Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060 Graphics Card Roundup

Gigabyte GeForce GTX 1060 G1 Gaming 6G

Gigabyte's GeForce GTX 1060 G1 Gaming 6G is not the manufacturer's least-expensive version. Rather, it targets price-conscious gamers looking for a good deal, but still interested in feature-rich hardware. Thus, this factory-overclocked card represents the mass-market model of Gigabyte's GeForce GTX 1060s. The company reserves shorter ITX-oriented models for its system integrator business and doesn't aggressively advertise them directly to enthusiasts. Instead, the GeForce GTX 1060 G1 Gaming 6G employs a full-size PCB covered by a relatively large cooler.

Technical Specifications

MORE: Best Graphics Cards

MORE: Desktop GPU Performance Hierarchy Table

MORE: All Graphics Content

Exterior & Interfaces

The fan shroud is made of black plastic and seems fairly inconspicuous, despite some orange detail work. The two 3½-inch (9cm) fans are well known from previous Windforce-equipped models, and (from an aesthetic perspective) seem a bit lost on this otherwise long card.

Weighing in at just under 29 ounces (813g), this card is light for its size, particularly given measurements of more than 11 inches (28cm) long, 4 1/3 inches (11cm) tall, and 1 1/3 inches (3.5cm) wide. It occupies two full expansion slots, and is neither particularly small nor really oversized.

We're glad that Gigabyte decided against the almost obligatory third fan present on many of its coolers. Frankly, another one would have been completely superfluous for this card. A little more distance between the fans might have worked even better, though.

The card is covered by a single-piece backplate and lacks openings for ventilation. But it is connected to the board in two spots via thermal tape to aid active cooling. Because of the backplate, though, you must plan for an additional one-fifth of an inch (5mm) of clearance to avoid collisions with your CPU's cooler, particularly in small form factor cases.

Up top, there's a back-lit Gigabyte logo and one indicator for the semi-passive mode. Both are enabled as customizable RGB LEDs. An eight-pin auxiliary power connector is rotated 180° and positioned at the end of the card.

Vertically-oriented cooling fins mean that hardly any air escapes through the slot bracket, even though narrow slits in the metal suggest otherwise. The vertical fins are cheaper to implement, since they make it easier to arrange the heat pipes. You just have to be diligent about exhausting all of that waste heat out of your case.

The slot cover exposes five outputs, four of which can be used simultaneously to drive multi-monitor configurations. In addition to one dual-link DVI output (which lacks an analog signal), you also get one HDMI 2.0 interface and three DisplayPort 1.4-capable connectors.

Board & Components

A look at the board reveals that it was inspired by Gigabyte's GeForce GTX 1080 G1 Gaming and GeForce GTX 1070 G1 Gaming, but with far fewer components since the 1060 is electrically less complex.

Gigabyte relies on a rather unusual 6+1-phase design, with a uPI Semiconductor uP9511P PWM controller for the GPU's six phases, leaving two emplacements vacant. The memory's power comes from a seventh phase controlled by a uP1666; it consists of a single regulator circuit.

Since the PWM controller can't communicate directly with each phase's MOSFETs, Gigabyte utilizes separate PWM drivers (gate drivers) to control the two single-channel MOSFETs per phase for the range of the DC/DC voltage converter (low- and high-side). The second low-side MOSFET, which the higher-end cards do have, is missing in this case.

Two capacitors are installed right below the GPU to absorb and equalize voltage peaks.

Only six of the eight available memory emplacements are populated with Samsung K4G80325FB-HC25 modules. Each one adds 8Gb (32x256Mb) and operates at voltages between 1.305 and 1.597V, depending on clock rate. In total, they add up to this card's 6GB of GDDR5.

Power Results

Before addressing power consumption directly, let's take a look at the relationship between clock rate and voltage. As we've seen already, the GPU's frequency drops significantly once the card is fully exercised with a gaming workload.

