Gtx 1060 3gb benchmarks: UserBenchmark: Nvidia GTX 1060-3GB

GTX 1060 3GB benchmark with i7-6700K 1080p, 1440p, Ultrawide, 4K benchmarks at Ultra Quality

Compare To
Select..AMD Radeon 530 Mobile — $ 636AMD Radeon 540 Mobile — $ 1,086AMD Radeon HD 6850 — $ 199AMD Radeon HD 6870 — $ 199AMD Radeon HD 6950 — $ 250AMD Radeon HD 6970 — $ 299AMD Radeon HD 6990 — $ 699AMD Radeon HD 7750 — $ 140AMD Radeon HD 7750M — $ 858AMD Radeon HD 7790 — $ 149AMD Radeon HD 7850 — $ 249AMD Radeon HD 7850M — $ 964AMD Radeon HD 7950 — $ 149AMD Radeon HD 7950M — $ 1,023AMD Radeon HD 7970 — $ 299AMD Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition — $ 299AMD Radeon HD 7970M — $ 1,079AMD Radeon HD 7990 — $ 999AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100 Mobile — $ 1,959AMD Radeon R5 — $ 710AMD Radeon R5 — $ 701AMD Radeon R7 250 — $ 95AMD Radeon R7 265 — $ 149AMD Radeon R7 370 — $ 202AMD Radeon R9 270 — $ 275AMD Radeon R9 280 — $ 350AMD Radeon R9 280X — $ 350AMD Radeon R9 285 — $ 380AMD Radeon R9 290 — $ 310AMD Radeon R9 290X — $ 399AMD Radeon R9 295X2 — $ 1,499AMD Radeon R9 380 — $ 299AMD Radeon R9 380X — $ 229AMD Radeon R9 390 — $ 465AMD Radeon R9 390X — $ 495AMD Radeon R9 FURY — $ 549AMD Radeon R9 FURY X — $ 649AMD Radeon R9 M270X — $ 1,016AMD Radeon R9 M280X — $ 1,070AMD Radeon R9 M280X 2GB — $ 1,070AMD Radeon R9 M290X — $ 1,209AMD Radeon R9 M380 — $ 1,074AMD Radeon R9 Nano — $ 1,529AMD Radeon RX 460 — $ 140AMD Radeon RX 470 — $ 342AMD Radeon RX 470 Mobile — $ 1,203AMD Radeon RX 480 — $ 399AMD Radeon RX 480 Mobile — $ 1,275AMD Radeon RX 540 Mobile — $ 645AMD Radeon RX 550 — $ 74AMD Radeon RX 550 Mobile — $ 923AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT 4GB — $ 169AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT 8GB — $ 199AMD Radeon RX 550X Mobile — $ 923AMD Radeon RX 560 — $ 99AMD Radeon RX 560 Mobile — $ 987AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT — $ 279AMD Radeon RX 560X Mobile — $ 641AMD Radeon RX 560X Mobile 2GB — $ 987AMD Radeon RX 570 — $ 123AMD Radeon RX 570 Mobile — $ 1,260AMD Radeon RX 5700 — $ 349AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT — $ 399AMD Radeon RX 580 — $ 151AMD Radeon RX 580 Mobile — $ 1,307AMD Radeon RX 580X Mobile — $ 1,307AMD Radeon RX 590 — $ 214AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT — $ 379AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT — $ 479AMD Radeon RX 6800 — $ 579AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT — $ 649AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT — $ 999AMD Radeon RX VEGA 10 — $ 632AMD Radeon RX VEGA 3 — $ 567AMD Radeon RX VEGA 6 — $ 1,119AMD Radeon RX VEGA 8 — $ 601AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 — $ 269AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 Mobile — $ 1,579AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 — $ 419AMD Radeon VII — $ 664ATI Radeon HD 4870 — $ 299NVIDIA GeForce GT 1030 — $ 79NVIDIA GeForce GT 640 — $ 79NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 — $ 199NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 — $ 129NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q — $ 1,282NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile — $ 750NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile 2GB — $ 1,062NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti — $ 129NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q — $ 1,270NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile — $ 876NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 6GB — $ 159NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q — $ 1,185NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile — $ 987NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 — $ 329NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q — $ 1,106NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Mobile — $ 1,559NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Ti — $ 503NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 — $ 522NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Max-Q — $ 1,955NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Mobile — $ 1,857NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti — $ 807NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 — $ 149NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q — $ 1,239NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile — $ 1,151NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER — $ 160NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 — $ 220NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER — $ 229NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti — $ 279NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q — $ 1,185NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile — $ 1,758NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260 — $ 449NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260 Core 216 — $ 299NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280 — $ 649NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285 — $ 249NVIDIA GeForce GTX 470 — $ 299NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 — $ 499NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti — $ 199NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 — $ 153NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti — $ 220NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 — $ 349NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 — $ 399NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590 — $ 699NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 — $ 49NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti — $ 64NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost — $ 169NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 — $ 79NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti — $ 299NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660M — $ 987NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 — $ 79NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M — $ 1,058NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX — $ 1,058NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 — $ 485NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M — $ 1,083NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 — $ 439NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti — $ 279NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 — $ 320NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M — $ 1,036NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770 — $ 179NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M — $ 1,100NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 — $ 355NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti — $ 410NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M — $ 1,162NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M — $ 1,162NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 — $ 89NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 — $ 89NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M — $ 1,066NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 — $ 449NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M — $ 1,249NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M 6GB — $ 1,249NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 — $ 249NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Mobile — $ 1,345NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti — $ 619NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M — $ 1,345NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980MX — $ 1,345NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN — $ 650NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK — $ 999NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X — $ 1,099NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 — $ 349NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile — $ 1,104NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER — $ 400NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 — $ 469NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q — $ 1,516NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Mobile — $ 1,724NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER — $ 499NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 — $ 693NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Max-Q — $ 1,772NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Mobile — $ 1,942NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER — $ 699NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti — $ 1,187NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 — $ 200NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti — $ 249NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 — $ 329NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti — $ 399NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 — $ 499NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti — $ 599NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 — $ 699NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti — $ 799NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 — $ 1,499NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 — $ 200NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 — $ 329NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti — $ 399NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 — $ 499NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 — $ 699NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Ti — $ 799NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 — $ 1,499NVIDIA TITAN RTX — $ 2,499NVIDIA TITAN V — $ 2,999NVIDIA TITAN Xp — $ 1,199

