We recently reviewed previous generation graphics cards that you can use at "affordable" prices, if you want a GPU for a game, but don't want to pay the price. That's a deal that works for a lot of people, so we've gone back to things like the GeForce GTX 1070, GTX 1060 6 GB, and Radeon RX 580, and run the latest drivers and games today to see how they work. Today we're looking at a 3GB version of the GeForce GTX 1060 that retails for 200-200 to 250-250 on eBay, which is about $100 less than what you'd pay for a 6GB model. The second reason to collect this test is that we want to see how a graphics card with 3GB of VRAM will launch in 2021. That alone should be very interesting.
As a quick upgrade, the original GTX 1060 6 GB was released in July 2016, 5 years ago. Hot That Edition A month later, Nvidia released the controversial 3GB version. The reason for this argument was that Nvidia was doing Nvidia's job: the 3GB version of the GTX 1060 looked like the original but with half the VRAM. But if you make that assumption, you will be wrong.
In addition to the VRAM difference, Nvidia also supports 1152 cores with defective silicon, not the full 1280 cores. 6 GB version or a 10% reduction in the number of cores used. Based on our testing 5 years ago, when it wasn't just VRAM, the 3GB 7 was slower, but we saw an example of Mirror's Edge Catalyst that was up to 41% slower due to insufficient memory, so it will be interesting to see how it compares These two graphic processors today. Pascal was an epic version of Nvidia on the same day, but had a few rotten apples like this and GT 1030 DDR4. But all this drama is now in the past, and what we have now is a used 3GB GTX 1060 that we'll try again.
If you've been thinking about buying a used graphics card as an important solution as long as the RTX 3070 costs more than your first car, you'll probably want to know how it works in today's games, so let's take a look.
For comparison, we compared the GTX 1060 6GB in 15 1080p and 1440p games using a wide range of settings. All testing was conducted on our Ryzen 9 5950X test system using 32GB of DDR4-3200 CL14 memory and the latest display drivers available, so results are strictly GPU-specific. Gaming benchmarks
Starting with Assassin's Creed Valhalla, we see the 3GB model is 6% slower at 1080p with lower quality settings, which is what you'd expect if you didn't get past the VRAM cache. However, using the preset medium quality, we have a problem with increasing the margin to 20%, which reduces the average frame rate from 59 fps to 47 fps.
Things get worse with the high-quality preset with 3% reduction for the 3GB model, it can run from 48fps and stutter arrives at just 22fps.
This means that you want to keep the texture quality to a minimum when setting the quality settings, it should be 1080p, because at 1440p there is no way to really make the 3GB model Works.
We're reviewing 37 performance cuts using low quality settings at 1440p, so medium and high are definitely forbidden. In terms of value, if you play most games like Assassin's Creed Valhalla, which give you about 50% more performance, 6GB is well worth it.
Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Siege results are also interesting, although a 3 GB framework cache is usually enough here. For example, on low 1080p settings we see a 7% decrease and then only 5% with medium. However, we're looking at a significant drop of 24% with the above, even though the game is still playable.
Due to the low performance of the 3GB model when using a preset 1080p quality, you might expect 1440p data to be disastrous, but it isn't. Using the same quality setting, the 3GB model was only 9% slower, dropping from 89 fps to 81 fps. We believe this is because memory capacity is no longer the most efficient aspect of the card and is no longer powerful enough as it completely reduces performance.
In other words, the 3GB model performed well here and was certainly able to deliver playable performance.
The Biomutant with the 3GB GTX 1060 has no problem using the Low, Medium and High quality presets, although you should know that you are not testing at the preset maximum quality.
In this case, the 3GB model is 7-10% slower than the 6GB version, which is what you would normally expect to see when memory isn't limited. eligibility.
Outriders' margins are spread all over the country. At 1080p with a lower preset, the 3GB model is 5% slower, which is the best. However, with the lower quality settings, the margin was reduced by as much as 24%, with the 3GB model dropping to 51fps while the 6GB card was decent for 67fps.
