Gadgetory

hey what's up guys hope you're doing good wherever you are today I'm back at it again with another video RAM comparison just two weeks ago and video launched a 3 gigabyte version of the GTX 1060 and in the process confuse us all the reduced memory capacity isn't particularly confusing rather it's the change in core configuration that has many more than a little baffled despite being built upon the same GP 106 architecture is the full-fat gtx 1066 gigabyte the new 3 gigabyte model has an SM unit disabled this takes the total cuda coil count from 1280 down to 1152 a 10% reduction as a result there are also 10 percent fewer texture mapping units as well although the memory capacity is being reduced the memory subsystem remains much the same using gddr5 memory clocked at 2,000 megahertz for a bandwidth of 192 gig so despite physically changing the core configuration the name remains exactly the same of course and video has done this in the past way back in 2006 they released the 8800 GT s with 640 megabytes of VRAM only to release the 320 megabyte version with the same name the following year which was then followed by a 512 megabyte version again with the same name in my opinion the 3 gigabyte gtx 1060 should be known as the 1060 GS or perhaps even the gtx 1050 TI anyway it's not so it's important to understand what the difference between the two gtx 1060 models is other than the downgraded specifications just mentioned the other change has to do with the price there is of course some good news here is the 3 gigabyte model features an MSRP of just $200 placing it head-to-head with the 4 gigabyte RX 480 that is if you're able to find AMD's new mid-range contender according to Nvidia the cut down 3 gigabyte model should only be about 5 percent slower given its losing just 10% of a shader texture and geometry capacity with none of the rasterization capacity this doesn't seem unrealistic that said this has been something I've been wanting to test for myself and finally I have that chance the biggest question mark regarding performance is that limited 3 gigabyte memory capacity for a GPU capable of delivering gtx 980 light performance we wonder how much of a handicap this limited memory buffer will be therefore we'll be comparing the three gigabyte and 6q by models of the default nvidia clock speeds which sees both models running a base clock of 1506 megahertz with the boost clock of 1708 megahertz benchmarking takes place at 1440p and most games have been tested using the maximum in-game quality settings given the three gigabyte model features ten percent less cause we'll be looking out for margins greater than this when analyzing the impact the memory buffer has on performance once again my standard core i7 benchmark rig has been used for testing and this will help to eliminate any potential system bottlenecks that could shape the results as we found in the past The Witcher 3 isn't a big vram user and in our tests we only saw up to two point three gigabytes allocated this meant the three gigabyte model wasn't disadvantaged by its memory capacity impressively it was just four percent slower than the fully fledged six gigabyte model the performance of the GTX 1063 gigabyte was on par with the Radeon RX 4 ad overwatch is another game that isn't a heavy VM user and as a result the three gigabyte 1060 is just 6 percent slower when comparing the average frame rate for those of you looking to spend most of your time playing games such as overwatch the 3 gigabyte model will be the most cost-effective option it seems Grand Theft Auto was benchmarked with the advanced graphics option disabled along with MS a.m. still everything else was maxed out and this push memory usage as high as 2.9 gigabytes which obviously wasn't an issue for the 3G by 1060 once again the three gigabyte model was just 6 percent slower memory allocation in Deus Ex mankind divided crept just to our three gigabytes to reach 3.1 gigabytes despite that 3 gig 1060 hung in there this time it was 8% slower on average while the frame time performance didn't suffer star wars battlefront consumed after three and a half gigabytes of vram in our tests and again despite that the frame time performance of the three gigabyte 1060 didn't suffer this time the three gig model was an average just seven percent slower we know doom kills graphics cards with less than two gigabytes of vram but it seems three gig is enough here the three gigabyte 1060 was just 4% slower than the six gig model when running the game in OpenGL switching the Volcom provided similar margins between the two 1060 graphics cards that said the three gig model is now 6 percent slower memory allocation maxed out at 3.7 gigabytes in the division but again this didn't appear to have a negative impact the 3G 1060 and it's limited vram capacity the 3 gigabyte model was to 7% slower on average while the frame time data looked good to benchmarking with Batman Arkham Knight soar memory allocation creep up to 4.1 gigabytes and this did sites we impact the 3G 1060 in a negative way although it was on average just 9% slower it took a serious nosedive in the