Change CPU To
Select. .AMD Athlon 5000 Dual-Core — $ 100AMD Athlon 5200 Dual-Core — $ 30AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 4200+ — $ 130AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 4400+ — $ 60AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 4600+ — $ 360AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 4800+ — $ 460AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 5000+ — $ 331.5AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 5200+ — $ 53.1AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 5400+ — $ 53AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 5600+ — $ 150AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 5800+ — $ 25AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 6000+ — $ 46AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 6400+ — $ 260AMD Athlon 7550 Dual-Core — $ 60AMD Athlon 7750 Dual-Core — $ 148.7AMD Athlon 7850 Dual-Core — $ 209.7AMD Athlon Dual Core 5000B — $ 95AMD Athlon II X2 215 — $ 12AMD Athlon II X2 220 — $ 32.2AMD Athlon II X2 240 — $ 35AMD Athlon II X2 245 — $ 35AMD Athlon II X2 250 — $ 39AMD Athlon II X2 255 — $ 65.2AMD Athlon II X2 260 — $ 20AMD Athlon II X2 265 — $ 82.9AMD Athlon II X2 270 — $ 24AMD Athlon II X2 B22 — $ 36AMD Athlon II X2 B24 — $ 40AMD Athlon II X2 B28 — $ 49.1AMD Athlon II X3 425 — $ 104. 2AMD Athlon II X3 435 — $ 50AMD Athlon II X3 440 — $ 47AMD Athlon II X3 445 — $ 91AMD Athlon II X3 450 — $ 40AMD Athlon II X3 455 — $ 116.9AMD Athlon II X3 460 — $ 50AMD Athlon II X4 620 — $ 60AMD Athlon II X4 630 — $ 43AMD Athlon II X4 631 Quad-Core — $ 80AMD Athlon II X4 635 — $ 70AMD Athlon II X4 640 — $ 80AMD Athlon II X4 641 Quad-Core — $ 91.5AMD Athlon II X4 645 — $ 50AMD Athlon X4 740 Quad Core — $ 277AMD Athlon X4 760K Quad Core — $ 46AMD Athlon X4 840 — $ 78.7AMD Athlon X4 845 — $ 50AMD Athlon X4 860K — $ 64AMD Athlon X4 870K — $ 80AMD Athlon X4 880K — $ 90AMD Athlon X4 950 — $ 60AMD E2-3200 APU — $ 8AMD FX-4100 Quad-Core — $ 130AMD FX-4130 Quad-Core — $ 76AMD FX-4170 Quad-Core — $ 100AMD FX-4200 Quad-Core — $ 228.2AMD FX-4300 Quad-Core — $ 53.4AMD FX-4350 Quad-Core — $ 130AMD FX-6200 Six-Core — $ 340AMD FX-6300 Six-Core — $ 59AMD FX-6350 Six-Core — $ 130AMD FX-8120 Eight-Core — $ 100AMD FX-8150 Eight-Core — $ 383.5AMD FX-8300 Eight-Core — $ 80.6AMD FX-8320 Eight-Core — $ 79.5AMD FX-8320E Eight-Core — $ 98. 9AMD FX-8350 Eight-Core — $ 80AMD FX-8370 Eight-Core — $ 135AMD FX-8370E Eight-Core — $ 180AMD FX-9370 Eight-Core — $ 178.9AMD FX-9590 Eight-Core — $ 122AMD Phenom 8250e Triple-Core — $ 47AMD Phenom 8450 Triple-Core — $ 30AMD Phenom 8600 Triple-Core — $ 53AMD Phenom 8600B Triple-Core — $ 53AMD Phenom 8650 Triple-Core — $ 50AMD Phenom 9100e Quad-Core — $ 40AMD Phenom 9150e Quad-Core — $ 40AMD Phenom 9350e Quad-Core — $ 3382.1AMD Phenom 9450e Quad-Core — $ 105AMD Phenom 9500 Quad-Core — $ 60AMD Phenom 9550 Quad-Core — $ 40AMD Phenom 9600 Quad-Core — $ 50AMD Phenom 9600B Quad-Core — $ 147.2AMD Phenom 9650 Quad-Core — $ 55AMD Phenom 9750 Quad-Core — $ 60AMD Phenom 9850 Quad-Core — $ 50AMD Phenom 9950 Quad-Core — $ 180AMD Phenom II X2 545 — $ 44AMD Phenom II X2 550 — $ 50AMD Phenom II X2 555 — $ 142.1AMD Phenom II X2 565 — $ 30AMD Phenom II X2 B55 — $ 48AMD Phenom II X3 705e — $ 152.3AMD Phenom II X3 710 — $ 84.5AMD Phenom II X3 720 — $ 70AMD Phenom II X3 B73 — $ 75AMD Phenom II X4 805 — $ 174AMD Phenom II X4 810 — $ 116AMD Phenom II X4 820 — $ 75AMD Phenom II X4 840 — $ 90AMD Phenom II X4 905e — $ 212. 4AMD Phenom II X4 910 — $ 100AMD Phenom II X4 910e — $ 157AMD Phenom II X4 920 — $ 67AMD Phenom II X4 925 — $ 160AMD Phenom II X4 940 — $ 120AMD Phenom II X4 945 — $ 50AMD Phenom II X4 955 — $ 130.2AMD Phenom II X4 960T — $ 135AMD Phenom II X4 965 — $ 59.5AMD Phenom II X4 B95 — $ 73AMD Phenom II X4 B97 — $ 90AMD Phenom II X6 1035T — $ 189AMD Phenom II X6 1045T — $ 175AMD Phenom II X6 1055T — $ 185AMD Phenom II X6 1075T — $ 260AMD Phenom II X6 1090T — $ 396.1AMD Phenom II X6 1100T — $ 200AMD Phenom X3 8550 — $ 170AMD Ryzen 3 1200 — $ 95AMD Ryzen 3 1300X — $ 125AMD Ryzen 3 2200G — $ 98AMD Ryzen 3 3100 — $ 90AMD Ryzen 3 3200G — $ 99AMD Ryzen 3 3300X — $ 120AMD Ryzen 5 1400 — $ 134AMD Ryzen 5 1500X — $ 144.9AMD Ryzen 5 1600 — $ 155AMD Ryzen 5 1600X — $ 178.4AMD Ryzen 5 2400G — $ 159AMD Ryzen 5 2600 — $ 150AMD Ryzen 5 2600X — $ 210AMD Ryzen 5 3400G — $ 150AMD Ryzen 5 3500 — $ 148AMD Ryzen 5 3500X — $ 160.5AMD Ryzen 5 3600 — $ 199AMD Ryzen 5 3600X — $ 249AMD Ryzen 5 5500 — $ 160AMD Ryzen 5 5600X — $ 299AMD Ryzen 7 1700 — $ 190AMD Ryzen 7 1700X — $ 200AMD Ryzen 7 1800X — $ 250AMD Ryzen 7 2700 — $ 249. 