It's a lot of fun, because we're going to 1440p, the 3GB model uses 5% slower with low and 22% slower with medium, but 12% slower with high quality. But as we've seen in Rainbow Six Siege, you might get to the point where running out of VRAM isn't the main reason for the performance limitation, but rather GPU performance, and we're seeing that in a pre-set quality.
You would expect the 22% margin seen by the preset to be reversed, or increased a lot, but instead it only drops to 12%, and that's because GPU canopy performance becomes the main limitation.
. You would expect a 3GB VRAM limited buffer to have the least impact using the lowest quality preset, so in this case you prefer performance. But here we're looking at a 21% drop in performance for the 3GB model, and at least half of that number can be attributed to the VRAM cache.
Using the high-quality preset, the "original" margin is reduced to 17% and then by the desired quality, which is the second quality pre-set, the margin is reduced to 12% which is the round you wouldn't expect to see less when using VRAM 3 GB. The fact is that the 3GB VRAM buffer was quite high in all three test conditions, and it just so happened that using the lowest quality preset was the main performance limitation.
The predefined scaling behavior is what you would expect to see when completing VRAM in Shadow of the Tomb Raider. At 1080p, the 3GB model was 5% slower using the lowest quality preset terminal. But with a moderate reduction, 3GB 1060 reduces performance by 39%, reducing the frame rate from 61fps to 37fps.
Wasn't VRAM capacity an issue like the one we see below? And at the very least, the 3GB model delivered around 58fps.
Then at 1440p, we find that the 3GB model is 8% slower using the lowest preset, 13% slower and 29% slower using the average.
Doom Eternal does not allow you to override the VRAM cache, so some quality settings cannot be tested. Even worse, even with the preset low quality, the buffer is currently at a max, resulting in a 6GB version with a 25% margin at 1080p and 24% at 1440p.
The game was still playable at both resolutions, so there it is, but you are limited by the lower quality settings with this model.
The 3GB GTX 1060 card was 14% slower than the 6GB model at 1080p Death Stranding, which is a bigger margin than you'd expect, so there may be some memory limitations For these results, definitely there at 1440p.
Here 3 GB, the model was 16-20% slower, due to limited VRAM because it should only be up to 10% slower. This is for those who want to play Death Stranding at 1440p because it means a drop of ~60fps with the 6Gb midrange setting, and just 50Gb/s with the shy 3Gb version. Difference.
Moving to Dirt 5, the GTX 1060 3GB card was 12% slower using Ultra HD settings at 1080p, and low to medium 11% slower. Scaling is exactly the same on all three presets at 1080p. Then at 1440p we noticed a 5% performance drop for the 3GB model using a preset terminal very low and low and then a 10% drop with the average, so the 3GB model most often uses lower quality settings in the soil. Well.
To test Watch Dogs: Legion with these older products, we omitted the high-quality presets because these GPUs are powerful enough. In this case, the 3GB 1060 works just fine, and performance is usually between 7 and 13% slower than the 6GB model.
These results are a bit staggering, Resident Evil Village is really tough with 3GB 1060, and not using the lowest preset quality in 1080p, you really can't and experience 60 frames per second is not possible . This is an example of an older 3GB 1060 game.
Another outdated 3 GB 1060 game is Cyberpunk 2077, here it is not even possible to achieve 40 fps using the absolute minimum From settings in 1080p quality. The 6GB model isn't entirely surprising either, but at least it can run at over 20% performance.
Performance in Forza Horizon 4 for the 3GB model is very good and uses the lowest preset quality of 1080p with 159 fps allowed. Only 5% less than 6 GB version. We see a similar scaling at moderate quality settings and then a significant drop with a 3GB super card that was about 30% slower. Similar scaling is observed at 1440p.
Surprisingly, Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order runs perfectly even at 3GB 1060, even when using the highest quality settings, despite trying to stick to 1080p because here The GPU isn't enough for 1440p gaming, at least with the Epic preset enabled. At 1080p the 3GB version is 5-7% slower then up to 12% slower at 1440p, but overall performance is good for this title.
