Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060 6GB Review

Two months after its debut, Nvidia’s Pascal architecture is slowly filling out the company’s desktop graphics card portfolio from top to bottom. First came the GeForce GTX 1080, serving up 30%+ more performance than a GeForce GTX 980 Ti for less money. Online vendors still can’t keep them in stock (Newegg doesn’t have any as of this writing). Then we were introduced to the GeForce GTX 1070, which also outperforms a 980 Ti for hundreds of dollars less.

Now we’re getting a third Pascal-based board in the GeForce GTX 1060. Announced earlier this month, we already know that Nvidia’s partners will have versions starting at $250. The Founders Edition implementation will sell for $300 on nvidia.com and in Best Buy stores, so don’t be surprised when you don’t find them elsewhere online.

GeForce GTX 1060 is based on a brand new GPU called GP106 that exposes many of the same features as GP104, but in a more mainstream package. Don’t let that term dissuade you, though. The 1060 may be a mere 120W card, but Nvidia says it’s good for GeForce GTX 980-class frame rates. Two years ago, that level of performance sold for $550. We’ve come a long way, to be sure.

Meet GP106

Nvidia builds its flagship GeForce GTX 1080 using a complete GP104 processor with four Graphics Processing Clusters enabled. This yields a card with 2560 CUDA cores and 160 texture units. The GTX 1070 centers on the same GPU with three of its GPCs turned on, adding up to 1920 cores and 120 texture units.

Block diagram of Nvidia's Pascal-based GP106Block diagram of Nvidia's Pascal-based GP106

GeForce GTX 1060 scales down similarly using the same architectural building blocks. From our GeForce GTX 1080 launch coverage:

“Each GPC includes five Thread/Texture Processing Clusters and raster engine. Broken down further, a TPC combines one Streaming Multiprocessor and a PolyMorph engine. The SM combines 128 single-precision CUDA cores, 256KB register file capacity, 96KB of shared memory, 48KB of L1/texture cache and eight texture units. Meanwhile, the fourth-generation PolyMorph engine includes a new block of logic that sits at the end of the geometry pipeline and ahead of the raster unit for handling Nvidia’s Simultaneous Multi-Projection feature.”

GPU
GeForce GTX 1060 (GP106)
GeForce GTX 980 (GM204)
SMs
10
16
CUDA Cores
1280
2048
Base Clock
1506 MHz
1126 MHz
GPU Boost Clock
1708 MHz
1216 MHz
GFLOPs (Base Clock)
3855
4612
Texture Units
80
128
Texel Fill Rate
120.5 GT/s
144.1 GT/s
Memory Data Rate
8 Gb/s
7 Gb/s
Memory Bandwidth
192 GB/s
224 GB/s
ROPs
48
64
L2 Cache
1.5MB
2MB
TDP
120W
165W
Transistors
4.4 billion
5.2 billion
Die Size
200 mm²398 mm²
Process Node
16 nm
28 nm

GP106 comes equipped with two GPCs, so you end up with a total of 1280 CUDA cores and 80 texture units. The chip benefits from the same optimized timings that let Nvidia crank the clock rates up on GP104, facilitating a base frequency of 1506 MHz and a typical GPU Boost rating of 1708 MHz.

The processor’s back-end is trimmed down, too. Six 32-bit memory controllers provide an aggregate 192-bit data path. Like the larger GP104, each controller is associated with eight ROPs and 256KB of L2, adding up to 48 ROPs and 1.5MB of cache. Nvidia drops 6GB of 8 GT/s GDDR5 onto the board, serving up to 192 GB/s of peak throughput. Although that figure is lower than the GTX 980's 224 GB/s, remember also that Pascal employs new lossless techniques to extract savings in the memory subsystem, effectively increasing usable bandwidth. Adapted from our GTX 1080 coverage, "[GP106's] delta color compression tries to achieve 2:1 savings, and this mode is purportedly enhanced to be usable more often. There’s also a new 4:1 mode that covers cases when per-pixel differences are very small and compressible into even less space. Finally, Pascal has a new 8:1 mode that combines 4:1 constant compression to 2x2 blocks with 2:1 compression of the differences between them."

Of course, GP106 is manufactured using the same TSMC 16FF+ process as GP104. Whereas the larger GPU is composed of 7.2 billion transistors on a 314 mm² die, Nvidia packs 4.4 billion FinFET transistors into 200 mm² for GP106. The less-complex processor, coupled with less memory on a simpler PCA, results in a 120W TDP.

