The Best Graphics Cards 2016: TechSpot's top picks for every budget

[NightAntilli]

Yet selling a card with 8GB of RAM and calling it 4GB is honest?

Might not be honest, but it's not negative for the consumer. Promising 8GB and giving 4GB would be an issue, but saying it's 4GB and it having 8GB is only a bonus and not a negative aspect. It's not like 4GB being 3.5GB... nVidia is constantly ripping off their customers and you're supporting them.

Again, it's pretty easy to realize that the cheaper card isn't going to be as good...

That's not always how it works. Right now the difference in performance between a 4GB and 8GB RX 480 is practically zero, like it should be.

anyone paying for the 1060 3GB and being angry it isn't as fast as the 6GB version isn't very bright... But someone paying MORE for the 8GB 480, then finding out that the 4GB is EXACTLY THE SAME ought to be pretty angry...

No they don't ought to be angry. They paid for 8GB. The users that paid for 4GB and got 8GB were lucky. If you can't understand this I don't know what to tell you. It simply shows you lack critical thinking skills.

I agree - neither is exactly fully honest - but I'll take the Nvidia example over the AMD any day...

Because you're a fanboy, because logically nVidia's is worse.

Because Doom is ONE GAME.... and it's the way it's programmed, not necessarily the support of DX12 that makes AMD run so much better on it - in order to see if results are indicative of future performance, we need MULTIPLE benchmarks from MUTLIPLE games... and the funny thing is, pretty much every other benchmark favours Nvidia...

You're hopeless. nVidia outperformed AMD greatly in OpenGL. The way it was programmed does not favor AMD. The way it was programmed uses all hardware efficiently. It proves AMD's hardware is superior but is underutilized in older APIs. And yet all you can keep spouting is to keep using older API games as a reference of how nVidia is superior. Go away.

I love that you added Ashes of the Singularity to your argument... Ashes was supposed to be the poster child for AMD and how superior their cards were GOING TO BE in the future... Then it turned out that Nvidia just had to do some work on their drivers - now they outperform AMD on this game! If we are looking to how cards will perform in the future, this would tell us that Nvidia cards will be the superior choices!!

Outperform AMD? Oh Please...

Wishing English was your first language, as this statement doesn't say what you want it to... I'm assuming you mean that AMD outperforms Nvidia in most DX12 titles... There are less than a dozen - and Nvidia leads in plenty... AMD often leads in cases where neither card can actually play the game - getting 24FPS instead of 20FPS is an irrelevant result!! Neither is playable!!!

You're completely missing the point. Having a high resolution with extremely high settings pushes the card to the max, and that performance shows which one has the most capabilities. Even though it's not playable at that setting, it does show better where the limit of the card is. English not being my native language doesn't matter. My english is better than a bunch of people that speak it natively.

Your last benchmark is typical of your so-called "evidence".... only the top 3 cards can play that game at those settings - and BARELY... yes, the 1060 loses to the 480... by 4FPS.... BUT NEITHER CAN PLAY THE GAME!!!!! Once we tone down the resolution (you shouldn't be playing games at 4k with a mid-tier card anyways), you will note that the 1060 blows it away...

And why is that? Not expecting an answer. You're going on my ignore list anyway. I'm not sure whether you're unable or unwilling to see the point, but it doesn't matter. I'm done with the constant goalpost shifting and your selective double standard and biased arguing.

 

[Squid Surprise]

Might not be honest, but it's not negative for the consumer. Promising 8GB and giving 4GB would be an issue, but saying it's 4GB and it having 8GB is only a bonus and not a negative aspect. It's not like 4GB being 3.5GB... nVidia is constantly ripping off their customers and you're supporting them.

That's not always how it works. Right now the difference in performance between a 4GB and 8GB RX 480 is practically zero, like it should be.

No they don't ought to be angry. They paid for 8GB. The users that paid for 4GB and got 8GB were lucky. If you can't understand this I don't know what to tell you. It simply shows you lack critical thinking skills.

OK... So are you Hardreset's brother (or sister)? It's this kind of illogical thinking that makes me think you might even just be his alternate account...

How is charging more for an 8GB card when your "4GB" card is the same, honest? Nvidia charges LESS for the 3GB - anyone thinking that they should be getting identical performance would be foolish.

You say that the performance between the 4 and 8GB cards is practically 0, as it should be... WHY?!?!?! If I'm paying more for a card, I would expect to gain MORE performance!