Finally we have the F1 2020 and no surprises, the 3GB 1060 plays well, the 6GB model has a 6-8% margin. As a result, 1080p performed playable even with the preset maximum quality, and you can really escape by running this card at 1440p. Average frames
before closing, take a look at the average of 17 games below, and as you can see, the 3GB version of the GTX 1060 is much worse than it was a few years ago. With 1080p, it's no longer 7% slower. In fact, using lower quality settings is 14% slower on average, then using medium settings is 20% slower and using higher quality settings is 32% slower.
This is a similar story but slightly worse at 1440p because the 3GB model has 20% lower margin, 22% slower with average and 23% slower than the above uses. The HD margins used at 1440p are actually better for a 3GB card than we see at 1080p, due to the limitations of the GTX 1060 on its raw performance. Package: 3GB of VRAM in 2021? It's been a few years since our last 3GB review of the GTX 1060, and it's interesting to see how this game handles the latest and greatest games. We knew from the start that it wouldn't be a good idea to use higher quality settings, but we also expect lower quality settings to fail less.
Games like Resident Evil Village and Cyberpunk 2077 are a complete omission, but games like Doom Eternal, Death Stranding, and Horizon Zero Dawn also saw significant performance drops.
Of course, there are many games where the 3 GB buffer is not an issue and very popular sports like Rainbow Six Siege play very well. If you are a competitive gamer who uses an older and slower graphics card, then consider that the GTX 750 Ti is definitely worth upgrading to a 3GB GTX 1060 as it will give you great performance. This card is more attractive when you consider it one of the cheapest graphics cards in the second hand market.
Finally, my advice is to wait and wait for the field to recover and buy a more modern graphics card at a reasonable price. We don't know how long it will take to get back to "normal". So if you don't want to get the game and don't want to break the budget, this is one of the best options out there, especially for esports players.
On a note, we expect this experiment to provide a discussion of newer GeForce GPUs like the RTX 3070, which has 8GB of VRAM, while components like the RX 6800 will compete, depending on the 16GB size.
In the case of a 3GB vs. 6GB battle, it took at least 3 years for the low-capacity model to have problems on a regular basis, and about 5 years before it became unusable in some games. You might argue that 3GB of VRAM isn't "high" in 2016, and maybe 4GB vs 8GB is a valid comparison, but at the end of the day I think the results are very similar.
We would probably agree that in 2016, 4GB of VRAM is the best mid-range and probably better suited for a lower-end product. Meanwhile, 8GB with products at the time, at least on the Nvidia side, had 11GB and 12GB buffers very advanced.
Fast forward to today, it's been less than 5 years since Pascal was released. Is 8GB VRAM still properly developed or mid-range? I don't think so, and AMD is talking about memory-appropriate memory... 16GB or higher at the top tier, 8-16GB in the middle range and then 6-8GB at the low end. I think we've passed the useful stage of having 4GB buffers.
The RTX 3070 runs fine now and is a mid to high end GPU, but you have to wonder how the 8GB cache will last for a few more years. Of course, you can always do this. You can reduce things like textures to reduce VRAM load, which is a perfectly acceptable compromise for low-end and even mid-range products, but probably not $500 for graphics cards.
The battle of the RTX 3070 vs. the RX 6800 is complex and cannot be determined simply by measuring the VRAM buffers. The GeForce GPU has strengths, including higher support for radiation tracing, a growing list of titles supported by DLSS, and an Nvidia encoder. But if VRAM is very limited in a few years, all of these benefits will go out the window and 3070 will become a compact product.
If you want to keep your graphics card for 3-5 years I would expect the RX 6800 to be a better investment for you, but if you upgrade to the RTX 3070 every 2-3 years thanks to features like DLSS, if supported In games, they offer more value in the short term you play. Nvidia GeForce RTX 3070 on Amazon AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT on Amazon Nvidia GeForce RTX 3080 on Amazon AMD Radeon RX 6800 on Amazon AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT on Amazon AMD Ryzen 9 5900X on Amazon AMD Ryzen 5 5600X on Amazon
Years later: 3GB vs. the 6GB GTX 1060 in today's games