NightAntilli
Posts: 929 +1,195
But the RX470 is, right?Yes, but the RX480 is considerably more expensive, what part of the meaning of the word "Budget" are you not fully understanding? The RX480 costs more and is not in the price category of the 1060 3GB.
Didn't say it didn't. As said before, picking the 1060 6GB over the RX 480 is justified. Picking the 1060 3GB over the RX 470 is not.If you want to play that game, the 1060 6GB is the same price as the RX480 and it wipes the floor with it...
Also at work here...Ah, you are correct, I missed that, my bad. I am at work to be fair, just a little bored and wasn't fully concentrating.
LOL. Where on the charts do they talk about price and power? This article states that "There is the argument that the 3GB GTX 1060 will run out of steam down the track due to its limited memory buffer, but we don’t feel that will become an issue". ComputerBase has clearly shown it is already an issue. But you people are deliberately throwing dust at every argument to draw attention away from that. If it was AMD you would be all over their 3GB, but since it's nVidia, we have to ignore it. Just like it's been ignored that the 3GB actually has less shader units than the 6GB. Doesn't matter that they give it the same name, performs is close enough anyway, right...?I haven't lied at all:
Is the RX480 more expensive than the 1060 3GB = Yes
Is the 1060 3GB about as good or better as a RX470 = Yes
Does the 1060 3GB use less power than a RX470 = Yes
None of that is a lie. What's "disgusting" is your inability to read a chart...
No. You have to repeat yourself because you don't want to talk about the 3GB already being a limit, as clearly shown.I don't have anything new to add because there is nothing new to add. I had to repeat myself because of your inability to respond with anything relevant.
Uhuh... And how many of those reviews only look at averages? How many tested frame times like they're supposed to be tested? Newsflash, only ComputerBase did it. Guru3D had a few but didn't go that much in depth.But it's not, the 1060 3GB beats the RX470 in pretty much all reviews I can could bother to Google. It even trades blows with the RX480 in certain games.
And yet you've never admitted it either despite all evidence to the contrary.I never said it wasn't? Let me check... Nope, definitely didn't say that...
I don't care what GPU you are running or where running. The argument I have is 3GB is a limit, an RX 470 4GB is a better choice. That is it. I don't participate in the fanboyism nonsense that's so prevalent here.How upset would you be right now if I was to tell you what GPU I was running a couple of years ago?
You have no idea what you're talking about. 8GB for the RX 480 is not necessary right now. 4GB obviously is. Yet, 4GB on the R9 290 is a limit, thus the 8GB on the R9 390 is helpful. Those cards did not have compression. There are multiple things at play here, rather than just the memory number.I didn't spin it as a bad thing, I was explaining to all those users on forums such as these that spout nonsense such as "IT DOESN'T HAVE MOAR VRAM! IT MUST BE CRAP!" that you have single handedly linked them all to a performance benchmark that proves it's complete rubbish and they might as well save the money and get the 4GB model. I guess AMD has the same train of thought as Nvidia had with it's older mobile GPU's. Just add more VRAM because higher number is better, right?
But obviously I can't expect more from you, when all you want to look at is price, average fps and power consumption.