 OC 3Gb @ Ebuyer for £192.51 - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HotUKDeals, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HotUKDeals app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit
68

MSI - Nvidia GTX 1060 OC 3Gb @ Ebuyer for £192.51

£192.51 @ Ebuyer
A lot better than the 480 in my opinion that's hot at the moment... A lot better performance. Better bang for the Buck. Oh wait £ :D This is the 3Gb model however, unless you actually understan… Read More
harisonwright Avatar
9m, 2d agoFound 9 months, 2 days ago
A lot better than the 480 in my opinion that's hot at the moment...

A lot better performance. Better bang for the Buck. Oh wait £ :D

This is the 3Gb model however, unless you actually understand the use of Vram stop rallying like a hype train ;P have a nice day!

- THIS IS A CHEAP BUDGET CARD...
Better for high smooth fps not low fps with maximum settings - 1080p
More From Ebuyer:
harisonwright Avatar
9m, 2d agoFound 9 months, 2 days ago
Options

All Comments

(45) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
Page:
3 Likes #1
3GB...
#2
Enlighten me on the actual obsession with vram and I'll agree
#3
K1LLER HORNET
3GB...


8Gb is a joke in a low end card
#4
K1LLER HORNET
3GB...
Just had to mention this...
4 Likes #5
Should put 3gb in title so people know to avoid

Edited By: eiamhere69 on Aug 25, 2016 21:35
#6
klopikxda
K1LLER HORNET
3GB...
Just had to mention this...


The 480 only has 4 ;P I still have very large faith in this card.
#7
eiamhere69
Should put 3gb in title so people know to avoid


Why what is wrong with 3gb of Vram?
1 Like #8
harisonwright
eiamhere69
Should put 3gb in title so people know to avoid
Why what is wrong with 3gb of Vram?
Its limiting, even at 1080p
#9
JimBobJr
harisonwright
eiamhere69
Should put 3gb in title so people know to avoid
Why what is wrong with 3gb of Vram?
Its limiting, even at 1080p


Maybe its not top of the range, but neither is the 1060 its £192 not £400
4 Likes #10
harisonwright
eiamhere69
Should put 3gb in title so people know to avoid
Why what is wrong with 3gb of Vram?

Look at reviews. The 3GB version is a joke. You'd be foolish not to spend the difference on the full 6GB card.
#11
harisonwright
JimBobJr
harisonwright
eiamhere69
Should put 3gb in title so people know to avoid
Why what is wrong with 3gb of Vram?
Its limiting, even at 1080p

Maybe its not top of the range, but neither is the 1060 its £192 not £400

Umm the 1060 6GB is around £45 more than the gimped 3GB model.
#12
K1LLER HORNET
harisonwright
JimBobJr
harisonwright
eiamhere69
Should put 3gb in title so people know to avoid
Why what is wrong with 3gb of Vram?
Its limiting, even at 1080p

Maybe its not top of the range, but neither is the 1060 its £192 not £400

Umm the 1060 6GB is around £45 more than the gimped 3GB model.


Yes it is... Budget. Pricing. & that's over %20 more. £45 for some people may be the differences between no mouse and keyboard and a mouse and keyboard. Kinda essential.

Anyways it doesn't matter if you don't like it down vote and leave..
3 Likes #13
Guys, if you don't even bother to read reviews... Anyway, the 3GB version has 128 processors less and less ROP's, not just the VRAM in this case.
#14
Just cannot be considered a good deal with what is already a limiting amount of VRAM. At this price the 480 4GB is a better option, but both cards are likely going to be worth paying for the higher VRAM equivalents as games start increasing their VRAM usage (which is happening at a faster rate than ever before).
#15
thelagmonster
Just cannot be considered a good deal with what is already a limiting amount of VRAM. At this price the 480 4GB is a better option, but both cards are likely going to be worth paying for the higher VRAM equivalents as games start increasing their VRAM usage (which is happening at a faster rate than ever before).


'The 480 is a better option' - You forgot in my opinion.
1 Like #16
harisonwright
thelagmonster
Just cannot be considered a good deal with what is already a limiting amount of VRAM. At this price the 480 4GB is a better option, but both cards are likely going to be worth paying for the higher VRAM equivalents as games start increasing their VRAM usage (which is happening at a faster rate than ever before).