2AMD Ryzen 7 2700X — $ 305AMD Ryzen 7 3700X — $ 330AMD Ryzen 7 3800X — $ 399AMD Ryzen 7 5700X — $ 300AMD Ryzen 7 5800X — $ 399AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D — $ 450AMD Ryzen 9 3900X — $ 499AMD Ryzen 9 3950X — $ 750AMD Ryzen 9 5900X — $ 499AMD Ryzen 9 5950X — $ 710AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X — $ 350AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X — $ 420AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X — $ 680AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X — $ 900AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX — $ 1720Intel Core i3-10100 — $ 122Intel Core i3-10300 — $ 143Intel Core i3-11100 — $ 122Intel Core i3-11300 — $ 143Intel Core i3-12100 — $ 122Intel Core i3-12300 — $ 143Intel Core i3-2100 @ 3.10GHz — $ 60Intel Core i3-2102 @ 3.10GHz — $ 58Intel Core i3-2105 @ 3.10GHz — $ 80Intel Core i3-2120 @ 3.30GHz — $ 30Intel Core i3-2125 @ 3.30GHz — $ 199Intel Core i3-2130 @ 3.40GHz — $ 70Intel Core i3-3210 @ 3.20GHz — $ 100Intel Core i3-3220 @ 3.30GHz — $ 34.9Intel Core i3-3225 @ 3.30GHz — $ 100Intel Core i3-3240 @ 3.40GHz — $ 46Intel Core i3-3245 @ 3.40GHz — $ 80Intel Core i3-3250 @ 3. 50GHz — $ 95Intel Core i3-4130 @ 3.40GHz — $ 140Intel Core i3-4150 @ 3.50GHz — $ 260Intel Core i3-4160 @ 3.60GHz — $ 140Intel Core i3-4170 @ 3.70GHz — $ 150Intel Core i3-4330 @ 3.50GHz — $ 180Intel Core i3-4340 @ 3.60GHz — $ 170Intel Core i3-4350 @ 3.60GHz — $ 170Intel Core i3-4360 @ 3.70GHz — $ 280Intel Core i3-4370 @ 3.80GHz — $ 450Intel Core i3-530 @ 2.93GHz — $ 20Intel Core i3-540 @ 3.07GHz — $ 21Intel Core i3-550 @ 3.20GHz — $ 180Intel Core i3-560 @ 3.33GHz — $ 30Intel Core i3-6098P @ 3.60GHz — $ 133.7Intel Core i3-6100 @ 3.70GHz — $ 166.1Intel Core i3-6300 @ 3.80GHz — $ 143Intel Core i3-6320 @ 3.90GHz — $ 160Intel Core i3-7100 @ 3.90GHz — $ 170Intel Core i3-7300 @ 4.00GHz — $ 210Intel Core i3-7320 @ 4.10GHz — $ 174.8Intel Core i3-7350K @ 4.20GHz — $ 230Intel Core i3-8100 @ 3.60GHz — $ 130Intel Core i3-8300 @ 3.70GHz — $ 179.4Intel Core i3-8350K @ 4.00GHz — $ 184Intel Core i3-9100 @ 3.60GHz — $ 170Intel Core i3-9100F @ 3.60GHz — $ 105Intel Core i3-9320 @ 3.70GHz — $ 162Intel Core i3-9350KF @ 4. 00GHz — $ 224Intel Core i5 750S @ 2.40GHz — $ 100Intel Core i5-10400 — $ 182Intel Core i5-10600K — $ 236.8Intel Core i5-11400 — $ 182Intel Core i5-11600K — $ 262Intel Core i5-12400 — $ 143Intel Core i5-12600K — $ 290Intel Core i5-2300 @ 2.80GHz — $ 80Intel Core i5-2310 @ 2.90GHz — $ 80Intel Core i5-2320 @ 3.00GHz — $ 195.3Intel Core i5-2380P @ 3.10GHz — $ 90Intel Core i5-2400 @ 3.10GHz — $ 84Intel Core i5-2400S @ 2.50GHz — $ 65.7Intel Core i5-2405S @ 2.50GHz — $ 164.4Intel Core i5-2450P @ 3.20GHz — $ 90Intel Core i5-2500 @ 3.30GHz — $ 105Intel Core i5-2500K @ 3.30GHz — $ 124Intel Core i5-2500S @ 2.70GHz — $ 75Intel Core i5-2550K @ 3.40GHz — $ 130Intel Core i5-3330 @ 3.00GHz — $ 100Intel Core i5-3330S @ 2.70GHz — $ 95Intel Core i5-3340 @ 3.10GHz — $ 262Intel Core i5-3340S @ 2.80GHz — $ 150Intel Core i5-3350P @ 3.10GHz — $ 170Intel Core i5-3450 @ 3.10GHz — $ 128Intel Core i5-3450S @ 2.80GHz — $ 100Intel Core i5-3470 @ 3.20GHz — $ 125Intel Core i5-3470S @ 2.90GHz — $ 140.1Intel Core i5-3475S @ 2. 90GHz — $ 143.5Intel Core i5-3550 @ 3.30GHz — $ 330Intel Core i5-3550S @ 3.00GHz — $ 341Intel Core i5-3570 @ 3.40GHz — $ 140Intel Core i5-3570K @ 3.40GHz — $ 144Intel Core i5-3570S @ 3.10GHz — $ 285Intel Core i5-4430 @ 3.00GHz — $ 180Intel Core i5-4430S @ 2.70GHz — $ 160Intel Core i5-4440 @ 3.10GHz — $ 170Intel Core i5-4440S @ 2.80GHz — $ 463Intel Core i5-4460 @ 3.20GHz — $ 170Intel Core i5-4460S @ 2.90GHz — $ 660Intel Core i5-4570 @ 3.20GHz — $ 175Intel Core i5-4570S @ 2.90GHz — $ 221.6Intel Core i5-4590 @ 3.30GHz — $ 185Intel Core i5-4590S @ 3.00GHz — $ 198Intel Core i5-4670 @ 3.40GHz — $ 188Intel Core i5-4670K @ 3.40GHz — $ 250Intel Core i5-4670R @ 3.00GHz — $ 276Intel Core i5-4690 @ 3.50GHz — $ 200Intel Core i5-4690K @ 3.50GHz — $ 200Intel Core i5-4690S @ 3.20GHz — $ 269.9Intel Core i5-5675C @ 3.10GHz — $ 400Intel Core i5-6400 @ 2.70GHz — $ 200Intel Core i5-6402P @ 2.80GHz — $ 190Intel Core i5-650 @ 3.20GHz — $ 100Intel Core i5-6500 @ 3.20GHz — $ 234.4Intel Core i5-655K @ 3.20GHz — $ 60Intel Core i5-660 @ 3. 33GHz — $ 49Intel Core i5-6600 @ 3.30GHz — $ 220Intel Core i5-6600K @ 3.50GHz — $ 288.9Intel Core i5-661 @ 3.33GHz — $ 100Intel Core i5-670 @ 3.47GHz — $ 90Intel Core i5-680 @ 3.60GHz — $ 90Intel Core i5-7400 @ 3.00GHz — $ 213.5Intel Core i5-750 @ 2.67GHz — $ 160.5Intel Core i5-7500 @ 3.40GHz — $ 210Intel Core i5-760 @ 2.80GHz — $ 100Intel Core i5-7600 @ 3.50GHz — $ 240Intel Core i5-7600K @ 3.80GHz — $ 251Intel Core i5-7640X @ 4.00GHz — $ 250Intel Core i5-8400 @ 2.80GHz — $ 200Intel Core i5-8500 @ 3.00GHz — $ 239Intel Core i5-8600 @ 3.10GHz — $ 244.5Intel Core i5-8600K @ 3.60GHz — $ 377.7Intel Core i5-9400 @ 2.90GHz — $ 170Intel Core i5-9400F @ 2.90GHz — $ 170Intel Core i5-9600K @ 3.70GHz — $ 280Intel Core i5-9600KF @ 3.70GHz — $ 215Intel Core i7-10700K — $ 409.1Intel Core i7-11700K — $ 410Intel Core i7-12700K — $ 470Intel Core i7-2600 @ 3.40GHz — $ 150Intel Core i7-2600K @ 3.40GHz — $ 198Intel Core i7-2600S @ 2.80GHz — $ 200Intel Core i7-2700K @ 3.50GHz — $ 200Intel Core i7-3770 @ 3.40GHz — $ 179Intel Core i7-3770K @ 3. 