frame time results the 1% time results saw the 3 gig bundle trail by 17 percent and then 19% for the 0.1% time result the game was noticeably smoother on the 6-ski 1060 but it has to be said the experience on the 3 gig model was still very good first we tested Far Cry primal with the high quality settings though please note the HD texture pack was also installed and enabled as a result the game allocated up to 4 Giga vram in our tests oddly this didn't appear to impact the frame time performance of the 3d 1060 though it was 9% slower for the average frame rate now with the ultra quality preset enabled the average frame rate is just 7% lower for the 3G 1060 the frame time data is weaker now but not to the degree where stuttering became an issue the three gigabyte 1060 was 8% slower than the 6 gigabyte model when comparing the average frame rate while it was just 6% slower for the 1% time data testing Assassin's Creed syndicate using the high quality preset never saw memory allocation exceed 3 point 4 gigabytes increasing the image quality preset to very high boosted memory allocation to 4.3 gigabytes but this didn't appear to have a noticeable impact on the 3G 1060 it still trailed the 6 gigabyte model by an 8% margin Mirror's Edge catalyst is another memory hungry game though despite seeing memory allocation rise as high as 4 point 5 gigabytes the three gigabyte 1060 was only over 6 percent slower increasing the quality to high power we see a massive decline in performance of the 3G 1060 as memory allocation climbs to 5.1 gigabytes the three gigabyte model is now 41 percent slower than the fully fledged 6 q by 1060 and with an average frame rate of 22 fps the game is clearly unplayable middle-earth shadow of Mordor is odd in the sense that we see a huge amount of allocation with very little impact on performance the three gigabyte 1060 was just 8% slower than the six gigabyte model despite memory allocation reaching five point four gigabytes finally we have rise of the Tomb Raider and here memory allocation hits an insane 7.7 gigabytes naturally you'd expect that to completely cripple the three gigabyte n60 but that wasn't really the case the three gigabyte model was 10% slower but given the conditions and the difference in core configuration that's a very respectable result for the cut-down gtx 1060 graphics card Nvidia claimed that the three gigabyte gtx 1060 will be 5% slower than the six gigabyte model and for the most part that's pretty accurate if we exclude the hyper quality Mirror's Edge catalyst test the three gigabyte model was an average seven percent slower in the 13 games tested adding in the massive deficit seen in Mirror's Edge catalyst pushes the margin out to 9% I have to admit I found these results a little surprising personally I was expecting a three gigabyte model to struggle a little more or 1440p especially with such high quality settings in play with the exception of two games the three gigabyte 1060 performed admirably the Mirror's Edge catalyst hyper test is almost irrelevant given there's almost no difference in image quality between hyper and ultra settings dropping the standing back to Ultra saw the three gigabyte 1060 become very competitive and even match the frame time performance of the bigger six cubic model the only other game to present an issue was Batman Arkham Knight and while the three gigabyte 1060 did deliver perfectly playable performance here the frame time results did fall away a bit beyond that the three gigabyte 1060 was around 6 to 8 percent slower and virtually every title tested making an exceptional value given it cost 20% less those of you looking for an affordable graphics card for 1440p gaming shouldn't dismiss the three gigabyte 1060 I can't say with any degree of certainty how this card will look compared to the six gigabyte model in a year's time however right now based on the evidence at hand there's very little difference between the two for 1080p gamers the choice seems more obvious save the money and get a three gigabyte model I can't imagine even in a year's time that 3 gigabyte 1060 will suffer at this res as a side note once the GTX 1063 gigabyte and rx 484 gigabyte graphics cards are readily available the $200 MSRP we're going to have a real battle on our hands looking through the data the two certainly trailer blows and overall delivered very similar performance what did you guys think of these results are you considering the three gigabyte 1060 let me know in the comments I'm your host Matt as always and I'll see you guys next time youtubers like me depend on your support to continue improving the quality and content of our videos to support the channel directly consider becoming a patron to also get access to web of cool rewards and exclusive giveaways also don't forget you can check prices and buy the products I looked at in this video through the Amazon links in the video description below thank you kindly for supporting me and the hardware unbox channel it means a lot to me and I really do appreciate it and in return I'll continue to work as hard as I can to keep producing the content you enjoy