'The 480 is a better option' - You forgot in my opinion.


If power consumption is not an issue. 480 4gb is truly a better performer at the same price level.
3 Likes #18
harisonwright
thelagmonster
Just cannot be considered a good deal with what is already a limiting amount of VRAM. At this price the 480 4GB is a better option, but both cards are likely going to be worth paying for the higher VRAM equivalents as games start increasing their VRAM usage (which is happening at a faster rate than ever before).
'The 480 is a better option' - You forgot in my opinion.
It really isn't an opinion though. The 480 is better than this cut down, gimped version of the 1060, and I say that as somebody who owns a 6GB version. But then I bought that card because the games I want to play happen to run better on it (i.e. older DX11 titles and World of Warcraft), but there are plenty of games which run better on the 480, which is a fantastic card in its own right (and the 4GB version is a far better deal than the 3GB 1060). I only got rid of a 780 a couple of months back and 3GB VRAM is barely enough to get by even at 1080p these days. You will be lowering settings in many newer titles to remain within that limitation.

Frankly, you just come across as a desperate fanboy.
#19
It depends I prefer smooth higher frame rates meaning I don't need a lot of vram to hold massive textures that usually don't do alot
1 Like #20
Aretak
harisonwright
thelagmonster
Just cannot be considered a good deal with what is already a limiting amount of VRAM. At this price the 480 4GB is a better option, but both cards are likely going to be worth paying for the higher VRAM equivalents as games start increasing their VRAM usage (which is happening at a faster rate than ever before).
'The 480 is a better option' - You forgot in my opinion.
It really isn't an opinion though. The 480 is better than this cut down, gimped version of the 1060, and I say that as somebody who owns a 6GB version. But then I bought that card because the games I want to play happen to run better on it (i.e. older DX11 titles and World of Warcraft), but there are plenty of games which run better on the 480, which is a fantastic card in its own right (and the 4GB version is a far better deal than the 3GB 1060). I only got rid of a 780 a couple of months back and 3GB VRAM is barely enough to get by even at 1080p these days. You will be lowering settings in many newer titles to remain within that limitation.

Frankly, you just come across as a desperate fanboy.


I myself will not be upgrading the generation I have more important matters to spend money one. Hell I still have a 760 I don't care though Im not going to stand here and be like 'low' settings is better, because it's not. However I don't mind low settings.
#21
harisonwright
It depends I prefer smooth higher frame rates meaning I don't need a lot of vram to hold massive textures that usually don't do alot

However I don't mind low settings.

X)

Edited By: K1LLER HORNET on Aug 25, 2016 22:33
3 Likes #22
harisonwright
Aretak
harisonwright
thelagmonster
Just cannot be considered a good deal with what is already a limiting amount of VRAM. At this price the 480 4GB is a better option, but both cards are likely going to be worth paying for the higher VRAM equivalents as games start increasing their VRAM usage (which is happening at a faster rate than ever before).
'The 480 is a better option' - You forgot in my opinion.
It really isn't an opinion though. The 480 is better than this cut down, gimped version of the 1060, and I say that as somebody who owns a 6GB version. But then I bought that card because the games I want to play happen to run better on it (i.e. older DX11 titles and World of Warcraft), but there are plenty of games which run better on the 480, which is a fantastic card in its own right (and the 4GB version is a far better deal than the 3GB 1060). I only got rid of a 780 a couple of months back and 3GB VRAM is barely enough to get by even at 1080p these days. You will be lowering settings in many newer titles to remain within that limitation.
Frankly, you just come across as a desperate fanboy.
I myself will not be upgrading the generation I have more important matters to spend money one. Hell I still have a 760 I don't care though Im not going to stand here and be like 'low' settings is better, because it's not. However I don't mind low settings.
So you don't mind playing on low settings and still run a 760 but want to drone on at people who want more vram to play on higher setting the way games are ment to be played, I think you might be the one that doesn't know what vram Is for, Is it Tetris your playing by any chance? 3gb or ram is not enough and there is nobody on this earth that can't justify the 45 quid for the better card even people on the dole can hold off gaming for 2 weeks till dole day lol. Do not buy a 3gb card in this day and age you will be very disappointed and sell it at a loss. The 1060 gives 980 power at a lower cost so why cripple it with less vram
2 Likes #23
This is a 1050ti, as soon as they disabled cores it failed to be a 1060, 3gb vram is already limiting and pointless, doom nightmare won't even allow a sniff at 4gb or less, regardless of if it can be used or not games are already limiting for 4gb+ at 1080p.