50GHz — $ 249Intel Core i7-3770S @ 3.10GHz — $ 200Intel Core i7-3820 @ 3.60GHz — $ 200Intel Core i7-3930K @ 3.20GHz — $ 399Intel Core i7-3960X @ 3.30GHz — $ 800Intel Core i7-3970X @ 3.50GHz — $ 954Intel Core i7-4770 @ 3.40GHz — $ 240Intel Core i7-4770K @ 3.50GHz — $ 285Intel Core i7-4770S @ 3.10GHz — $ 250Intel Core i7-4771 @ 3.50GHz — $ 300Intel Core i7-4790 @ 3.60GHz — $ 279Intel Core i7-4790K @ 4.00GHz — $ 307Intel Core i7-4790S @ 3.20GHz — $ 342.6Intel Core i7-4820K @ 3.70GHz — $ 500Intel Core i7-4930K @ 3.40GHz — $ 399Intel Core i7-4960X @ 3.60GHz — $ 770Intel Core i7-5775C @ 3.30GHz — $ 450Intel Core i7-5820K @ 3.30GHz — $ 300Intel Core i7-5930K @ 3.50GHz — $ 499Intel Core i7-5960X @ 3.00GHz — $ 770Intel Core i7-6700 @ 3.40GHz — $ 433.7Intel Core i7-6700K @ 4.00GHz — $ 335Intel Core i7-6800K @ 3.40GHz — $ 420Intel Core i7-6850K @ 3.60GHz — $ 550Intel Core i7-6900K @ 3.20GHz — $ 1200Intel Core i7-6950X @ 3.00GHz — $ 1576Intel Core i7-7700 @ 3.60GHz — $ 325.1Intel Core i7-7700K @ 4. 20GHz — $ 355Intel Core i7-7740X @ 4.30GHz — $ 349Intel Core i7-7800X @ 3.50GHz — $ 370Intel Core i7-7820X @ 3.60GHz — $ 930Intel Core i7-8086K @ 4.00GHz — $ 553Intel Core i7-860 @ 2.80GHz — $ 290Intel Core i7-860S @ 2.53GHz — $ 200Intel Core i7-870 @ 2.93GHz — $ 310Intel Core i7-8700 @ 3.20GHz — $ 454.5Intel Core i7-8700K @ 3.70GHz — $ 369.9Intel Core i7-875K @ 2.93GHz — $ 200Intel Core i7-880 @ 3.07GHz — $ 583Intel Core i7-920 @ 2.67GHz — $ 174Intel Core i7-930 @ 2.80GHz — $ 60Intel Core i7-940 @ 2.93GHz — $ 70.7Intel Core i7-950 @ 3.07GHz — $ 245Intel Core i7-960 @ 3.20GHz — $ 100Intel Core i7-965 @ 3.20GHz — $ 140Intel Core i7-970 @ 3.20GHz — $ 150Intel Core i7-9700 @ 3.00GHz — $ 330Intel Core i7-9700F @ 3.00GHz — $ 368Intel Core i7-9700K @ 3.60GHz — $ 410Intel Core i7-975 @ 3.33GHz — $ 180Intel Core i7-980 @ 3.33GHz — $ 200Intel Core i7-980X @ 3.33GHz — $ 220Intel Core i7-990X @ 3.47GHz — $ 350Intel Core i9-10900K — $ 590Intel Core i9-11900K — $ 488Intel Core i9-12900K — $ 590Intel Core i9-7900X @ 3. 30GHz — $ 1380Intel Core i9-7920X @ 2.90GHz — $ 1096.7Intel Core i9-7940X @ 3.10GHz — $ 1192.1Intel Core i9-7960X @ 2.80GHz — $ 2000Intel Core i9-7980XE @ 2.60GHz — $ 2005.5Intel Core i9-9900 @ 3.10GHz — $ 440Intel Core i9-9900K @ 3.60GHz — $ 835Intel Core2 Duo E4300 @ 1.80GHz — $ 158Intel Core2 Duo E4400 @ 2.00GHz — $ 9Intel Core2 Duo E4500 @ 2.20GHz — $ 40Intel Core2 Duo E4600 @ 2.40GHz — $ 158Intel Core2 Duo E4700 @ 2.60GHz — $ 100Intel Core2 Duo E6300 @ 1.86GHz — $ 13Intel Core2 Duo E6320 @ 1.86GHz — $ 50Intel Core2 Duo E6400 @ 2.13GHz — $ 20Intel Core2 Duo E6420 @ 2.13GHz — $ 50Intel Core2 Duo E6550 @ 2.33GHz — $ 15Intel Core2 Duo E6600 @ 2.40GHz — $ 15Intel Core2 Duo E6700 @ 2.66GHz — $ 30Intel Core2 Duo E6750 @ 2.66GHz — $ 13Intel Core2 Duo E6850 @ 3.00GHz — $ 50Intel Core2 Duo E7200 @ 2.53GHz — $ 75Intel Core2 Duo E7300 @ 2.66GHz — $ 20Intel Core2 Duo E7400 @ 2.80GHz — $ 29Intel Core2 Duo E7500 @ 2.93GHz — $ 15Intel Core2 Duo E7600 @ 3.06GHz — $ 120Intel Core2 Duo E8200 @ 2.66GHz — $ 50Intel Core2 Duo E8300 @ 2. 83GHz — $ 20Intel Core2 Duo E8400 @ 3.00GHz — $ 9.8Intel Core2 Duo E8500 @ 3.16GHz — $ 40Intel Core2 Duo E8600 @ 3.33GHz — $ 50Intel Core2 Extreme Q6800 @ 2.93GHz — $ 1125Intel Core2 Extreme Q6850 @ 3.00GHz — $ 1496Intel Core2 Extreme X6800 @ 2.93GHz — $ 263.6Intel Core2 Extreme X9650 @ 3.00GHz — $ 909Intel Core2 Extreme X9770 @ 3.20GHz — $ 1609Intel Core2 Extreme X9775 @ 3.20GHz — $ 1806Intel Core2 Quad Q6600 @ 2.40GHz — $ 40Intel Core2 Quad Q6700 @ 2.66GHz — $ 45Intel Core2 Quad Q8200 @ 2.33GHz — $ 23Intel Core2 Quad Q8300 @ 2.50GHz — $ 50Intel Core2 Quad Q8400 @ 2.66GHz — $ 99.5Intel Core2 Quad Q9300 @ 2.50GHz — $ 50Intel Core2 Quad Q9400 @ 2.66GHz — $ 34Intel Core2 Quad Q9450 @ 2.66GHz — $ 335Intel Core2 Quad Q9500 @ 2.83GHz — $ 35Intel Core2 Quad Q9505 @ 2.83GHz — $ 190Intel Core2 Quad Q9550 @ 2.83GHz — $ 49Intel Core2 Quad Q9650 @ 3.00GHz — $ 69.8Intel Pentium G2010 @ 2.80GHz — $ 34.9Intel Pentium G2020 @ 2.90GHz — $ 32.9Intel Pentium G2030 @ 3.00GHz — $ 41Intel Pentium G2120 @ 3. 10GHz — $ 46Intel Pentium G2130 @ 3.20GHz — $ 50Intel Pentium G2140 @ 3.30GHz — $ 50Intel Pentium G3220 @ 3.00GHz — $ 120Intel Pentium G3240 @ 3.10GHz — $ 80Intel Pentium G3250 @ 3.20GHz — $ 110Intel Pentium G3258 @ 3.20GHz — $ 178.3Intel Pentium G3260 @ 3.30GHz — $ 105Intel Pentium G3420 @ 3.20GHz — $ 110Intel Pentium G3430 @ 3.30GHz — $ 90Intel Pentium G3440 @ 3.30GHz — $ 159.9Intel Pentium G3450 @ 3.40GHz — $ 100Intel Pentium G3460 @ 3.50GHz — $ 288.2Intel Pentium G3470 @ 3.60GHz — $ 104.3Intel Pentium G4400 @ 3.30GHz — $ 80Intel Pentium G4500 @ 3.50GHz — $ 85.3Intel Pentium G4520 @ 3.60GHz — $ 110.9Intel Pentium G4560 @ 3.50GHz — $ 103.1Intel Pentium G4600 @ 3.60GHz — $ 100Intel Pentium G4620 @ 3.70GHz — $ 105.9Intel Pentium G640 @ 2.80GHz — $ 25Intel Pentium G645 @ 2.90GHz — $ 95Intel Pentium G840 @ 2.80GHz — $ 35Intel Pentium G850 @ 2.90GHz — $ 30Intel Pentium G860 @ 3.00GHz — $ 30Intel Pentium G870 @ 3.10GHz — $ 97Intel Pentium Gold G5400 @ 3.70GHz — $ 123.9Intel Pentium Gold G5500 @ 3. 80GHz — $ 100.3Intel Pentium Gold G5600 @ 3.90GHz — $ 100.9

