GTX 1060 Reviews

[JEMC]

shikamaru317 said:

JEMC said:

I'd wait for reviews, to be honest.

Yes, those figures are impressive, but... are they legit? The use of SSAA or FXAA (developed by Nvidia) instead of other anti aliasing solutions have an impact in performance that can, in turn, make things look better or worse than they are. And then there are other graphical settings that aren't mentioned and that can have an impact on performance too.

For example, I've looked at Guru3D's and TechPowerUp's RX 480 reviews, which also feature the 960, and their results with many of the listed games is quite different.

As I've said, I'd wait for reviews.

Yeah, you're right, something is definitely off there. I just went back and rewatched Digital Foundry's RX 480 benchmarks, and they're definietely higher than this charts suggests. The charts says 52.6 fps for The Division, DF says 54.7 with the same settings. The charts says 47.9 fps for Witcher 3, DF says 61.2. The chart says 41.5 fps for RotTR, DF says 61.1 (different AA method though). The chart seems to be using AA methods that favor Nvidia cards. But, there is one oddity there, Witcher 3, there is only 1 in-game AA method available, yet there is a massive 13 fps difference between the chart and Digital Foundry testing. I'm not sure what the culprit is here, maybe Nvidia turned on their Game Works features on RX 480 even though they're not meant to be ran on AMD hardware?

I haven't seen tessellation tests on the 480, but that has been AMD's Achilles heel in the last gens. Turn Hairworks on and you'll see the red cards doing poorly.