It's beyond most people why this card was even released it has no place, it's not worth the money, and as the months go on and games are released the 3gb will start to limp very quickly.
#24
revolver31
This is a 1050ti, as soon as they disabled cores it failed to be a 1060, 3gb vram is already limiting and pointless, doom nightmare won't even allow a sniff at 4gb or less, regardless of if it can be used or not games are already limiting for 4gb+ at 1080p.
It's beyond most people why this card was even released it has no place, it's not worth the money, and as the months go on and games are released the 3gb will start to limp very quickly.

Do you call the AMD 480 4GB the 470ti?

If not, stop calling this the 1050 ti, as it's a joke.

The 480's memory is clocked 14% lower between models while the 1060 has 11% less CUDAs.
#25
Head to head review. No fancy frame time graphs or anything. Just two cards and a handful of games.
#26
harisonwright
Aretak
harisonwright
thelagmonster
Just cannot be considered a good deal with what is already a limiting amount of VRAM. At this price the 480 4GB is a better option, but both cards are likely going to be worth paying for the higher VRAM equivalents as games start increasing their VRAM usage (which is happening at a faster rate than ever before).
'The 480 is a better option' - You forgot in my opinion.
It really isn't an opinion though. The 480 is better than this cut down, gimped version of the 1060, and I say that as somebody who owns a 6GB version. But then I bought that card because the games I want to play happen to run better on it (i.e. older DX11 titles and World of Warcraft), but there are plenty of games which run better on the 480, which is a fantastic card in its own right (and the 4GB version is a far better deal than the 3GB 1060). I only got rid of a 780 a couple of months back and 3GB VRAM is barely enough to get by even at 1080p these days. You will be lowering settings in many newer titles to remain within that limitation.

Frankly, you just come across as a desperate fanboy.


I myself will not be upgrading the generation I have more important matters to spend money one. Hell I still have a 760 I don't care though Im not going to stand here and be like 'low' settings is better, because it's not. However I don't mind low settings.


What can you possibly have going on that would warrant you to have to run low settings? You must prioritise your GPU over any family matters, debt, holidays, home improvements etc otherwise you can't be in the master race....
Joking ;)
#27
LazybeatX
harisonwright
Aretak
harisonwright
thelagmonster
Just cannot be considered a good deal with what is already a limiting amount of VRAM. At this price the 480 4GB is a better option, but both cards are likely going to be worth paying for the higher VRAM equivalents as games start increasing their VRAM usage (which is happening at a faster rate than ever before).
'The 480 is a better option' - You forgot in my opinion.
It really isn't an opinion though. The 480 is better than this cut down, gimped version of the 1060, and I say that as somebody who owns a 6GB version. But then I bought that card because the games I want to play happen to run better on it (i.e. older DX11 titles and World of Warcraft), but there are plenty of games which run better on the 480, which is a fantastic card in its own right (and the 4GB version is a far better deal than the 3GB 1060). I only got rid of a 780 a couple of months back and 3GB VRAM is barely enough to get by even at 1080p these days. You will be lowering settings in many newer titles to remain within that limitation.
Frankly, you just come across as a desperate fanboy.
I myself will not be upgrading the generation I have more important matters to spend money one. Hell I still have a 760 I don't care though Im not going to stand here and be like 'low' settings is better, because it's not. However I don't mind low settings.
What can you possibly have going on that would warrant you to have to run low settings? You must prioritise your GPU over any family matters, debt, holidays, home improvements etc otherwise you can't be in the master race....
Joking ;)

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/508/702/812.jpg
#28
thelagmonster
Just cannot be considered a good deal with what is already a limiting amount of VRAM. At this price the 480 4GB is a better option, but both cards are likely going to be worth paying for the higher VRAM equivalents as games start increasing their VRAM usage.
Completely agree. The 3GB 780 Ti has already been shown to be hitting its head on its limited VRAM now and again, and the 1060 is a similar performer. It's possible that we'll see the same limitations with the 3.5/0.5GB 970 and 4GB 480 next year, so I wouldn't recommend those as £200 cards to anybody today, either.

