Gtx 1060 3gb or rx 480 4gb

Iam new to pc gaming infact i still have my console and going to build a pc in the next 2 weeks iam building a 500$ pc to start with
Intel i3 6100
8gb ram ddr4
Gtx 1060 or rx 480
Gigabye h110
1tb hard drive
Evga 500w
And a case
Tell me what you think ahd some tips if you donot mind

I say 480 because of DX12 and Vulkan... DX11 the things are the same between the two cards.

1 Like

Some games already require 4Gb for 1080p if you like high-res textures and whatnot. 3Gb cards are dead on arrival.

Remember that the 1060 3GB is different from the 6GB version. It has about 11% less CUDA cores, less texture units etc due to one SM unit being disabled. It will be notably slower that the 6GB. I would look at benches comparing the two before buying.

On the other hand, a RX 480 4GB only differs in VRAM to a 8GB version. It's only at very high res and texture quality that 8GB matters, and IMHO the 480 can't really cope with higher than 1440p anyway. I would say the 480 mostly is a 1080p card, just like the 1060 6GB.

I second the rx480 for reasons posted above.
Also, I'm not a great fan of an i3 - a fx 8350 would only be 30$ more expensive, while performing better (On the other hand, your memory would be dd3, don't know how big of an issue that would be for you)

1 Like

Actually the 4GB version have slightly lower clocked memory than the 8GB version of RX480, but still, the difference is like 1%, and RX480 have already closed like half the gap between it and GTX 1060 in DX11 games. So in an extensive benchmark the 4GB 480 should be as fast if not even faster than the cut down GTX 1060 3GB...

1 Like

Iam goong with intel to be able to upgrade to an i5 or i7 in the near future .
Whats wrong with ddr4?

Ok i will go with the 480 then
Am i gonna benefit from dx12 ?

DDR3 or 4 Memory doesn't matter much, problem would be to find DDR3 for a reasonable price, as it has climbed considerably while DDR4 has fallen down to very nice levels. I would be more worried about how crappy many of the AM3+ boards are. The 8350 kinda needs to be overclocked to shine, and then you need an expensive motherboard and expensive cooling. Not to mention patience, lots of patience :-)
The benches I've seen a Skylake i3 beats a stock 8350 in games. So more expensive and worse it seems.

I would try to save up for a Skylake i5, it would be the real upgrade IMHO.

Yes thats what iam going to do
People told me that amd produce more heat and take more power and my upgradability would be limited

You have no idea what kind of AM3+ boards exist. All big brands, Asus, Asrock, Gigabyte and MSI have updated their lineup to have everything new - type C, 3.1, God knows what else...
As for 8350 - for gaming - you are probably right. Anyways, current generation games are already reportedly using all cores of X99 platform, so they use 8 cores, amd this 8350 may rival the i3 in gaming. As for heavy lifting the 8 cores will blow away the dual core i3...
Anyways, the good thing is, that the op have a plan, so just follow it. It's not a bad plan either. I am just slightly annoyed, that people underestimate the 8 core amd platform, and even today for it's price have great many uses.
I'd kill for money to be able to upgrade to 8350, but I can't... Editing and rendering will be a breeze with 8 cores...

Rx 480

drops mic


(See what you can do about getting a 8gb version)

I have a pretty good idea. I used to have a Sabertooth and a 8350 overclocked to 5.2 GHz. The new TUF Sabertooth 3.0 looks like a nice board. It is kinda expensive though, I'd get a pretty nice Intel board for the same kind of money, X99 even. The 990FX chipset has no support for even plain old USB 3.0, all those extra features needs to be done by extra chips. The lack of PCIe 3.0 is more problematic, but usually it is fine with 16 lanes of PCIe 2.0. So there are OK boards for AM3+, but still a plethora of pretty crappy and cheap ones. I've had other boards that ranged from OK to pretty bad, the Sabertooth 2.0 was easily the best one I had (and the most expensive ofc).

As for DX12 gaming, the 8350 is really not that great here. Sure all cores can be utilized, still they are pretty weak with today's standards. That makes a stock 8350 trail behind a i3 6100 in DX12 games like Ashes of the Singularity, Gears of War etc. If you want high frame rates at 1080p, an AMD FX is not a good idea. An i3 6100 is probably not optimal either, but it still will be better.

And I'm slightly annoyed that people seem to think the AMD FX CPUs being something they are not. ZEN will be much faster per Core, rumored to be twice as fast. Think about that for a second. Maybe as fast as Haswell? Many rumors, time will tell. So if you today compare in Adobe Premiere a Skylake i5 is much better than an AMD FX. Used to be that a 8350 was a good value for rendering, not that is was superior by any means. Today it is even more left behind by Skylake. Look at the benches, in single thread a Skylake core is about 80% faster compared to a FX core. A four core Intel has no problem outperforming the FX 8-core.

If anyone wants to buy AMD, I say wait for the new platform that is about to launch. Been a long wait, AM4 and ZEN is supposed to launch Q1 next year. There are rumors about motherboards being for sale in December.

Sounds like a good idea. What is the pricing for a i5-6400 in your neck of the woods? Here they are kind nicely priced. Sure it is locked but still four real cores.

Nothing is wrong with DDR4, the problem would only be that most boards support either DDR3 or DDR4. When you'd buy a am3+ board to get a 8350, you'd propably end up with a ddr3 board (although there are ddr3+ddr4 boards). So, later on when you upgrade your RAM or CPU, you'd be stuck with DDR3. That's why I posted this "warning".

@Pholostan - If he is going to get an i5, than that sure as hell would beat the 8350. But the i3 6300 is a dual core CPU (with Hyperthreading), while the 8350 is an okta core CPU which was able to compete with an i5 2500k, due to 4 more cores (but worse single threaded performance). If for example, you look at the official system "requirements" for Witcher 3, we seen that a 8350 was recommended (or an i7 3770), while the i5 2500k was considered minimum. (That being said, Witcher 3 worked flawlessly on mine after overclocking it a little bit)

But @wingsofdeath01 is going to upgrade to an i5 or i7 in the near future, so it doesn't matter^^

Just out of curiosity, why do you "waste" money on an i3, and don't get an i5 6600k? Or why don't you wait for Zen and see how that turns out - granted, approx. 4 months can be a bit long, if you want to buy a PC now.

I might actually try to get 6600k right away that seems waay better

The dual core CPU makes me go, "Uhhhh....". If you can get any quad core clocked at around 3.4Ghz for around the same price, I think you'd be better off; Hint- Ebay, sweet Ebay. As for the GPU, 4GB of RAM looks like it's going to be the minimum expectation for modern games. You could even get the 8GB versions for another $40 or $50.

FX CPUs have weaker single core performance than an i3.

And this FX is not much cheaper than an i5.

An FX 8320E and/or FX 6300 can be had for $90.

Both (1060 and 480) have pretty much the same performance/cost ratio. So both are an equally good purchase. As the others said you should chose according to how important you would think Dx12 and Vulkan support will be in the future.

Very good points. I would actually wait for Zen personally. Unless 4-5 months is too much time for you to wait.

Heat yes but nothing that a decent fan cannot handle. Power yes theoretically. In practice you will not feel the difference at all. Unless calculate your power budget per 10 years span and do not change the CPU for all this time. Upgradability is an issue because FX is an old technology. But Zen is right around the corner that will remedy that.

Get the 480 8GB. 20 dollars more from Gigabyte.