Change Variant To
Select..

Desired Quality Setting
Select..Ultra Quality — MSAA, HBAO, and advanced shadowsHigh Quality — No MSAA, HBAO, or advanced shadowsMedium QualityLow Quality

Many Years Later: 3GB vs 6GB GTX 1060 in Today’s Games

Recently we’ve been checking out previous-gen graphics cards that you can buy at «decent» prices used, if you want a GPU for gaming, but don’t want to pay inflated prices. It’s a valid trade-off for many and so we’ve revisited the likes of the GeForce GTX 1070, GTX 1060 6GB, and Radeon RX 580, running the latest drivers and today’s games to see how they do.

Today we’re taking a look at the 3GB version of the GeForce GTX 1060 which sells for ~$200-250 on eBay, and that’s about $100 less than what you can expect to pay for the 6GB model. A second reason to put together this test is that we want to see how a graphics card with just 3GB of VRAM is getting on in 2021. That alone should be quite interesting.

As a quick refresher, the original GTX 1060 6GB was released back in July 2016, that’s 5 years ago. Hot on the heels of that release, a month later, Nvidia released the controversial 3GB version. The reason for the controversy was Nvidia doing Nvidia things: the 3GB version of the GTX 1060 sounded like it’d be the same as the original but with half as much VRAM. But if you made that assumption, you would be wrong.

In addition to the VRAM difference, Nvidia also went with defective silicon supporting 1152 cores, rather than the full 1280 cores used by the 6GB version, or a 10% reduction in core count. Based on our testing 5 years ago, when not limited by VRAM the 3GB model was ~7% slower, but we did see an example with Mirror’s Edge Catalyst where it was up to 41% slower due to insufficient memory, so it will be interesting to see how the two GPUs compare today.

Pascal was an epic release from Nvidia back in the day, but they did have the few bad apples like this one and the GT 1030 DDR4 version. But all that drama is now in the past, and what we have in the present is a second hand 3GB GTX 1060 that we’re going to re-test.

If you’re thinking of buying a used graphics card as a make-do solution until RTX 3070’s don’t cost more than your first car, you probably want to know how it performs in today’s games, so let’s go find out.

For comparison we have the GTX 1060 6GB to be compared in 15 games at 1080p and 1440p using a range of quality settings. All testing was conducted on our Ryzen 9 5950X test system using 32GB of DDR4-3200 CL14 memory and the latest available display drivers, so the results are going to be entirely GPU limited.

Gaming Benchmarks

Starting with Assassin’s Creed Valhalla we see that the 3GB model is 6% slower at 1080p using the low quality settings, which is what you’d expect when not exceeding the VRAM buffer. However, by using the medium quality preset we start to run into trouble as that margin swells to 20%, dropping the average frame rate from 59 fps down to 47 fps.

Things do get worse with the high quality preset as the 3GB model drops by a huge 54% margin, going from a playable 48 fps to a stuttery mess with just 22 fps.

This means you’ll want to keep texture quality at the lowest possible value when tuning quality settings and it’ll have to be at 1080p, because at 1440p there’s really no way to make the 3GB model work.

We’re looking at a 37% performance reduction using the low quality settings at 1440p, so medium and high are obviously a no go. In terms of value, the 6GB model is worth paying ~50% more for if you predominantly play games like Assassin’s Creed Valhalla as it nets you around 50% more performance, but more crucially, it will enable playable performance.

Tom Clancy’s Rainbow Six Siege results are also interesting, though here the 3GB frame buffer is sufficient for the most part. For example, at 1080p low settings, we see a 7% drop and then just 5% with medium. However, we’re looking at a far more significant 24% drop off using high, though the game is still playable.

Given the reduction in performance for the 3GB model when using the high quality preset at 1080p, you might expect the 1440p data to be a disaster, but it’s not. Using the same quality setting the 3GB model was just 9% slower, dropping from 89 fps to 81 fps. We believe this is because memory capacity is no longer the greatest performance limiting aspect of the card, and isn’t severe enough where it completely tanks performance.

In other words, the 3GB model does reasonably well here and was certainly able to deliver playable performance.

