Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Usefulness of a Nvidia GTX 1060 graphics card in a i7 960-computer


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 Nightknight

Nightknight

  • Members
  • 3 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Local time:07:11 AM

Posted 09 June 2017 - 05:09 PM

Can anyone here tell me if a computer with the hardware below can make use of a Nvidia GTX 1060 3 or 6GB graphics card? I am considering to update with a GTX 1060 to be able to use four monitors at once, and to get more graphic resources in games on one monitor with 1920 x 1080 resolution and 1ms responsetime. The reason why i consider a 6GB-version of the card is for "future proofing" to be able to run games at a higher resolution after a HW upgrade later on. As far as I have seen, the 1070-version, and not to speak of the 1080-version is far from as good when it comes to "bang for the buck" as the 1060-series. The GTX 1050-series are not much more powerfull than my Zotac GTX 480 1.5GB from what I have seen. 

 

Intel LGA1366 Core™ i7 Quad Core i7-960
Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD3R, X58, S-1366, DDR3
Chieftec Nitro Series BPS-750C 750W PSU
6x4GB HyperX Fury DDR3 1866MHz Black

 

 

Some additional background information: I am an adult that are in to "recreational gaming" during relatively rare periods when I have the time to play games somewhat continuously. This is relatively often during Christmas, Easter, some weekends and so on. So a 1080 or equivalent would be a ridiculous overkill. I also do some video re encoding, but I do not use CUDA when re encoding because I have read that CUDA leads to reduction(s) in quality. The use for four monitors can be discussed, but I have three monitors to do serious work on, and a TV I would also like to be able to connect to.

 

Graphics cards G3D Mark scores on http://www.videocardbenchmark.net;

 

GeForce GTX 480           : 4356 

GeForce GTX 1050         : 4487

GeForce GTX 1050 Ti     : 5771

GeForce GTX 1060 3GB : 8579

GeForce GTX 1060         : 8710


Edited by Nightknight, 10 June 2017 - 03:50 AM.


BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 MadmanRB

MadmanRB

    Spoon!!!!


  • Members
  • 2,618 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:No time for that when there is evil afoot!
  • Local time:01:11 AM

Posted 09 June 2017 - 10:20 PM

Well the processor will be the bottleneck no matter what GPU you will get on todays market.

However the GPU installation is a good step in perhaps getting a newer build, with the new Ryzen series out it offers a good value for a great CPU.

I think getting the GPU is a good idea but if you want money for a newer PC the GTX 1050ti isnt that bad so if you cant game well you can forward money on a new rig.


Edited by MadmanRB, 09 June 2017 - 10:22 PM.

You know you want me baby!

Proud Linux user and dual booter.

Proud Vivaldi user.

 

ljxaqg-6.png


#3 Nightknight

Nightknight
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 3 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Local time:07:11 AM

Posted 10 June 2017 - 04:01 AM

Thank you for your input "MadmanRB"  :)

 

As I wrote I see no reason to go for a 1050 (Ti)-card as it barely gives me any more graphics resources than I already have with my Zotac GTX 480-card (see my list of scores that I added in my original post). And updating the main board, memory and CPU are not something I intend to do in the near future for several reasons, mainly because my intermittent gaming does not justify spending that much more money and time on updating my rig. For everything else that I use the computer for, it is (more than) powerful enough.


Edited by hamluis, 11 June 2017 - 07:24 PM.


#4 cat1092

cat1092

    Bleeping Cat


  • BC Advisor
  • 6,988 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Carolina, USA
  • Local time:01:11 AM

Posted 10 June 2017 - 04:47 AM

I'd say that if the GTX 1060 (6GB) runs well for me on the FX-6300, just a step above the Intel Core i7 Quad Core i7-960, should run equally as well on yours. :) 

 

Keep in mind that if you perform a future build, can always reuse the card, and at it's price point go for the 6GB version, there's not a lot of savings, yet half the memory of the 3GB variant. 

 

IMO, anything below a 1060 is going into 'budget' territory, the i7-960 is still a mid-range contender. You'd be installing a mid-range GPU to match the CPU, Anything above the 1060 on that CPU, I'd not recommend. 

 

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-960+%40+3.20GHz&id=838

 

My suggestion is to go with the EVGA brand, these has a 3 year warranty & customer service can be easily reached, plus they don't give the runaround, should the worst happen, you'll be up & running in 10 days versus two months with some highly rated brands. It's no wonder why EVGA is the #1 distributor of NVIDIA GPU's, their customer service is second to none. 