A First: No SLI For Upper-Mainstream

Notice the lack of an SLI connector up top? Nvidia recommends a GeForce GTX 1070 or 1080 to gamers looking for more performance than a 1060 delivers (of course), and does not support SLI on the 1060. Generationally, this is the highest-end board we can recall without the technology. Sure, the GeForce GTX 750 Ti didn't have it, but the 760 did. So too did the GeForce GTX 950.

Officially, Nvidia internalizes the decision. There aren't many gamers who pair up mainstream GPUs, and the company doesn't want to spread resources thin, so it's focusing on optimizing SLI on faster Pascal-based cards. Beyond that explanation, though, game development is going a different direction with post-processing and compute-oriented effects that aren't friendly to alternate-frame rendering. And with DirectX 12, more control is shifted to ISVs eager to get their content out as quickly as possible. That means much of the work Nvidia pours into its drivers is circumvented.

We do have one game in our suite that supports multiple GPUs through DirectX 12: Ashes of the Singularity. After adding a second GeForce GTX 1060 and clicking one checkbox, we see the following speed-up:

Although that's not the kind of scaling we're used to seeing from SLI, ~50% isn't bad. Unfortunately, we can't even experiment with DirectX 11 games and DX12 titles without support for multiple adapters built-in.

Given that this is a 1080p-focused card, Nvidia could retroactively enable SLI over PCI Express through a driver update, and we hope it does. Regardless of how few gamers might be interested in pairing up GTX 1060 cards, there are still plenty of DX11 titles that benefit from mutli-GPU configurations. And any problem that GP106 has cutting through DX12-imposed scaling issues applies to GP104-based cards, too. Let performance benchmarks determine how attractive SLI'ed 1060s are or are not, we say.

A Closer Look At The GeForce GTX 1060 Founders Edition

Nvidia continues with its edgier 10-series Founders Edition design, though the GTX 1060 sports a presumably less expensive implementation compared to the 1070 and 1080.

That doesn't mean the new card is small, though. It's 25.4 cm long (measured from the slot cover to end of the card), 10.7 cm tall (measured from the top of the motherboard slot to the top of the card) and 3.8 cm deep. In all actuality, the card's depth is only 3.5 cm, but its slot cover sticks out by 0.3 cm.

At 845g, the GeForce GTX 1060 Founders Edition isn’t particularly light either.

Design, Feel & Connectors

Once again, Nvidia uses a mixture of aluminum and plastic for the card’s shroud. It’s a bit simpler this time around, though. The cover, including the fan, can be removed in one piece. Up top, we find the illuminated GeForce GTX logo, along with a six-pin power connector.

The GeForce GTX 1060’s back end is a bit of a departure from previous designs. Graphics cards with short PCAs often have air intakes where the cooler protrudes beyond the board, servicing the radial fan. Instead, the 1060 has a normal cover without an opening. Undoubtedly due to cost concerns, there's also no backplate.

The back side of the card presents us with a familiar sight.

The I/O panel is copied from Nvidia's GeForce GTX 1080 and 1070 without a single change. It’s dominated by three DisplayPort connectors, which are version 1.2-compatible. However, they company tells us they're also ready for version 1.3 and 1.4 as well, matching the GPU's display controller. In addition, there’s an HDMI 2.0 connector and a dual-link DVI connector; no analog output is available.

Cooler Design, Board & Power Supply

Turning our attention inward, we remove the shroud to expose the GeForce GTX 1060's cooling solution.

Up top, we immediately notice the power connector's strange position. It’s situated in a part of the cooler that protrudes beyond the actual PCA. This necessitates a number of cables to attach to the board.

The implementation is anything but elegant, and it prevents Nvidia's partners from building shorter 1060s. Although the card is only 17.5cm long, it doesn't have any space to accommodate a power connector.

Remove the four screws securing the cooler's body and it comes right off. There’s a massive copper heat sink and metal frame underneath. The closed cooling fin design reminds us of the GeForce GTX 1070, and it should provide ample performance given the 1060's 120W TDP.

The massive retention and cooling frame serves double duty by keeping everything in place and cooling the voltage regulation circuitry/memory modules.