Biomutant doesn’t run into any issues with the 3GB GTX 1060 using the low, medium and high quality presets, though be aware we’re not testing with the maximum quality preset.

That being the case the 3GB model is 7-10% slower than the 6GB version, and that’s what you’d typically expect to see when not limited by memory capacity.

The margins are all over the place in Outriders. At 1080p using the low preset the 3GB model is 5% slower, and that’s a best case scenario. However, turning the quality settings up a single notch saw the margin open up to 24% as the 3GB model dropped down to just 51 fps whereas the 6GB card was good for 67 fps.

Quite interestingly, as we move to 1440p the 3GB model is still 5% slower using low and 22% slower with medium but then just 12% slower using high. But as was seen in Rainbow Six Siege, it is possible to get to a point where running out of VRAM isn’t the primary cause for limiting performance, rather it’s GPU performance and we see this with the high quality preset.

You’d expect the 22% margin seen with the medium preset to be mirrored or extended with high, but instead it’s reduced to just 12% and that’s because GPU shader performance becomes the primary limitation.

We see more evidence of this behavior with Horizon Zero Dawn. You’d expect the limited VRAM buffer of the 3GB model to have the least amount of impact using the lowest quality preset, so in this case favour performance. But here we’re looking at a 21% drop in performance for the 3GB model and at least half of that figure can be attributed to the VRAM buffer.

Using the higher quality ‘original’ preset the margin is reduced to 17% and then with favour quality, which is the second highest quality preset, the margin is reduced to just 12% which isn’t far off what you’d expect to see when using 3GB less VRAM.

The truth is the VRAM buffer of the 3GB model was exceeded under all three test conditions, it just so happened to be that it was the primary performance limitation using the lowest quality preset.

Preset scaling behavior is more what you’d expect to see in Shadow of the Tomb Raider when running out of VRAM. At 1080p the 3GB model was 5% slower using the lowest and low quality presets. But using medium kills the 3GB 1060 as performance drops off to the tune of 39%, slashing frame rates from 61 fps to just 37 fps.

Had VRAM capacity not been an issue like what we see with the low and lowest settings, the 3GB model would have delivered around 58 fps.

Then at 1440p we find the 3GB model is 8% slower using the lowest preset, 13% slower with low and 29% slower using medium.

Doom Eternal doesn’t allow you to exceed the VRAM buffer, so it’s not possible to test certain quality settings. Worse still, even with the low quality preset, the buffer is already maxed out and as a result it trailed the 6GB version by a 25% margin at 1080p and 24% at 1440p.

The game was still playable at both resolutions, so there is that, but you’re limited to low quality settings with this model.

The 3GB GTX 1060 was consistently 14% slower than the 6GB model in Death Stranding at 1080p, which is a larger margin than you’d expect to see, so perhaps there’s some memory limitations creeping into these results and that certainly appears to be the case at 1440p.

Here the 3GB model was between 16-20% slower and that’s due to the limited VRAM buffer as it should only be up to 10% slower. This is an issue for those wanting to play Death Stranding at 1440p as it meant dropping down from almost 60 fps using the medium setting with the 6GB model, to just shy of 50 fps with the 3GB version and you will certainly notice that difference.

Moving on to Dirt 5, the GTX 1060 3GB was 12% slower at 1080p using the ultra low quality setting, then 11% slower with low and medium. So pretty similar scaling across those three presets at 1080p. Then at 1440p we see a 5% reduction in performance for the 3GB model using the ultra low and low presets, and then a 10% drop with medium, so for the most part the 3GB model works fine in Dirt 5 using the lower quality settings.

For testing Watch Dogs: Legion with these older products we’ve ignored the very high and ultra quality presets as these GPUs aren’t powerful enough. That being the case, the 3GB 1060 does reasonably well, with performance typically between 7 — 13% slower than the 6GB model.

These results are a bit of an eye opener, playing Resident Evil Village with a 3GB 1060 is extremely difficult and short of using the lowest quality preset at 1080p, you really can’t and it’s not possible to achieve a 60 fps experience. This is an example of a game that make the 3GB 1060 obsolete.

Another game that makes the 3GB 1060 obsolete is Cyberpunk 2077, here it’s not even possible to achieve 40 fps using the absolute lowest quality settings at 1080p. The 6GB model isn’t exactly amazing either but with over 20% greater performance it’s at least playable.

Performance in Forza Horizon 4 for the 3GB model is quite good and using the lowest quality preset at 1080p allowed for 159 fps, just 5% fewer than the 6GB version. We see similar scaling with the medium quality settings and then a large drop using ultra where the 3GB card was almost 30% slower. Similar scaling was witnessed at 1440p.

Surprisingly, Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order plays perfectly fine on the 3GB 1060, even when using the highest quality settings, though you’ll want to stick to 1080p as there’s simply not enough GPU power here for 1440p gaming, at least with the Epic preset enabled.

At 1080p the 3GB version was typically 5-7% slower and then up to 12% slower at 1440p, but overall decent performance in this title.

Last up we have F1 2020 and no surprises, the 3GB 1060 plays fine, trailing the 6GB model by a 6-8% margin. As a result, the 1080p performance was highly playable, even with the maximum quality preset and really you could get away with running this card at 1440p.

Average Framerates

Before our wrap up, below is a look at the 17 game average and as you can see the 3GB version of the GTX 1060 is faring much worse than it did a few years ago. It’s no longer 7% slower on average at 1080p. In fact, using the lowest quality settings, it was on average 14% slower, then 20% slower using medium settings, and a whopping 32% slower with high quality settings.

It’s a similar but slightly worse story at 1440p as the 3GB model trailed by a 20% margin using low, 22% slower with medium and 23% slower using high. The margins using the high preset at 1440p are actually better for the 3GB card when compared to what we see at 1080p, and this is down to the fact that the GTX 1060 becomes more limited by its own raw performance.

Wrap Up: 3GB of VRAM in 2021?

It’s been a few years since we last looked at the 3GB GTX 1060 and it’s been interesting to see how it tackles the latest and greatest games. We knew upfront it wasn’t going to be pretty when using higher quality settings, but we also expected it to fail less than it did with lower quality settings.

Games such as Resident Evil Village and Cyberpunk 2077 are complete write offs, but we also saw large performance drops in games like Doom Eternal, Death Stranding, and Horizon Zero Dawn.

Then of course, there are many games where the 3GB buffer is a non-issue and highly popular esports titles like Rainbow Six Siege run just fine. If you’re a competitive gamer using an older and slower graphics card, think GTX 750 Ti, there’s certainly value in upgrading to a 3GB GTX 1060 as that will net you quite a bit of extra performance. This is even more attractive when you consider it’s one of the cheapest graphics cards available on the second hand market right now.

Ultimately though, my advice would be to hold out, wait for the industry to improve, and buy a more modern graphics card at a reasonable price. We have no idea how long it will take before we’re back to «normal» though. So if you’re desperate to get gaming and don’t want to break the bank, this is one of the better options available right now, especially for esports-type gamers.

