I can't decide which graphics card is better for a laptop. I wanted a gaming laptop for max. Buy 800 euro with a GTX 1060. For this I have an HP Pavilion 15-dp0000ng found that has a GTX 1060, but only with 3GB of graphics memory.
Normally the 1060s have 6GB.
Can one say that a GTX 1050 Ti is 4GB better / similar than / as GTX 1060 3GB? You get 1050 Ti laptops for about 700 euro.
Benchmarks to both graphics cards can be found z. B. For Notebookchek, but not for the GTX 1060 with 3GB.
How can you find a correct comparison here?
It's just so hard to say because it also depends on GPU clock speed, among other things. For a precise comparison, you'd better send us the two links. However, I'd rather tend to personalize the GTX 1050 Ti if you focus on the GPU memory. For playing the GTX 1060 is definitely better!
A very good offer currently on Amazon is here:
It is an Amazon Reflink.
He is just 33% cheaper and has e.g. The GTX 1050! This is also ideal for playing, in spite of the GTX 1050Ti, since this in comparison to the o.g. HP laptop, 16GB Ram owns!
Even though the 1050 has 1 GB more memory, the GTX 1060 is still https://gpu.userbenchmark.com/...3646vs3649, ie the 1050 Ti.
It would be perfect even if the laptop had 16 GB of RAM, which compensates for the lack of memory on the graphics card in part again.
The Geforce GTX 1050 (non Ti) is again much slower than the 1050Ti.
If the laptop
16 GB of RAM would have, which then compensates for the lack of memory on the graphics card in part again.
In principle, textures can be pushed back and forth between VRam and DRam via the PCIe interface, but this only works with PCIe 3.0x16 at up to 15.76 GB / s.
That would not be 1/10 of the available bandwidth of the 192 - bit interface between GPU and VRam on the GTX 1060.
Consequence: if data via PCIe out / or have to be relocated with too little VRam, it will inevitably jerk or stutter. 😉
Yes, that's theoretically true, but I've read a detailed test of exactly where that was tested: The performance of the GTX 1060 3GB on the same system with 8 or 16 GB of RAM.
And there was an average of + 20% more FPS, if 16 GB of RAM were available… (some games had no difference, in others it was partly + 35%)
Although I know such Auslagerungstests of earlier maps too, but there was the graphics memory of the maps bettes overwhelmed by extreme settings deliberately to force a swapping. The whole thing ran accordingly at a low overall FPS level because of the extreme settings.
Of course you have to take into account in this thread, of course, that Nvidia has developed after the storage debacle of the GTX 970 good avoidance / and Umlagerungsalgoritmen against VRAM limits, the massive performance slump at outsourcing at least noticeably dampen compared to older Geforce series.
Basically, your objection with the 8 vs 16 GB RAM of course makes sense, because if data from the VRAM in the DRam must be outsourced, of course, correspondingly less free memory resources are available to the operating system and the game.
Many games of the last 4-5 years are quite sensitive if, apart from Windows' own use, only 3 - 4 GB Ram are freely available for the game engine.
Ah, thank you for your further details, I did not know that either! ))
Basically I'm not averse to a notebook with a GTX 1060-3GB for a price of 800 euro though. You then just have to be a bit more economical depending on the game with memory-eating graphics settings.
In conjunction with Geforce - Experience, this should also work well for inexperienced gamers, so that the Nvidia driver software can keep up with the lower VRam with as little disruption as possible and has only little to redeploy.
On YouTube I found very interesting videos where both graphics card variants with various games were tested by split-screen:
And as I see it, wins (for me) of 1060er with 3GB. For me, the FPS is crucial.