The 3GB 1060 is better than a 4GB 960, though. At £140-150 it would be an OK card. Then you'd have the 4GB 480 from £150 to ~£175, with the 970 hovering around £170-180 for its lower power consumption and broader OS support and less CPU dependence. Then the 8GB 480 would be a great buy from £180 to £200 ($30 more than the 4GB 480, as promised), and above that at £220-230, the 6GB 1060.

A couple of these GPUs have already hit these price points, which is nice. The 8GB 480 is sadly still clinging onto its strangely high price (probably the stock situation isn't helping), while the 3GB 1060... £193?! X) Someone at eBuyer has a sense of humour..?
thelagmonster
(which is happening at a faster rate than ever before)
Just... no! Absolutely not! :D Games used to approximately double their VRAM requirements in the space of a year, remember? We're getting longer and longer periods between points where it's necessary to double VRAM.

I'd wager a 6GB 1060 would last four years before bumping its head on its memory capacity.
#29
revolver31
This is a 1050ti, as soon as they disabled cores it failed to be a 1060, 3gb vram is already limiting and pointless, doom nightmare won't even allow a sniff at 4gb or less, regardless of if it can be used or not games are already limiting for 4gb+ at 1080p.
It's beyond most people why this card was even released it has no place, it's not worth the money, and as the months go on and games are released the 3gb will start to limp very quickly.

Unfirtanately thisbis true, Nvidia are especially sly in that they have not provided any review samples, happily knowing these cards will be bought by many unaware consumers
#30
Nate1492
revolver31
This is a 1050ti, as soon as they disabled cores it failed to be a 1060, 3gb vram is already limiting and pointless, doom nightmare won't even allow a sniff at 4gb or less, regardless of if it can be used or not games are already limiting for 4gb+ at 1080p.
It's beyond most people why this card was even released it has no place, it's not worth the money, and as the months go on and games are released the 3gb will start to limp very quickly.
Do you call the AMD 480 4GB the 470ti?
If not, stop calling this the 1050 ti, as it's a joke.
The 480's memory is clocked 14% lower between models while the 1060 has 11% less CUDAs.

Sorry but this makes no sense to me? very confusing comment.
#31
The 480 is better than this... If your gonna buy a gtx 1060 get the 6gb version
#32
He he. I thought supermarket fuel deals were entertaining. Gonna have to watch out for more graphics card deals. Keep it up fellas.
1 Like #33
dictionaryCorner
He he. I thought supermarket fuel deals were entertaining. Gonna have to watch out for more graphics card deals. Keep it up fellas.

Welcome to the geek side. 8)

This is almost common for AMD vs Nvidia. Wait until AMD release their ZEN CPU and then look out for AMD vs Intel threads.
#34
revolver31
Nate1492
revolver31
This is a 1050ti, as soon as they disabled cores it failed to be a 1060, 3gb vram is already limiting and pointless, doom nightmare won't even allow a sniff at 4gb or less, regardless of if it can be used or not games are already limiting for 4gb+ at 1080p.
It's beyond most people why this card was even released it has no place, it's not worth the money, and as the months go on and games are released the 3gb will start to limp very quickly.
Do you call the AMD 480 4GB the 470ti?
If not, stop calling this the 1050 ti, as it's a joke.
The 480's memory is clocked 14% lower between models while the 1060 has 11% less CUDAs.
Sorry but this makes no sense to me? very confusing comment.

You've called the 1060 3GB model a '1050 ti' multiple times.

Are you ok with calling the 480 4GB a 470 ti?

Or a 470X?

The 480 4 GB has 7GHz VRAM while the 8GB 480 has 8GHz VRAM.