On a side note, we expect this testing will open up the discussion regarding newer GeForce GPUs, such as the RTX 3070 which comes with 8GB of VRAM, whereas competing parts like the RX 6800 pack as much at 16GB.

In the case of the 3GB vs 6GB battle, it took at least 3 years before the lower capacity model started to regularly run into issues and about 5 years before it was unusable in some games. You could argue that 3GB of VRAM wasn’t considered «a lot» back in 2016, and perhaps 4GB vs 8GB would be a more valid comparison, but at the end of the day I think the results would be much the same.

We can probably agree that in 2016, 4GB of VRAM was considered mid-range at best, and probably more suitable for a lower end product. Meanwhile 8GB was high-end with products of the time, at least on Nvidia’s side receiving 11 and 12GB buffers.

Fast forward to today, we’re not 5 years into the future from when Pascal launched. Is 8GB of VRAM still suitably high-end or mid-range even? I think not and AMD arguably on the right track when it comes to memory buffers… 16GB or more at the high-end, 8-16GB at the mid-range, and then 6 to 8GB at the low-end. I do believe we’re past the point where 4GB buffers are useful.

Right now the RTX 3070 works fine and is considered a mid to high-end GPU offering, but you have to wonder how an 8GB buffer will get on in a few years time. Of course, you can always turn down stuff like textures to reduce VRAM load and that’s a perfectly acceptable compromise to make on low-end and even some mid-range products, but probably not for $500+ graphics cards.

The RTX 3070 vs. RX 6800 battle is complicated and can’t simply be decided by measuring VRAM buffers. The GeForce GPU has a number of strengths such as more mature ray tracing support, a growing list of DLSS supported titles, and Nvidia’s encoder. But if it becomes heavily VRAM constrained in a few years, all those advantages go out the window and the 3070 becomes a gimped product.

If you wish to hold onto your graphics card for 3-5 years, I’d expect the RX 6800 to end up being a much better investment for you, but if you upgrade every 2-3 years the RTX 3070 might offer more value in the short term thanks to features such as DLSS, if it’s supported in the games you play.

Shopping Shortcuts:

• 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

90,000 miners are not interested in it, but gamers? GECID. com. Page 1

::>Video cards
>2021
> NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 3GB gaming test in Full HD and Quad HD in 2021: miners are not interested in it, but gamers?

24-03-2021

Page 1
Page 2
One page

In one of the previous articles, we evaluated the capabilities of the 6 GB version of the GTX 1060. Now, once again, let’s remember the 3 GB version. It is based on the GP106-300 graphics processor instead of the GP106-400 in the older modification. It has fewer CUDA cores and texture units — by 128 and 8, respectively, but the same clock speeds. The video memory subsystem of the reference versions differs only in size. Otherwise, they are similar.

9 will play the main role this time0013 MAXSUN GeForce GTX 1060 Terminator 3 G . In 2017, we took it for tests from the TOMTOP store. Although this vendor is not very popular in our area, but the video card has survived more than one test and feels good to this day.

It has a reference GPU frequency formula and 3GB of GDDR5 memory. Its 2-slot cooler includes an aluminum heat sink, a pair of heat pipes and two fans. This is enough to push the GPU frequency above 1800 MHz in games. And in the set of external interfaces there are five ports for comfortable connection of various monitors.

The rest of the test stand configuration is as follows.

The 6-core 12-thread processor Core i5-10600 is more than enough to test similar video cards of the previous generation. The multiplier is locked, so the frequency does not rise above 4.8 GHz in single-threaded mode.

We will not overclock the processor and memory, so we took a simpler motherboard — ASRock h570 Steel Legend . It is suitable for powerful gaming builds with 11-phase power supply, efficient cooling, and a reinforced PCIe 3.0 x16 slot.

The 2-section dropsy ID-COOLING DashFlow 240 with colorful RGB lighting is responsible for the optimal temperature of the processor. In general, in games, the temperature was in the range of 40-70 ° C, with a critical indicator of 100 ° C. This made it possible to stably keep the frequency of all streams at the level of 4.4 — 4.5 GHz.

Optimal for such a system is 16 GB of memory in 2-channel mode. We have it represented by the DDR4-2400 HyperX Fury RGB 9 kit0014 which was manually overclocked to 2666 MHz with the same timings.

The operating system and game clients were installed on a 480 GB Kingston A400 M.2 SSD. There is a similar model in 2.5-inch format, but with less wires with M.2. In any case, the SATA interface is used, so read and write speeds are declared at 500 and 450 MB/s.

We took a capacious 2-terabyte M.2 Kingston KC2500 with 4 PCIe 3.0 lanes for games. It is based on 96-layer 3D NAND TLC chips and SMI 2262EN controller. The TBW reaches 1.2 PetaBytes.

High-quality power supply for all nodes is guaranteed by the Seasonic FOCUS GX-650 source with one powerful +12V channel and 80 PLUS Gold certificate. It is not only powerful and reliable. It is also a pleasure to work with thanks to its modular cable system, easy-to-lay cables and hybrid mode of the cooling system.

Assembled the system inside the case Antec Dark Phantom DP502 FLUX . It supports the installation of massive CPU coolers up to 175mm high and top-end graphics cards up to 405mm long. Inside there is room for three coolant radiators: 360mm will fit on the front and top panel, and for 120mm there is a place on the back wall.

The picture was displayed on a 27-inch AOC U2790PQU monitor. Gameplays recorded by external system with AVerMedia Live Gamer 4K , i. e. without loss of performance.

First of all, we compared the performance of the 3 and 6 GB versions of the GeForce GTX 1060 in popular gaming benchmarks.

Assassin’ s Creed Valhalla with the medium preset reserves 3.5 GB of video memory for its needs, if available. The younger GTX 1060 has an increased load on the slower RAM. As a result, the indicators are reduced by 11-18%.

Godfall requires more than 5 GB of VRAM at the same medium preset. And here again, the older GTX 1060 shows itself in all its glory. Its lead over the competitor is 43% in average speed and 130% in statistics of very rare events.

An interesting situation happened with Horizon Zero Dawn . If possible, the benchmark reserves 5 GB of video memory, but in a system with a 3-gigabyte version there is no increase in RAM consumption, and the indicators themselves are reduced by 11-13%. And this is at best. Indeed, on the GTX 1063, the first few passes turned out with friezes up to 8 FPS.

And if the benchmark generally requires little video memory, such as Total War Saga: Troy , then the difference in performance there is not high — 8-12% in favor of the GTX 1066.

10% between video cards was recorded in Watch Dogs Legion . Monitoring reports that with an average preset, the benchmark has enough 3 GB of video memory. Although this is hardly the reason for such a difference — most likely, the performance of the GPU itself is not enough.

On average, we get 20-35% in benchmarks in favor of the 6 GB GTX 1060. In other words, the results of the GTX 1063 are 16-19% lower. Let’s see if we feel this difference in real gameplay.