 

I have two of these, the FTW + ACX 3.0 & the SSC, which also has ACX 3.0, basically describing the cooling system & no regrets. :thumbsup:

 

Should you purchase one, Good Luck, and stay away from the single fan models, these runs hotter than the twin fan ones & often has sleeve bearings rather than ball bearings, why EVGA says the latter has a 400% longer lifespan. You can check out their website for more information. 

 

https://www.evga.com/products/productlist.aspx?type=0&family=GeForce+10+Series+Family&chipset=GTX+1060+6GB

 

You don't want the FTW + DT versions, these are the cards that failed to meet the standard for FTW (won't hold clock speeds) & instead of trashing these, are rebranded as 'DT', this applies across the board for all EVGA 10 series GPU's, be it 1060, 1070, 1080. Just because they won't hold clock speeds doesn't mean they're bad, just a purchase I won't make. Honestly, I don't know why EVGA left the prestigious FTW model on these, maybe someone else knows the answer. 

 

Those 1050/Ti & less are for low grade OEM PC's purchased for $499.99 or less, and are often (mis)featured as 'premium' GPU's on many (some expensive) Dell systems. I say to them, 'Give me a break', a GPU one step up with a 192 bit bus is a lot more powerful than 128 bit can deliver & your CPU won't be a bottleneck, as long as you've maxed out the RAM. 

 

The only reason why I didn't purchase a 3rd GTX 1060 is that the next lineup will be released next year, and am saving for what will equal a 1080 in performance. With a year to go, saving $60 per month, believe will get there, although will not purchase a Founder's Edition, nor will get in line for a few, rather will wait until there's plenty of stock & reviews. Note that the 10 series (to include the 6GB 1060) was 40% more powerful across the board over the 900 series & up to 3x more powerful in some games. Actually, the GTX 1060 bests the GTX 980 is some games, and overpowers the GTX 970 like child's play. :lol:

 

Mid-range GPU meets mid-range CPU = a perfect match! :thumbsup:

 

Cat

 

Performing full disc images weekly and keeping important data off of the 'C' drive as generated can be the best defence against Malware/Ransomware attacks, as well as a wide range of other issues. 


#5 Drillingmachine

Drillingmachine

  • Members
  • 2,316 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:08:11 AM

Posted 10 June 2017 - 05:09 AM

The only reason why I didn't purchase a 3rd GTX 1060 is that the next lineup will be released next year, and am saving for what will equal a 1080 in performance. With a year to go, saving $60 per month, believe will get there, although will not purchase a Founder's Edition, nor will get in line for a few, rather will wait until there's plenty of stock & reviews. Note that the 10 series (to include the 6GB 1060) was 40% more powerful across the board over the 900 series & up to 3x more powerful in some games. Actually, the GTX 1060 bests the GTX 980 is some games, and overpowers the GTX 970 like child's play. :lol:


Remember that 99% of performance gains on GTX10xx lineup compared to GTX9xx lineup came from better manufacturing tech. As Nvidia's next year lineup uses same 16nm node, you will be very disappointed if you except huge performance gains.

#6 cat1092

cat1092

    Bleeping Cat


  • BC Advisor
  • 6,988 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Carolina, USA
  • Local time:01:11 AM

Posted 10 June 2017 - 05:29 AM

 

As I wrote I see no reason to go for a 1050 (Ti)-card as it barely gives me any more graphics resources than I already have with my Zotac GTX 480-card (see my list of scores that I added in my original post). And updating the main board, memory and CPU are not something I intend to do in the near future for several reasons, mainly because my intermittent gaming does not justify spending that much more money and time on updating my rig. For everything else that I use the computer for, it is (more than) powerful enough.

 

 

Nightknight, I agree with this & your decision to keep the hardware you have (as I did), the newer platforms on both sides has had issues, notably the mysterious 'flagship' i7-7700K heat spiking that's unanswered for months, forcing down price to sell, and Ryzen while a success so far, it's the long haul that counts. Intel has never has a series as successful in sales & market longevity than the Haswell one (3.5 to 4 years), most of the rest were dead in months, and the 5th gen may as well had not existed. 