You're saying that the people paying for 4GB are "lucky"... I agree... but those paying for the 8GB are unlucky - I'd be pretty peeved if I was one of them!

Because you're a fanboy, because logically nVidia's is worse.

Really? I'm the fanboy... this article, all the benchmarks (except Doom), and almost every other poster other than you (and I'm sure Hardreset as well) agree that Nvidia is the better buy at every price point other than budget...

You're hopeless. nVidia outperformed AMD greatly in OpenGL. The way it was programmed does not favor AMD. The way it was programmed uses all hardware efficiently. It proves AMD's hardware is superior but is underutilized in older APIs. And yet all you can keep spouting is to keep using older API games as a reference of how nVidia is superior. Go away.

Outperform AMD? Oh Please...

You're completely missing the point. Having a high resolution with extremely high settings pushes the card to the max, and that performance shows which one has the most capabilities. Even though it's not playable at that setting, it does show better where the limit of the card is. English not being my native language doesn't matter. My english is better than a bunch of people that speak it natively.

I have shifting goalposts - yet you argue about how it's valuable to use high resolution tests to see the performance of a card, then show 2 1080p benchmarks in DX12... benchmarks that show both cards are virtually identical by the way (less than 1 FPS difference)... and we already know that in DX11, the 1060 smokes the 480.... this only goes to prove that Nvidia is the better buy.

Yes... I'm missing the point... the POINT, had you bothered to read the article, is that Nvidia is the better buy at each price point other than budget... Don't be mad at me, be mad at your precious AMD for not being able to compete.

And funny, you say you've put me on ignore, yet you continue to post replies...

 

[DAOWAce]

Ok, well then, since you quoted it, lets go check Futuremark out:

Edit: Just to confirm, in the Hall of Fame there are plenty of 1080's in there. 3 way SLI 1080's beating 4 way 980Ti's sounds about right considering the scores as well.

"The 1080 is nowhere to be found, and will never be."

Are you just pulling this stuff out of the air?

Futuremark's site was bugged for me.

It only showed me one 1080 review.

I've searched now (basically a month later) and it's found over 70,000 for timespy and 120,000 for firestrike.

Though, if you select 1 GPU, it displays nothing.. so it still looks like it's got issues.

Stop trolling.

Stop accusing.

 

[Bigtruckseries]

BUY THE TITAN X if you are like me and want to run 3 monitors + a 4K TV silently. It's the best card ever. Buy it on your credit card, get the points ( I use Capital One Venture ) and then pay it off. You won't be sorry.

I love that Nvidia stole the top 3 spots: 1080, 1070 and 1060 and now will steal the 4th with the 1050Ti.

They make the BEST Video Cards. ATI stuff pales in comparison.

The 1080 is a powerful card, but I prefer the massive amount of memory for multimonitor multitasking. I'll trade my Titan X on Ebay towards the next Titan.

 

[Apogee777]

Not even a mention of the large price premium for a G-sync monitor making the GTX 1060 potentially poor value for money for anyone buying a screen in the life of the card?

noone is required to buy a monitor like that for any video card, don't be so ridiclous! fgs

 

[EndlessWaves]

noone is required to buy a monitor like that for any video card, don't be so ridiclous! fgs

I don't have any numbers but how much longer on average do people keep a screen compared to how long they keep a card? Twice as long? Three times as long?

If it's three times as long then that means 1/3 of people buying a new card will buy a monitor with that card or within the life of that card.

Pointing out something that affects a 30% of the readership is hardly ridiculous. Certainly fewer people than that will have an interest in subjects that get an entire section of the article to themselves like HTPC card or high end card.

 

[Squid Surprise]

I don't have any numbers but how much longer on average do people keep a screen compared to how long they keep a card? Twice as long? Three times as long?

If it's three times as long then that means 1/3 of people buying a new card will buy a monitor with that card or within the life of that card.

Pointing out something that affects a 30% of the readership is hardly ridiculous. Certainly fewer people than that will have an interest in subjects that get an entire section of the article to themselves like HTPC card or high end card.

His point is that you don't need a GSync monitor to use an Nvidia card... just like you don't need a Freesync monitor to use an AMD card...

Maybe read a bit before you jump to conclusions?

 

[EndlessWaves]

His point is that you don't need a GSync monitor to use an Nvidia card... just like you don't need a Freesync monitor to use an AMD card...