After warm-up, the initial GPU Boost clock rate of 2000 MHz falls to a still-respectable 1974 MHz under load. The slope of this curve is mirrored by our voltage measurements, which aren't much worse either (on average, we measured 1.05V). This value drops slightly, but only sporadically.

The lowest GPU clock rate measured at idle is about 240 MHz.

We took our measurements using a variable low-pass filter, so we mention short load peaks only as a side note (see the grayed-out bar in the chart below), since those peaks are rarely relevant in practice.

Power Connector Load

Since Gigabyte's GeForce GTX 1060 G1 Gaming doesn't use the motherboard slot's 3.3V rail, we left it out of our chart.

The power distribution we observe shows a heavy bias toward the auxiliary power connector, which supplies about 100W.

Here's the data for the gaming and stress tests:

Power consumption on its own only tells us part of the story. The PCI-SIG specifies a maximum of 5.5A at the motherboard slot, and we're showing a reading under 3A, which puts Gigabyte's GeForce GTX 1060 G1 Gaming 6G in the green.

Of course, we have the data for measured currents as well:

The Cooler & Its Performance

When Gigabyte first launched this card, it didn't have thermal pads on the backplate to help draw heat from the board. This changed during mass production, however, after we passed along our feedback.

The revised version wasn't available at the time this review was originally written, so we had to implement the changes Gigabyte made ourselves. Similar to the GeForce GTX 1080 G1 Gaming, there are now two pads on the plate. They're in slightly different places, though, since a 1060's hot-spots aren't quite the same. One corresponds to the VRMs, while the other sits opposite Nvidia's GPU.

We started by taking readings with the card as it shipped from Gigabyte, and then introduced our modifications, which we can judge based on their effect on thermal performance.

The cooler employs vertically-oriented fins and two angled 6mm heat pipes made of a sintered composite material. They're flattened to sit flush with the heat sink, and directly touch the GPU. For cost reasons, the sink is all-aluminum, while the supporting base plate is fashioned from steel to improve stability.

It deserves a positive mention that the heat sink for the voltage regulation circuitry is built into the cooler and does an excellent job.

A measurement between 152 and 154°F (67 to 68°C) during our gaming loop, peaking at 158°F (70°C) in a closed case, proves that the cooler does an acceptable job. Based on our do-it-yourself attempt at replicating Gigabyte's modified version, we'd expect to see temperatures about two Kelvin lower.

Measurements taken with the backplate removed show a maximum of ~160°F (71°C) around the VRMs. That's an excellent value for what often appears as a troubling hot-spot on competing cards. Thermal pads should help even more, too.

In both our gaming workload and stress test, Gigabyte's cooler works the way it should, yielding satisfactory infrared images.

Although we were initially skeptical of how well the two flattened heat pipes would fare, the thermal solution performs as well as we could ask. Two 8mm or three 6mm heat pipes would have made more sense to us since they would have covered the GPU completely. But it's good to see Gigabyte cooling the front and back of its card in such a way that hot-spots are minimized.

Sound Results

Implementing exemplary hysteresis is a matter of honor for Gigabyte, and the company doesn't disappoint. With that said, a fan speed just above 1400 RPM shows where this solution's performance comes from. Of course, you can always play with the fan curve yourself. Before we do that, let's see what the stock noise levels sounds like.

When the card is idle, its noise level is imperceptible due to a semi-passive mode. There's no point taking readings in that state.

Under load, a 34 dB(A) reading is commendable, even if it isn't completely silent. In a closed case, the GeForce GTX 1060 G1 Gaming would only be audible as a soft whisper. The bearing noises we measure are acceptable, and there is very little unwanted structure-borne noise.

Relatively aggressive factory overclocking turns this fairly quiet card into a capable performer. It doesn't slip up in any of the disciplines we consider important, and lands at the top of our results in each individual test. A high GPU Boost frequency, which remains stable even after we warm the card up, make this an interesting choice for additional overclocking.