 

The first gen 'i' series is most certainly a good one, I have two notebooks running i7 mobiles, the i7-640 & 620M, both are decent in performance, although not as powerful as your quad core i7-960. :)

 

There is no need to settle for bottom of the bucket garbage for your PC, as stated above, the 1050 or 1050 Ti is not an enthusiast GPU. It's for those who cannot afford any better & in some cases, upgrade the weak graphics card install in low cost OEM models (if one is installed), if not, then of course the 1050 (or 1050 Ti) will look fantastic compared to Intel HD graphics, or AMD's equivalent for their APU's. Still, with most of these systems, as long as budget allows, the 1060 (6GB) will be better. Note that I push the 6GB card & for good reason. This is 2x the memory (the heart & soul of the GPU) for maybe $50-60 more, there's no need to spend $200 & not go with $50-60 more for a SSC variant. For the same reason, it's why one would want 8GB of RAM in their PC than 4GB, more responsiveness across the board. Given the price for both, no way on this Earth would I consider a 3GB GPU at this price point, when for a fraction more, twice the power, twice the responsiveness, twice everything, except the price. :)

 

Had there been more memory than 8GB offered on my 1070, the card am now on, would had went higher, it's just that the 1070 were offered as 8GB only & 1080 was 8GB GDDR5X, the 1060 was intended to be a mid-range card & there was no 3GB 1060 Founder's Edition. These lower memory cards would spring up after the initial release of the 1060, there's various articles that explains the pros & cons of both, obviously the pros are higher with a 6GB card. Since I don't have a 3GB variant to compare to, can't perform a benchmark of the two & post the results, yet I bet one who does can post & the 6GB variant will be on top. 

 

Just my added two cents before considering pulling the trigger on a 3GB card, not to worry, your CPU won't bottleneck a 6GB 1060, although a HDD (if the OS drive) may be a drag on the system compared to a SSD. :)

 

Cat


Performing full disc images weekly and keeping important data off of the 'C' drive as generated can be the best defence against Malware/Ransomware attacks, as well as a wide range of other issues. 


#7 cat1092

cat1092

    Bleeping Cat


  • BC Advisor
  • 6,988 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Carolina, USA
  • Local time:01:11 AM

Posted 10 June 2017 - 07:05 AM

 

The only reason why I didn't purchase a 3rd GTX 1060 is that the next lineup will be released next year, and am saving for what will equal a 1080 in performance. With a year to go, saving $60 per month, believe will get there, although will not purchase a Founder's Edition, nor will get in line for a few, rather will wait until there's plenty of stock & reviews. Note that the 10 series (to include the 6GB 1060) was 40% more powerful across the board over the 900 series & up to 3x more powerful in some games. Actually, the GTX 1060 bests the GTX 980 is some games, and overpowers the GTX 970 like child's play. :lol:


Remember that 99% of performance gains on GTX10xx lineup compared to GTX9xx lineup came from better manufacturing tech. As Nvidia's next year lineup uses same 16nm node, you will be very disappointed if you except huge performance gains.

 

 

Yes, and that's expected to improve further, along with next-gen memory in GDDR6, long overdue, which alone may give more boost than the jump from the 900 series to the 1000 series did. :thumbsup:

 

http://www.mobipicker.com/nvidia-release-volta-gpus-gddr6-memory-q1-2018/

 

Note that this site is where I also first discovered a GTX 1030, and found the card on Newegg, had no idea that 64 bit cards were still actively manufactured, these are for the very bottom of the budget line consumers seeking a new GPU, or those with low profile PC's that won't take a double lane card, yet at the same time, still 4K cable (actually 8K) & EVGA still extends their 3 year warranty. Actually I have such a PC. although don't want to spend the cash, and chances are, this card is still likely better than what many OEM's offers (often GDDR3 cards). NVIDIA is just in it for the market share they're losing to AMD. 

 

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814487347&cm_re=gtx_1030-_-14-487-347-_-Product

 

I'll take a pass on any 'improvements' or 'refreshes' of the 10 series in the 3rd quarter 2017 & go with the new next year, by which chance won't be on the same die. Any gains of a Pascal Refresh will be like Kaby Lake was to Skylake, and Coffee Lake will follow suit, nothing new other than added heat. :P

 

GDDR6 RAM will be a true performance booster & chances of a die shrink will be great, no matter how it's sliced & will debut in 2018. :thumbsup:

 

Although as seen by Intel, die shrink doesn't equate performance. Here they are, speaking of a 10 core i7, running at 4.0GHz & I'm like thinking, what's the big deal here? Most Home users nor gamers will be able to use all of these cores, although a datacenter may, yet that's not my point. This CPU should be hitting 5.0GHz with 6.0GHz Turbo. What's the good for all of this work & no performance for the daily user? My i7-4790K runs at 4.0GHz stock & 4.4GHz Turbo, and my i5-4690K (also Devil's Canyon, there's only two of these CPU's) will also hit 4.4GHz with a few clicks of the UEFI. So over how many releases does Intel need to state they're running 4.0GHz CPU's? 