You're almost certainly going to use the RX 480 with a freesync monitor if you're buying a new screen. They're available at all price ranges and in almost every niche that gamers buy monitors at.

You can pay more for an equivalent G-sync screen the GTX 1060 or use a fixed refresh rate screen, resulting in the AMD setup appearing smoother than the nVidia one.

Either way, it's a point that affects a large number of people and should definitely be mentioned in the article. It's the unqualified recommendation of the GTX 1060 that is ridiculous.

 

[ScubaRhys]

You're almost certainly going to use the RX 480 with a freesync monitor if you're buying a new screen. They're available at all price ranges and in almost every niche that gamers buy monitors at.

You can pay more for an equivalent G-sync screen the GTX 1060 or use a fixed refresh rate screen, resulting in the AMD setup appearing smoother than the nVidia one.

Either way, it's a point that affects a large number of people and should definitely be mentioned in the article. It's the unqualified recommendation of the GTX 1060 that is ridiculous.

I would pick up the 1060 over the RX480 every single day of the week.

 

[Squid Surprise]

You're almost certainly going to use the RX 480 with a freesync monitor if you're buying a new screen. They're available at all price ranges and in almost every niche that gamers buy monitors at.

Really? Care to provide some numbers proving that??

This article is about video cards, not monitors.... U want a monitor review, Techspot already posted one....

As a video card, the 1060 wins hands down - hence the recommendation.

 

[ddferrari]

I would pick up the 1060 over the RX480 every single day of the week.

You're almost certainly going to use the RX 480 with a freesync monitor if you're buying a new screen. They're available at all price ranges and in almost every niche that gamers buy monitors at.

You can pay more for an equivalent G-sync screen the GTX 1060 or use a fixed refresh rate screen, resulting in the AMD setup appearing smoother than the nVidia one.

Either way, it's a point that affects a large number of people and should definitely be mentioned in the article. It's the unqualified recommendation of the GTX 1060 that is ridiculous.

I'm gonna have to back up Squid Surprise on this one. Gsync and Freesync are very optional and not necessary with a good GPU (and some knowledge about tweaks). Smooth gameplay was alive and kicking long before these technologies came out. Nvidia's adaptive vsync and AMD's frame rate target control do quite well.

For me, picture quality is the number one priority in a monitor. I went with a 27" 1440p Qnix with the excellent Samsung PLS panel. I won the "lottery" and got one that readily overclocked to 120Hz. I'll never go backwards from that- games look stunning. It can be had for $230 on Newegg. The same spec (but 144Hz) monitor with freesync? $550. So Freesync (and even more so Gsync) cost a huge premium for anyone who isn't interested in 1080p on a TN panel.

I think anyone pondering freesync or gsync already knows the prices, and doesn't need reminding during an unrelated graphics cards article. Let's give the readers a little credit- like Techspot did- that they do their homework before pulling the trigger on anything.

 

[EndlessWaves]

Really? Care to provide some numbers proving that??

You only have to look at the polls on hardware sites to see how much interest there is in AMD cards. Techpowerup's front page poll currently stands at 17,500 opting for an RX 480 compared with 12,800 opting for a GTX 1060.

I don't know about you, but I can't think of much that would account for that other than the much more accessible pricing of Freesync monitors.

I'm not suggesting Techspot change their recommendation. I just think they should add a sentence of two informing people of the screen situation.

For me, picture quality is the number one priority in a monitor. I went with a 27" 1440p Qnix with the excellent Samsung PLS panel. I won the "lottery" and got one that readily overclocked to 120Hz. I'll never go backwards from that- games look stunning. It can be had for $230 on Newegg. The same spec (but 144Hz) monitor with freesync? $550. So Freesync (and even more so Gsync) cost a huge premium for anyone who isn't interested in 1080p on a TN panel.

Looking on Newegg US right now it appears the cheapest new 2560x1440 IPS 100hz+ monitor is 340USD while the cheapest one with Freesync is 390USD:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...7225 600486457 600417886 601115272&IsNodeId=1

I don't know if there are any panel lottery overclockable freesync screens available, as I said before they're in most niches but not all of them yet.

Let's give the readers a little credit- like Techspot did- that they do their homework before pulling the trigger on anything.

Anyone who wants to research it is reading the actual reviews. Summary articles for this are people who don't want to get into a great deal of detail, it should be trying to lay out the whole situation.