MORE: Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Roundup

MORE: Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070 Roundup

MORE: All Graphics Content

Create a new thread in the Reviews comments forum about this subject
This thread is closed for comments
42 comments
Comment from the forums
    Your comment
  • TechyInAZ
    Thank you for doing these roundups! Very informative.
  • Achaios
    @Igor: I really appreciate your articles. I have one small request: PLEASE consider adding benchmarks results from 3D MARK FIRESTRIKE so that we can compare your results with our GPU's. Really appreciated your "Das große Radeon RX480 Test-Roundup - Teil 1" too, though again, there are no 3D MARK FIRESTRIKE results.
  • bloodroses
    Darnit, the Zotac and Gigabyte mini models weren't covered. I was curious to see how those two compare vs. the EVGA model since I'm working with limited space inside my case.
  • agent88
    I bought a retail MSI Geforce GTX 1060 Gaming X card last month and it was defaulted to OC mode by default. This is the same as the test version that the press received. Wondering if MSI is shipping this version to all consumers now or if I just got lucky with a "golden sample". Also, MSI provides both the MSI gaming app and afterburner software. The gaming app offers 1-click option to choose the OC mode. A
  • Pete16
    What about Asus? At least two graphics should be there
  • shrapnel_indie
    Good to see a roundup... However, I think the 3GB and the 6GB belong in the same category as much as the RX-470 and RX-480 do. That is: they don't.
  • ITFT
    Where is my ASUS 6Gb OC edition? Clocks over 2Ghz by the way :D
  • FritzEiv
    We're working on getting more cards in for all categories (1080, 1070, 1060), including from Asus, which is working on getting us cards. In fact, we'll have an update to our 1070 roundup shortly (2 new cards). And we're working on a 480 roundup as well.
  • mikeangs2004
    Anonymous said:
    Darnit, the Zotac and Gigabyte mini models weren't covered. I was curious to see how those two compare vs. the EVGA model since I'm working with limited space inside my case.


    they are kind of for the niche market just like in the days of low profile units
  • Ancient1
    Regarding the EVGA GTX 1060 SC :
    Could someone who disassemble it post the measurements ( WxHxL ) of the HEATPIPE ?? I plan on carving a Copper Heatsink, rather than Thermal Pads.
    I am also thinking about HS for the memory etc , along the Pipe. But it will impact AirFlow and might degrade the HeatPipe efficiency as , to my knowledge, Heatpipe depends on temperature difference between the cooled GPU and the Heat Expelling (to the fins) areas of it.
    Please post, Google will find it :)
    Thanks in advance
  • FormatC
    Anonymous said:
    @Igor: I really appreciate your articles. I have one small request: PLEASE consider adding benchmarks results from 3D MARK FIRESTRIKE so that we can compare your results with our GPU's. Really appreciated your "Das große Radeon RX480 Test-Roundup - Teil 1" too, though again, there are no 3D MARK FIRESTRIKE results.


    The main problem of this "benchmark": it is a synthetic and not consistent one. That means, it is impossible to compare this results over a longer time! Each benchmark update and each new driver can change the results dramatically. I totally dislike this kind of comparisons, because it can be only a snapshot of a short moment and it is not fair. It also depends at the other hardware in the system and at the the end you can compare such things only in their own, small microcosm ;)

    About Asus, EVGA (and mini ITX) cards:
    I can test only, what I get/got. A few vendors were not amused in the past, that I disassembled the cards and found their hotspots and issues. This is mentionable in the kind and amount of sampling. But I have a handful of smaller cards in the pipeline to complete this roundup thing later. This was also the idea behind to keep the content always fresh.
  • Achaios
    Yeah but, 3D MARK is still FAR better than nothing. Right now we have no means AT ALL to compare our GPU's to your results unless we buy the games themselves. BTW, why do you include the GTAV benchmark? It is not consistent either and therefore absolutely impossible to reproduce. If you include GTAV benchmark, then I see no reason why not to include 3D Mark or Valley or some other benchmark.
  • FormatC
    The GTA V benchmark is consistent if you record only the last (5th) part of the ingame-benchmark. It is also long enough and a lot more real than all other parts of this in-game benchmark. I run it scripted three times - with a hot card. The results are in each case very stable. And I'm not using, what GTA is writing into the file. We are monitoring the output with our software.