 

Fortunately, NVIDIA caters to gamers, so we'll get the technology, and therefore, a true performance increase, not the same being on a smaller die. Although I may need to adjust the amount of cash am saving to like $75/month, will be an expensive GPU. Am curious to see the 9GB versions of the 1060 not released yet, although surely will be a Pascal refresh, so won't be biting, will save that for 2018. :)

 

Cat


Performing full disc images weekly and keeping important data off of the 'C' drive as generated can be the best defence against Malware/Ransomware attacks, as well as a wide range of other issues. 


#8 Nightknight

Nightknight
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 3 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Local time:07:11 AM

Posted 10 June 2017 - 09:06 AM

 

I'd say that if the GTX 1060 (6GB) runs well for me on the FX-6300, just a step above the Intel Core i7 Quad Core i7-960, should run equally as well on yours. :) 

 

Keep in mind that if you perform a future build, can always reuse the card, and at it's price point go for the 6GB version, there's not a lot of savings, yet half the memory of the 3GB variant. 

 

IMO, anything below a 1060 is going into 'budget' territory, the i7-960 is still a mid-range contender. You'd be installing a mid-range GPU to match the CPU, Anything above the 1060 on that CPU, I'd not recommend. 

 

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-960+%40+3.20GHz&id=838

 

My suggestion is to go with the EVGA brand, these has a 3 year warranty & customer service can be easily reached, plus they don't give the runaround, should the worst happen, you'll be up & running in 10 days versus two months with some highly rated brands. It's no wonder why EVGA is the #1 distributor of NVIDIA GPU's, their customer service is second to none. 

 

I have two of these, the FTW + ACX 3.0 & the SSC, which also has ACX 3.0, basically describing the cooling system & no regrets. :thumbsup:

 

Should you purchase one, Good Luck, and stay away from the single fan models, these runs hotter than the twin fan ones & often has sleeve bearings rather than ball bearings, why EVGA says the latter has a 400% longer lifespan. You can check out their website for more information. 

 

https://www.evga.com/products/productlist.aspx?type=0&family=GeForce+10+Series+Family&chipset=GTX+1060+6GB

 

You don't want the FTW + DT versions, these are the cards that failed to meet the standard for FTW (won't hold clock speeds) & instead of trashing these, are rebranded as 'DT', this applies across the board for all EVGA 10 series GPU's, be it 1060, 1070, 1080. Just because they won't hold clock speeds doesn't mean they're bad, just a purchase I won't make. Honestly, I don't know why EVGA left the prestigious FTW model on these, maybe someone else knows the answer. 

 

Those 1050/Ti & less are for low grade OEM PC's purchased for $499.99 or less, and are often (mis)featured as 'premium' GPU's on many (some expensive) Dell systems. I say to them, 'Give me a break', a GPU one step up with a 192 bit bus is a lot more powerful than 128 bit can deliver & your CPU won't be a bottleneck, as long as you've maxed out the RAM. 

 

The only reason why I didn't purchase a 3rd GTX 1060 is that the next lineup will be released next year, and am saving for what will equal a 1080 in performance. With a year to go, saving $60 per month, believe will get there, although will not purchase a Founder's Edition, nor will get in line for a few, rather will wait until there's plenty of stock & reviews. Note that the 10 series (to include the 6GB 1060) was 40% more powerful across the board over the 900 series & up to 3x more powerful in some games. Actually, the GTX 1060 bests the GTX 980 is some games, and overpowers the GTX 970 like child's play. :lol:

 

Mid-range GPU meets mid-range CPU = a perfect match! :thumbsup:

 

Cat

 

 

 

 

 

 

As I wrote I see no reason to go for a 1050 (Ti)-card as it barely gives me any more graphics resources than I already have with my Zotac GTX 480-card (see my list of scores that I added in my original post). And updating the main board, memory and CPU are not something I intend to do in the near future for several reasons, mainly because my intermittent gaming does not justify spending that much more money and time on updating my rig. For everything else that I use the computer for, it is (more than) powerful enough.

 

 

Nightknight, I agree with this & your decision to keep the hardware you have (as I did), the newer platforms on both sides has had issues, notably the mysterious 'flagship' i7-7700K heat spiking that's unanswered for months, forcing down price to sell, and Ryzen while a success so far, it's the long haul that counts. Intel has never has a series as successful in sales & market longevity than the Haswell one (3.5 to 4 years), most of the rest were dead in months, and the 5th gen may as well had not existed. 