 

[ddferrari]

You only have to look at the polls on hardware sites to see how much interest there is in AMD cards. Techpowerup's front page poll currently stands at 17,500 opting for an RX 480 compared with 12,800 opting for a GTX 1060.

I don't know about you, but I can't think of much that would account for that other than the much more accessible pricing of Freesync monitors.

I'm not suggesting Techspot change their recommendation. I just think they should add a sentence of two informing people of the screen situation.



Looking on Newegg US right now it appears the cheapest new 2560x1440 IPS 100hz+ monitor is 340USD while the cheapest one with Freesync is 390USD:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100160979 600012694 600012665 600338145 600414455 600012686 600557225 600486457 600417886 601115272&IsNodeId=1

I don't know if there are any panel lottery overclockable freesync screens available, as I said before they're in most niches but not all of them yet.



Anyone who wants to research it is reading the actual reviews. Summary articles for this are people who don't want to get into a great deal of detail, it should be trying to lay out the whole situation.

I'm not sure which way you're going here. Are you trying to "help" by suggesting that Techspot include a warning about the price differential between Gsync and Freesync monitors, or are you implying that the average reader isn't smart enough to check on this themselves- without being told- before buying a GPU?

 

[NightAntilli]

The point is that
1) A FreeSync monitor is cheap, a G-sync monitor isn't.
2) An RX 480 + FreeSync monitor performing in the range of for example 45 - 65 FPS feels smoother than a GTX 1060 performing between 55 - 75 FPS without any adaptive sync.

 

[Squid Surprise]

The point is that
1) A FreeSync monitor is cheap, a G-sync monitor isn't.
2) An RX 480 + FreeSync monitor performing in the range of for example 45 - 65 FPS feels smoother than a GTX 1060 performing between 55 - 75 FPS without any adaptive sync.

No... That's your point.... The point of this article is to recommend the best video cards for the money.... Monitors are not a part of this article...

 

[ddferrari]

The point is that
1) A FreeSync monitor is cheap, a G-sync monitor isn't.
2) An RX 480 + FreeSync monitor performing in the range of for example 45 - 65 FPS feels smoother than a GTX 1060 performing between 55 - 75 FPS without any adaptive sync.

I see. I assume you've thoroughly tested both setups side by side?

Honestly, if you fhink that Freesync/Gsync monitors are the only way to get a smooth experience, you clearly don't know what you're doing on PC. Admit it so we can all move on.

 

[NightAntilli]

I see. I assume you've thoroughly tested both setups side by side?

Honestly, if you fhink that Freesync/Gsync monitors are the only way to get a smooth experience, you clearly don't know what you're doing on PC. Admit it so we can all move on.

Have you thoroughly tested both setups side by side?

I never said it is the ONLY way to get a smooth experience. You people love to put words in other people's mouths and then shoot down the strawman.

I gave a hypothetical scenario, putting the GTX 1060 against the RX 480, where the GTX 1060 has a higher framerate.

If you have a 60 FPS monitor with FreeSync, an RX 480 with a framerate between 45 and 65 fps will give smoother gameplay than a GTX 1060 with a framerate between 55 and 75 fps. If the GTX 1060 manages to stay above 60 FPS, it will be just as smooth if not smoother. If it doesn't, the RX 480 will be smoother because of FreeSync.
If you want that same experience on the GTX 1060, you'll have to fork out an additional $1000 (give or take), while with an RX 480 as low as $250 gives you a great option.

It's not rocket science. It is a simple fact. A fact that apparently triggers all of you. Because apparently only nVidia is allowed to have advantages.

 

[Squid Surprise]

Have you thoroughly tested both setups side by side?

I never said it is the ONLY way to get a smooth experience. You people love to put words in other people's mouths and then shoot down the strawman.

I gave a hypothetical scenario, putting the GTX 1060 against the RX 480, where the GTX 1060 has a higher framerate.

If you have a 60 FPS monitor with FreeSync, an RX 480 with a framerate between 45 and 65 fps will give smoother gameplay than a GTX 1060 with a framerate between 55 and 75 fps. If the GTX 1060 manages to stay above 60 FPS, it will be just as smooth if not smoother. If it doesn't, the RX 480 will be smoother because of FreeSync.
If you want that same experience on the GTX 1060, you'll have to fork out an additional $1000 (give or take), while with an RX 480 as low as $250 gives you a great option.