That's 14% slower memory. Comparing that to the NVIDIA 1060 3 v 6... The difference in CUDA cores is 11.1%

So, I ask again, are you happy to call the 480 4GB by some other name too?
#35
Nate1492
revolver31
Nate1492
revolver31
This is a 1050ti, as soon as they disabled cores it failed to be a 1060, 3gb vram is already limiting and pointless, doom nightmare won't even allow a sniff at 4gb or less, regardless of if it can be used or not games are already limiting for 4gb+ at 1080p.
It's beyond most people why this card was even released it has no place, it's not worth the money, and as the months go on and games are released the 3gb will start to limp very quickly.
Do you call the AMD 480 4GB the 470ti?
If not, stop calling this the 1050 ti, as it's a joke.
The 480's memory is clocked 14% lower between models while the 1060 has 11% less CUDAs.
Sorry but this makes no sense to me? very confusing comment.
You've called the 1060 3GB model a '1050 ti' multiple times.
Are you ok with calling the 480 4GB a 470 ti?
Or a 470X?
The 480 4 GB has 7GHz VRAM while the 8GB 480 has 8GHz VRAM.
That's 14% slower memory. Comparing that to the NVIDIA 1060 3 v 6... The difference in CUDA cores is 11.1%
So, I ask again, are you happy to call the 480 4GB by some other name too?

It's really sad when people cannot afford a decent graphics card and buy this 1050Ti, that cant even run current titles.
#36
Nate1492
revolver31
Nate1492
revolver31
This is a 1050ti, as soon as they disabled cores it failed to be a 1060, 3gb vram is already limiting and pointless, doom nightmare won't even allow a sniff at 4gb or less, regardless of if it can be used or not games are already limiting for 4gb+ at 1080p.
It's beyond most people why this card was even released it has no place, it's not worth the money, and as the months go on and games are released the 3gb will start to limp very quickly.
Do you call the AMD 480 4GB the 470ti?
If not, stop calling this the 1050 ti, as it's a joke.
The 480's memory is clocked 14% lower between models while the 1060 has 11% less CUDAs.
Sorry but this makes no sense to me? very confusing comment.
You've called the 1060 3GB model a '1050 ti' multiple times.
Are you ok with calling the 480 4GB a 470 ti?
Or a 470X?
The 480 4 GB has 7GHz VRAM while the 8GB 480 has 8GHz VRAM.
That's 14% slower memory. Comparing that to the NVIDIA 1060 3 v 6... The difference in CUDA cores is 11.1%
So, I ask again, are you happy to call the 480 4GB by some other name too?
Very simple solution to this argument both the 3gb 1060 and the 4gb 480 are crap problem solved
#37
Dean2k14
Nate1492
revolver31
Nate1492
revolver31
This is a 1050ti, as soon as they disabled cores it failed to be a 1060, 3gb vram is already limiting and pointless, doom nightmare won't even allow a sniff at 4gb or less, regardless of if it can be used or not games are already limiting for 4gb+ at 1080p.
It's beyond most people why this card was even released it has no place, it's not worth the money, and as the months go on and games are released the 3gb will start to limp very quickly.
Do you call the AMD 480 4GB the 470ti?
If not, stop calling this the 1050 ti, as it's a joke.
The 480's memory is clocked 14% lower between models while the 1060 has 11% less CUDAs.
Sorry but this makes no sense to me? very confusing comment.
You've called the 1060 3GB model a '1050 ti' multiple times.
Are you ok with calling the 480 4GB a 470 ti?
Or a 470X?
The 480 4 GB has 7GHz VRAM while the 8GB 480 has 8GHz VRAM.
That's 14% slower memory. Comparing that to the NVIDIA 1060 3 v 6... The difference in CUDA cores is 11.1%
So, I ask again, are you happy to call the 480 4GB by some other name too?
Very simple solution to this argument both the 3gb 1060 and the 4gb 480 are crap problem solved

That's the thing, neither are crap. They just are competing for the same market share.

The 1060 3GB beats the 480 4GB in every game at DX11 while the 480 4GB edges out in about 50% of the DX12 titles.