    All benchmark runs were made with heated cards in a closed system, maybe you read my review about the new bench table. That means, my results are mostly worse than in other reviews on an open bench table (Boost). And exactly this is another reason, why such results are not really comparable. It give you a direction, a trend - but nothing more :)

    From my sight:
    It is very difficult to compare the same card on different systems. But different cards (with the same GPU inside) on different systems is even more a big mess. It is simply not fair to think, that card A on system B is faster or slower than card C on system D (and vise versa). I like comparisons under 100% equal conditions, but all this crossover-comparisons are a pain. ;)

    I try to test all products of a roundup with frozen drivers and windows updates to have over this period the same conditions. The reader is updating his system as often as he can and some driver changes may cause dramatically different results. I had in the past very often such situations, when ppl compared their fresh stuff with a six month old roundup and called me a Nvidia or AMD fanboy, depending at the drivers and the preferred product. :D

    As I wrote in the roundup:
    The goal of such a roundup is in the first line a fair technical analysis and comparison of different solutions, not a collection of some benchmark bars. Benchmarks you can find tons in the net, bars in each color and size that you prefer. But the main difference between this tested cards are not the bars, but other fundamental things like cooling, power draw and finally: issues and broken standards.

    But if it is sooooo important - let me check, how we can add Firestrike or something similar in the next reviews. Just preparing the first 1080 Ti custom for this.
  • g-unit1111
    Us US users don't get Palit, Inno3D, or Gainward, can we get some cards that are more readily available in the States in some of these?
  • TechyInAZ
    I hope you guys get in the 1060 FTW cards. I'm really curious how those stack vs the G1 Gaming.
  • FormatC
    I'll try it. :)
  • Fulgurant
    Anonymous said:
    Darnit, the Zotac and Gigabyte mini models weren't covered. I was curious to see how those two compare vs. the EVGA model since I'm working with limited space inside my case.


    FWIW, I bought the Zotac Mini over the summer when nothing else was in stock, and I'm very pleased. It's a little loud when the fan revs up, but despite the simplistic cooler it runs at reasonable temperatures -- and I was relieved to see that it has heatsinks over the VRMs.

    That last point is gratifying, because until I read this article I assumed the EVGA mini would have been superior. Now I begin to doubt it, though of course FormatC's little mod probably makes up the difference.
  • Drakan
    Would have liked to see Doom on Vulkan or Civ VI that is supposed to be a powered by AMD. Too many Powered by nvidia games there. I'm sure the 1060gtx 6gb would still be on top, but it's just a more "fair" loss
  • FormatC
    @Drakan
    The problem with all games: drivers may change fast and an advantage can be very fast a disdvantage. It is nearly impossible to make (and keep) a 100% fair selection over months. I started the roundup a few months ago and had to frozen the system to keep the conditions. ;)

    The idea behind this review is NOT the comparison with the RX480 (for this we have game reviews with current AAA titles), but the comparison between the products and different models of various vendors. The technical details are mostly more interesting than simple bar graphs ;)
  • Drakan
    Anonymous said:
    @Drakan
    The problem with all games: drivers may change fast and an advantage can be very fast a disdvantage. It is nearly impossible to make (and keep) a 100% fair selection over months. I started the roundup a few months ago and had to frozen the system to keep the conditions. ;)

    The idea behind this review is NOT the comparison with the RX480 (for this we have game reviews with current AAA titles), but the comparison between the products and different models of various vendors. The technical details are mostly more interesting than simple bar graphs ;)


    Thanks for the reply and I appreciate the effort. You are right, this is a 1060gtx roundup. A good one :). Expecting AMD VGA to arrive though to see if I get a 1070 or an AMD.

    Cheers!