It's not rocket science. It is a simple fact. A fact that apparently triggers all of you. Because apparently only nVidia is allowed to have advantages.

I think you've missed the point here... let's try simple words you can understand....

This article rates VIDEO CARDS. Not MONITORS. Your FACTS - even if true - are IRRELEVANT (I know it's a big word - look it up!) in this article.

 

[ddferrari]

Have you thoroughly tested both setups side by side?

I never said it is the ONLY way to get a smooth experience. You people love to put words in other people's mouths and then shoot down the strawman.

I gave a hypothetical scenario, putting the GTX 1060 against the RX 480, where the GTX 1060 has a higher framerate.

If you have a 60 FPS monitor with FreeSync, an RX 480 with a framerate between 45 and 65 fps will give smoother gameplay than a GTX 1060 with a framerate between 55 and 75 fps. If the GTX 1060 manages to stay above 60 FPS, it will be just as smooth if not smoother. If it doesn't, the RX 480 will be smoother because of FreeSync.
If you want that same experience on the GTX 1060, you'll have to fork out an additional $1000 (give or take), while with an RX 480 as low as $250 gives you a great option.

It's not rocket science. It is a simple fact. A fact that apparently triggers all of you. Because apparently only nVidia is allowed to have advantages.

If your comments are triggering negative responses from multiple readers, that should serve as a *hint* that you're off-topic.

"I never said it is the ONLY way to get a smooth experience." Well apparently you think it's the only way, based on your insistence that these monitors should have been mentioned in an article that had nothing to do with monitors. They didn't recommend power supplies or cases either, which also factor into a GPU purchase.

There's no need for you (or Techspot) to state the obvious... anyone interested in a sync monitor KNOWS to check pricing before buying a GPU. Why are you so insistent on "warning" others about this? It's almost like... you're trying to prevent what happened to you from happening to them. Otherwise, if you just think Techspot readers need guidance on how to boil water, you're in the wrong class. We've moved on to demi-glace.

As Squidsurprise said -in another way- this article was specifically addressing apples, but you keep trying to shift the focus to oranges. You don't need an orange to eat an apple.

 

[NightAntilli]

Ah yes. First tests were required because I was wrong, and now apparently I was stating the obvious, but that is somehow a bad thing.

What do you mean on insistent on 'warning' others? The real question is, why are you so jumpy if someone does bring it up? Why do you have such a problem with that? I think TechSpot has a range of different types of readers with different knowledge levels, rather than know-it-all brats. Just saying. Someone googling which is trying to build their first PC for example, might well stumble upon this article...

And then somehow it's bad to mention that the RX 480 + FreeSync has some form of advantage. Boy aren't we mature in here...

 

[ddferrari]

Ah yes. First tests were required because I was wrong, and now apparently I was stating the obvious, but that is somehow a bad thing.

What do you mean on insistent on 'warning' others? The real question is, why are you so jumpy if someone does bring it up? Why do you have such a problem with that? I think TechSpot has a range of different types of readers with different knowledge levels, rather than know-it-all brats. Just saying. Someone googling which is trying to build their first PC for example, might well stumble upon this article...

And then somehow it's bad to mention that the RX 480 + FreeSync has some form of advantage. Boy aren't we mature in here...

You should re-read my previous post. I said that your sage advice to check on sync monitor costs when picking a GPU- not their performance- was stating the obvious. You really are the straw man!

"The real question is, why are you so jumpy if someone does bring it up?"

Because there are rules of etiquette in forums, such as staying on the topic at hand and not going off on tangents as you please. If someone wants to read about sync monitors then they should find the appropriate article. It's not your place to shift the topic in another direction- which you've convinced yourself is both acceptable and helpful. It is neither.

"I think TechSpot has a range of different types of readers with different knowledge levels..." "Someone googling which is trying to build their first PC for example, might well stumble upon this article..."

So what? There you go again, making assumptions and insulting the reader's intelligence:
If you're interested in a sync monitor, check pricing before buying a GPU. Brilliant!
Read more than one article before building your first PC. Huh, that never occurred to me!

Thank god you're here to protect people from themselves, by again stating the obvious.

"And then somehow it's bad to mention that the RX 480 + FreeSync has some form of advantage."