A buyer of either these cards should expect to play today's games at 1080p max settings, but any potential future games may have to be moved down to high.

DX12 is not mature yet and won't be for multiple years. It took DX11 a long time to prosper.

None of the current AMD or NVIDIA cards actually support DX12 fully, saying they do is a lie.

Pascal supports tier 12.1 while Polaris only clocks in at 12.0. But they both lack varying features of DX12.
#38
Nate1492
revolver31
Nate1492
revolver31
This is a 1050ti, as soon as they disabled cores it failed to be a 1060, 3gb vram is already limiting and pointless, doom nightmare won't even allow a sniff at 4gb or less, regardless of if it can be used or not games are already limiting for 4gb+ at 1080p.
It's beyond most people why this card was even released it has no place, it's not worth the money, and as the months go on and games are released the 3gb will start to limp very quickly.
Do you call the AMD 480 4GB the 470ti?
If not, stop calling this the 1050 ti, as it's a joke.
The 480's memory is clocked 14% lower between models while the 1060 has 11% less CUDAs.
Sorry but this makes no sense to me? very confusing comment.
You've called the 1060 3GB model a '1050 ti' multiple times.
Are you ok with calling the 480 4GB a 470 ti?
Or a 470X?
The 480 4 GB has 7GHz VRAM while the 8GB 480 has 8GHz VRAM.
That's 14% slower memory. Comparing that to the NVIDIA 1060 3 v 6... The difference in CUDA cores is 11.1%
So, I ask again, are you happy to call the 480 4GB by some other name too?
Memory clock can be fixed with a simple overclock if i'm correct? Also memory speed has less of an impact than actual cores missing. Cards are defined by these cores on both sides and trying to pawn this off as identical to the 6gb version is just wrong.

AMD provided review samples for both 4gb and 8gb cards.
Nvidia didn't even announce officially the 3gb card and no reviewers got one to review.
Definitely looks like something Nvidia was trying to sweep under the rug.

Still, its not a terrible card by any means.
#39
slayermatt
Nate1492
revolver31
Nate1492
revolver31
This is a 1050ti, as soon as they disabled cores it failed to be a 1060, 3gb vram is already limiting and pointless, doom nightmare won't even allow a sniff at 4gb or less, regardless of if it can be used or not games are already limiting for 4gb+ at 1080p.
It's beyond most people why this card was even released it has no place, it's not worth the money, and as the months go on and games are released the 3gb will start to limp very quickly.
Do you call the AMD 480 4GB the 470ti?
If not, stop calling this the 1050 ti, as it's a joke.
The 480's memory is clocked 14% lower between models while the 1060 has 11% less CUDAs.
Sorry but this makes no sense to me? very confusing comment.
You've called the 1060 3GB model a '1050 ti' multiple times.
Are you ok with calling the 480 4GB a 470 ti?
Or a 470X?
The 480 4 GB has 7GHz VRAM while the 8GB 480 has 8GHz VRAM.
That's 14% slower memory. Comparing that to the NVIDIA 1060 3 v 6... The difference in CUDA cores is 11.1%
So, I ask again, are you happy to call the 480 4GB by some other name too?
Memory clock can be fixed with a simple overclock if i'm correct? Also memory speed has less of an impact than actual cores missing. Cards are defined by these cores on both sides and trying to pawn this off as identical to the 6gb version is just wrong.
AMD provided review samples for both 4gb and 8gb cards.
Nvidia didn't even announce officially the 3gb card and no reviewers got one to review.
Definitely looks like something Nvidia was trying to sweep under the rug.
Still, its not a terrible card by any means.

Absolutely not true.

http://www.legitreviews.com/sapphire-nitro-radeon-rx-480-4gb-video-card-review_184553/10

We could not get 8000MHz effective clock speeds on the memory and Sapphire confirmed that the Radeon RX 480 4GB comes with slower Hynix GDDR5 memory chips and that hitting 8GHz would be unlikely.

AMD didn't provide review samples for both 4gb and 8gb. They actually took the 8gb and software altered it into a 4gb model. Sold those 8gb models for the first week (or less) and then swapped them out for inferior 4gb models. Talk about a bait and switch.