All games will be launched one by one in two resolutions: Full HD and Quad HD. The second is for the sake of sports interest and comparison with past results. Quad HD monitors are becoming more and more popular, and for sure someone is wondering: “How will the GTX 1063 perform in games in this case?”

World of Tanks on ultras in Full HD on the Industrial Zone map averages over a hundred FPS with excellent statistics of rare and very rare events. The same level was with the GTX 1066 on the Overlord map. In Quad HD, the 0.1% Low fell below 30 fps. Last time he managed to rise to 43, but this time the test session ended earlier. But in general, it’s comfortable to play.

B Little Nightmares II we also didn’t notice much difference compared to the results of the GTX 1066, as the video memory needs just over a gigabyte. Basically it all depends on the location. In Full HD on ultras, we get an average of a hundred FPS, in Quad HD — 70. In both cases, the gameplay is pleasant and does not cause any complaints.

You can evaluate Grounded in 1080p at a high quality preset. The average speed is just around 60 frames / s, and the statistics of rare and very rare events does not inspire concern.

For 1440p resolution, I had to drop to a low profile to raise the current frame rate to around 40-50 fps. The indicators are not record-breaking, but there were no friezes and stators. The 6GB GTX 1060 had the same results.

Last time Rainbow Six Siege in Full HD you could run on ultras with 100% zoom. This mode requires 4 GB of video memory. This time I had to go down to a very high preset with the same scaling. But we did not notice the difference in the quality of the picture and the gameplay.

In Quad HD, you can stay at the same quality preset. Compared to the GTX 1066, the figures sank by 12-15%. Nevertheless, the video sequence remained smooth, and the controls were responsive. There is no hint of any discomfort.

Fortnite with an epic preset in Full HD pleases with an average speed of around 70 fps and upsets with small lags. They are clearly visible according to the statistics of very rare events, but they do not cause much discomfort. And if they deliver — welcome to the folk medium settings.

In Quad HD, it’s best to go down to the high preset to get an average of 60 FPS. Jamming does not disappear anywhere, but you are unlikely to lose a duel because of them. With the GTX 1066, the 0.1% Low stats were much better.

specs and tests in 13 games and 1 benchmark

NVIDIA started selling the GeForce GTX 1060 3GB on August 18, 2016 for a suggested price of $199. This is a desktop video card based on Pascal architecture with a 16 nm process technology. It has 3 GB of GDDR5 memory with a frequency of 2002 MHz, bus 192 bits, which provides a throughput of 8 Gbps.

The card occupies 2 slots, connected via PCIe 3. 0 x16 interface. The length of the reference version is 250 mm. The card requires one 6-pin auxiliary power cable, the declared maximum power consumption is 120 watts.

Specifications

GPU

GPU name

GP106

GPU variant

GP106-300-A1

Architecture

Pascal

Manufacturer

TSMC

Process

16 nm

Number of transistors

4400 million

Crystal area

200 mm²

Graphic card

Release date

August 18, 2016

Generation

GeForce 10

Predecessor

GeForce 900

Descendant

GeForce 20

Launch price

$199

Market price

$170

Data bus interface

PCIe 3. 0 x16

Frequencies

Base frequency

1506 MHz

Boost frequency

1708 MHz

Memory frequency

2002 MHz

Memory

Memory capacity

3 GB

Memory type

GDDR5

Memory bus

192 bit

Memory speed

8 Gb/s

Memory bandwidth

192.2 GB/s

Render configuration

Shader units

1152

Texture blocks

72

Screen blocks

48

Streaming Multiprocessors

9

L1 cache

48 KB

L2 cache

1. 5 MB

Rated output

Pixel fill rate

81.98 GP/s

Texture Fill Rate

123 GT/s

Performance FP16

61.49 GFlops

Performance FP32

3.935 Tflops

Performance FP64

123 GFlops

Graphics

DirectX

12 (12_1)

OpenGL

4.6

OpenCL

1.2

Vulcan

1.2

CUDA

6.1

Shader model

6. 4

Video card design

Occupied slots

2

Length

250 mm

Heat Sink Requirements

120W

Recommended PSU power

300W

Outlets

1x DVI 1x HDMI 3x DisplayPort

Power supply

1x 6-pin

Board number

PG410 SKU 20

Maximum temperature

63 °C

Maximum noise

42.2 dB

FPS in games

Assassin’s Creed Valhalla

(2020)

Better than AMD Radeon HD 7990, but worse than AMD Radeon RX 480.

1920×1080 / Ultra / 28.1

2560×1440 / Ultra / 24.4

3840×2160 / Ultra / 16.5

Valorant

(2020)

Better than AMD Radeon RX 480, but worse than NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690.

1920×1080 / Ultra / 123.4

2560×1440 / Ultra / 100.9

3840×2160 / Ultra / 87. 8

Death Stranding

(2020)

Better than AMD Radeon RX 480, but worse than NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690.

1920×1080 / Ultra / 55.9

2560×1440 / Ultra / 43.4

3840×2160 / Ultra / 26.3

Cyberpunk 2077

(2020)

Better than AMD Radeon HD 7990, but worse than AMD Radeon RX 480.

1920×1080 / Ultra / 28.1

2560×1440 / Ultra / 26. 3

3840×2160 / Ultra / 17.2

Apex Legends

(2019)

Better than NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q, but worse than NVIDIA Quadro T1000.

1920×1080 / Ultra / 59.8

2560×1440 / Ultra / 44.5

3840×2160 / Ultra / 26.6

Metro Exodus

(2019)

Better than NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti, but worse than NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 6GB.

1920×1080 / Ultra / 33.3

2560×1440 / Ultra / 25.9

3840×2160 / Ultra / 16.3

Red Dead Redemption 2

(2019)

Better than AMD Radeon HD 7990, but worse than NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690.

1920×1080 / Ultra / 28.9

2560×1440 / Ultra / 23.6

3840×2160 / Ultra / 15. 0

PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds

(2017)

Better than NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M, but worse than AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 Mobile.

1920×1080 / Ultra / 49.6

2560×1440 / Ultra / 37.6

3840×2160 / Ultra / 21.4

Overwatch

(2016)

Better than NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970, but worse than NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q.

1920×1080 / Ultra / 104. 1

2560×1440 / Ultra / 71.8

3840×2160 / Ultra / 37.1

Grand Theft Auto V

(2015)

Better than AMD Radeon R9 390X, but worse than NVIDIA Quadro RTX 3000 Max-Q.

1920×1080 / Ultra / 58.3

2560×1440 / Ultra / 38.5

3840×2160 / Ultra / 29.9

The Witcher 3

(2015)

Better than AMD Radeon R9 290, but worse than AMD Radeon R9 390.

1920×1080 / Ultra / 50.0

2560×1440 / Ultra / 37.2

3840×2160 / Ultra / 21.4

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive

(2012)

Better than NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK, but worse than AMD Radeon RX 580.

1920×1080 / Ultra / 187.8

2560×1440 / Ultra / 156.5

3840×2160 / Ultra / 140.