Nothing wrong with that- in the appropriate forum- and again, by appropriate I mean a forum where the original topic was about sync monitors or general advice, not one specific to GPUs.

This should really be sinking in by now, after numerous examples and explanations given to you by members.

 

[Squid Surprise]

Ah yes. First tests were required because I was wrong, and now apparently I was stating the obvious, but that is somehow a bad thing.

What do you mean on insistent on 'warning' others? The real question is, why are you so jumpy if someone does bring it up? Why do you have such a problem with that? I think TechSpot has a range of different types of readers with different knowledge levels, rather than know-it-all brats. Just saying. Someone googling which is trying to build their first PC for example, might well stumble upon this article...

And then somehow it's bad to mention that the RX 480 + FreeSync has some form of advantage. Boy aren't we mature in here...

It's not a bad thing to mention.... just not in a thread about VIDEO CARDS....

I could start talking about how Star Wars A New Hope is way better than Return of the Jedi.... but that would be off topic... so I won't say it here

There is a forum on this site - feel free to start your own thread lauding the advantages of Freesync over GSync.... I'm sure plenty of people will reply...

 

[NightAntilli]

Whatever squid says I cannot see because he's on my ignore list, like he should be. And it's quite funny that somehow the monitor is labeled as irrelevant, even though you buy a graphics card to see its output on a monitor. They work together and are hand in hand. You cannot use a graphics card on itself. It is part of a whole system. It is completely fine to talk about the monitor, just as it's completely fine to say that if you have an old Core 2 Duo in your system you should not be getting a GTX 1080 for it even if you have the budget.

In this case this article is there to give an idea what you can buy with a certain budget. Obviously no one is going to buy a card by itself, so your arguments that talking about the monitor is derailing the thread or whatever are just empty excuses.

Would you be using the same argument that talking about a monitor is off-topic if it was G-sync that was used as an argument to reinforce the GTX 1060?? Whatever your answer, I won't see it because you'll be joining the squid.

 

[ddferrari]

Whatever squid says I cannot see because he's on my ignore list, like he should be. And it's quite funny that somehow the monitor is labeled as irrelevant, even though you buy a graphics card to see its output on a monitor. They work together and are hand in hand. You cannot use a graphics card on itself. It is part of a whole system. It is completely fine to talk about the monitor, just as it's completely fine to say that if you have an old Core 2 Duo in your system you should not be getting a GTX 1080 for it even if you have the budget.

In this case this article is there to give an idea what you can buy with a certain budget. Obviously no one is going to buy a card by itself, so your arguments that talking about the monitor is derailing the thread or whatever are just empty excuses.

Would you be using the same argument that talking about a monitor is off-topic if it was G-sync that was used as an argument to reinforce the GTX 1060?? Whatever your answer, I won't see it because you'll be joining the squid.

"Whatever your answer, I won't see it because you'll be joining the squid".

OK, well than this is for everyone else's enjoyment: We're not bringing PSUs into the convo either, despite the fact that a video card requires one, either directly in indirectly. This isn't a thread about systems. That's a different topic.

"Would you be using the same argument that talking about a monitor is off-topic if it was G-sync that was used as an argument to reinforce the GTX 1060??"

Nope. But again, that's not the topic of this article. See a recurring theme here? Sheesh.

 

[Squid Surprise]

Whatever squid says I cannot see because he's on my ignore list, like he should be. And it's quite funny that somehow the monitor is labeled as irrelevant, even though you buy a graphics card to see its output on a monitor. They work together and are hand in hand. You cannot use a graphics card on itself. It is part of a whole system. It is completely fine to talk about the monitor, just as it's completely fine to say that if you have an old Core 2 Duo in your system you should not be getting a GTX 1080 for it even if you have the budget.

In this case this article is there to give an idea what you can buy with a certain budget. Obviously no one is going to buy a card by itself, so your arguments that talking about the monitor is derailing the thread or whatever are just empty excuses.

Would you be using the same argument that talking about a monitor is off-topic if it was G-sync that was used as an argument to reinforce the GTX 1060?? Whatever your answer, I won't see it because you'll be joining the squid.

Yeah... you SAY you have me on ignore, yet you still reply.... and now another person who sees you as the troll you are gets put on your ignore list...Too bad you can't ignore this site and go troll somewhere else.

Yes, a Video Card requires a monitor... it also requires a CPU, a hard drive, a motherboard.... this thread is solely about Video Cards...