In fact, AMD told reviewers to 'just flash the card to only use 4gb and set it to 7ghz'.

Most review sites refused to do that as it was pretty blatantly not accurate.

I'm surprise no one is hammering on about how much of a sham that was for AMD to do. People were just happy that a few lotto winners could flash their cards to the 8gb model.

Please, find a review for the AMD 480 4GB stock model. You'll be surprised when you look.
#40
Nate1492
slayermatt
Nate1492
revolver31
Nate1492
revolver31
This is a 1050ti, as soon as they disabled cores it failed to be a 1060, 3gb vram is already limiting and pointless, doom nightmare won't even allow a sniff at 4gb or less, regardless of if it can be used or not games are already limiting for 4gb+ at 1080p.
It's beyond most people why this card was even released it has no place, it's not worth the money, and as the months go on and games are released the 3gb will start to limp very quickly.
Do you call the AMD 480 4GB the 470ti?
If not, stop calling this the 1050 ti, as it's a joke.
The 480's memory is clocked 14% lower between models while the 1060 has 11% less CUDAs.
Sorry but this makes no sense to me? very confusing comment.
You've called the 1060 3GB model a '1050 ti' multiple times.
Are you ok with calling the 480 4GB a 470 ti?
Or a 470X?
The 480 4 GB has 7GHz VRAM while the 8GB 480 has 8GHz VRAM.
That's 14% slower memory. Comparing that to the NVIDIA 1060 3 v 6... The difference in CUDA cores is 11.1%
So, I ask again, are you happy to call the 480 4GB by some other name too?
Memory clock can be fixed with a simple overclock if i'm correct? Also memory speed has less of an impact than actual cores missing. Cards are defined by these cores on both sides and trying to pawn this off as identical to the 6gb version is just wrong.
AMD provided review samples for both 4gb and 8gb cards.
Nvidia didn't even announce officially the 3gb card and no reviewers got one to review.
Definitely looks like something Nvidia was trying to sweep under the rug.
Still, its not a terrible card by any means.
Absolutely not true. http://www.legitreviews.com/sapphire-nitro-radeon-rx-480-4gb-video-card-review_184553/10
We could not get 8000MHz effective clock speeds on the memory and Sapphire confirmed that the Radeon RX 480 4GB comes with slower Hynix GDDR5 memory chips and that hitting 8GHz would be unlikely.
AMD didn't provide review samples for both 4gb and 8gb. They actually took the 8gb and software altered it into a 4gb model. Sold those 8gb models for the first week (or less) and then swapped them out for inferior 4gb models. Talk about a bait and switch.
In fact, AMD told reviewers to 'just flash the card to only use 4gb and set it to 7ghz'.
Most review sites refused to do that as it was pretty blatantly not accurate.
I'm surprise no one is hammering on about how much of a sham that was for AMD to do. People were just happy that a few lotto winners could flash their cards to the 8gb model.
Please, find a review for the AMD 480 4GB stock model. You'll be surprised when you look.
I cannot see a single place still stocking a stock 4gb so I personally feel there's no point judging a card on that. Only the custom models. Its simpler just to take into account the higher price point for custom 4gb cards. At 1080p (and even some games at 1440p) the performance difference is only around 2% with a £30-£40 drop in price according to that article (thats comparing a custom 4gb vs stock 8gb). The GTX1060 differences seem greater than that (i've yet to see a formal review comparing the cards unfortunately, so I'm going off various figures I've seen). That said the price delta between the 3gb and 6gb is larger. I'm welcoming to see a graph or something that compares the cards in an apples to apples scenario though, as that is something I've not seen at all.

I'm not saying AMD are in the right. But AMD haven't disabled cores on their cards and just called it the same, they've just taken the worse parts (memory in this case) and put them in the lower cards. Similarly to how CPU's are binned. An i5 6400 is literally a i5 6600 that just isn't stable at the stock voltages at the same clock (2.7ghz vs 3.6ghz).

Arguably yes this is wrong [b]but[b/] they are not using different boards and disabling cores and such just messing with the quality of memory.

Either way both AMD and Nvidia have been appalling with communication this series launch. It's laughable really.

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Top of Page
Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!