 

The first gen 'i' series is most certainly a good one, I have two notebooks running i7 mobiles, the i7-640 & 620M, both are decent in performance, although not as powerful as your quad core i7-960. :)

 

There is no need to settle for bottom of the bucket garbage for your PC, as stated above, the 1050 or 1050 Ti is not an enthusiast GPU. It's for those who cannot afford any better & in some cases, upgrade the weak graphics card install in low cost OEM models (if one is installed), if not, then of course the 1050 (or 1050 Ti) will look fantastic compared to Intel HD graphics, or AMD's equivalent for their APU's. Still, with most of these systems, as long as budget allows, the 1060 (6GB) will be better. Note that I push the 6GB card & for good reason. This is 2x the memory (the heart & soul of the GPU) for maybe $50-60 more, there's no need to spend $200 & not go with $50-60 more for a SSC variant. For the same reason, it's why one would want 8GB of RAM in their PC than 4GB, more responsiveness across the board. Given the price for both, no way on this Earth would I consider a 3GB GPU at this price point, when for a fraction more, twice the power, twice the responsiveness, twice everything, except the price. :)

 

Had there been more memory than 8GB offered on my 1070, the card am now on, would had went higher, it's just that the 1070 were offered as 8GB only & 1080 was 8GB GDDR5X, the 1060 was intended to be a mid-range card & there was no 3GB 1060 Founder's Edition. These lower memory cards would spring up after the initial release of the 1060, there's various articles that explains the pros & cons of both, obviously the pros are higher with a 6GB card. Since I don't have a 3GB variant to compare to, can't perform a benchmark of the two & post the results, yet I bet one who does can post & the 6GB variant will be on top. 

 

Just my added two cents before considering pulling the trigger on a 3GB card, not to worry, your CPU won't bottleneck a 6GB 1060, although a HDD (if the OS drive) may be a drag on the system compared to a SSD. :)

 

Cat

 

 

Thank you for your comprehensive and thorough posts  :)

 

When it comes to warranty, we have five years of "warranty" where I am located, and two years of warranty, so I guess that will give me a little more freedom to choose other brands than EVGA. The brand that I am looking at for the moment is Palit. They seem to get good reviews from users, and are price worthy. Probably one of these:
 

Palit GeForce GTX 1060 Dual HDMI 3xDP 3GB

 

Palit GeForce GTX 1060 Dual HDMI 3xDP 6GB

 

I believe that we do not always think alike, but for the most conclude more or less alike. The only deviation worth mentioning as I see it is the 3GB- VS 6GB-versions of the 1060-cards. I have read at least one test concluding with that the extra 3GB in the 6GB-versions does not give an increase in performance when playing games in 1920 - 1080-resolution. That was what I meant when I wrote ""future proofing" to be able to run games at a higher resolution after a HW upgrade later on.". What I am considering is to buy a 6GB-version now, that will work with higher than 1920 - 1080-resolution later, instead of buying a card for 1920 - 1080-resolution now, and having to buy another card later when I have the rest of the hardware able to support more than 1920 - 1080-resolution.


Edited by Nightknight, 10 June 2017 - 09:17 AM.


#9 Drillingmachine

Drillingmachine

  • Members
  • 2,316 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:08:11 AM

Posted 10 June 2017 - 09:36 AM

Although as seen by Intel, die shrink doesn't equate performance. Here they are, speaking of a 10 core i7, running at 4.0GHz & I'm like thinking, what's the big deal here? Most Home users nor gamers will be able to use all of these cores, although a datacenter may, yet that's not my point. This CPU should be hitting 5.0GHz with 6.0GHz Turbo. What's the good for all of this work & no performance for the daily user? My i7-4790K runs at 4.0GHz stock & 4.4GHz Turbo, and my i5-4690K (also Devil's Canyon, there's only two of these CPU's) will also hit 4.4GHz with a few clicks of the UEFI. So over how many releases does Intel need to state they're running 4.0GHz CPU's?


Die shrink on CPU's = none to mid gains of performance

Die shrink on GPU's = huge performance gains

Ryzen caught Intel pants down and now Intel is desperately trying something, mostly without success.

#10 Drillingmachine

Drillingmachine

  • Members
  • 2,316 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:08:11 AM

Posted 10 June 2017 - 09:37 AM

Double

Edited by Drillingmachine, 10 June 2017 - 09:38 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users