Once the frame is unfastened and taken off, it needs to be flipped up and over. This is due to the cables connecting the separate PCIe power connector, which are permanently soldered to the board. Doing this reveals the bare PCA in all of its glory.

As usual, the GPU sits front and center. GP106 is naturally quite a bit smaller than the GP104 GPU we found on Nvidia's GeForce GTX 1080 and 1070. The differences between boards don't end there, though. 

Take the memory modules as an example. Only six of the 1060's emplacements are populated with Samsung K4G80325FB-HC25 GDDR5. They have a capacity of 8Gb (32 x 256Mb) each and run anywhere from 1.305V to 1.597V, depending on clock rate. All told, this is where we get the 1060's 6GB specification.

Unfortunately, the PWM controller isn't documented. It’s made by uPI Semiconductor and bears the model number uP9509, which means that it’s probably the uP9511P’s smaller sibling (the latter controller is what we found paired to the GP104 processor).

The memory modules and one of the GPU phases get their power through the motherboard’s PCIe slot. The two remaining GPU phases and the card’s accessories draw power from the six-pin power connector. We'll take a closer look at what this means in terms of load distribution across the rails on the next page.

When it comes to voltage regulation, Nvidia uses only one Dual N-Channel MOSFET, the E6930, per phase for both the high and low side; separate gate drivers aren’t needed. This highly integrated component explains the empty spaces on the board.

The GPU’s three phases are completely sufficient, and their distribution makes more sense here than on AMD's Radeon RX 480.

Apart from the six-pin power connector, which appears to have taken a wrong turn somewhere, Nvidia's reference GeForce GTX 1060 actually looks pretty good. And given a relatively low amount of waste heat, its axial fan isn't a bad choice either.

MORE: Best Graphics Cards

MORE: Desktop GPU Performance Hierarchy Table

MORE: All Graphics Content

Create a new thread in the US Reviews comments forum about this subject
This thread is closed for comments
216 comments
Comment from the forums
    Your comment
    Top Comments
  • mitch074
    I wonder: with Battlefield 4, why not add the Mantle-enabled rendering path? All existing tests show it to be pretty much equivalent to DX12, and future high-performance, low-latency titles are much more likely to make use of DX12, Vulkan etc. than DX11 or OpenGL...
    On that review, as a matter of fact, you use pretty much only DX11 games and only one DX12 title; new API paths are available in Dota2, Talos Principle and Doom 2016... Why not include them, as a reference for the future of gaming, instead of only showing off DX11 games?
  • kicsako
    This review is kinda strange. You use Project Cars what is known of running so bad on AMD cards, yet there are no dx/vulkan 12 titles except AOTS. We already have Doom(Vulkan), and Total War+Hitman for dx12. This review is weirdly Nvidia biased. People who buy mid lvl cards are not going to change it for at least 2-3 years. And we will see more and more dx12/vulkan titles yet you only include dx11 games with mostly Nvidia support. Never gona read tomshardware ever again.
  • cmi86
    The GTX-1060 seems to be a good 1080/1440 performer, basically on par with the RX-480 in titles that display no bias (2 of the 9 titles in this suite) In titles that display an Nvidia bias (5 of the 9 titles) The GTX-1060 is somewhat faster. In titles that show an AMD bias (2 of the 9 titles) the GTX 1060 is somewhat slower. It is basically impossible to deny the fact that Toms test suite leans pretty strongly to the green side, but it's accurate as most studios tend to optimize towards Nvidia over AMD.

    My only real gripe with the test suite selection is "Project Cars" This title is and always has been known to display a completely unrealistically positive performance bias towards Nvidia hardware. How this title has become a staple in a test suite that claims to be "objective" I do not know. However I can say the repetitive inclusion of this title is completely unacceptable.

    This repetitive choice rivals Toms inclusion of "Metro Last Light" in the " 7990 vs. GTX-690 The Crowd Picks a Winner" where a group of users were gathered to participate in a blind hands on gaming comparison of the 2 GPU's. At this time Metro LL was known to be a strongly nvidia optimized title that showed very strong negative performance disparities towards AMD hardware( some people couldn't even play it before a patch was released), very similar to the now used "project cars". If the mere inclusion of this title in an opinion based performance analysis isn't enough, The event organizers at TomsHardware knew full well ahead of time that Metro Last Light would not even load on the dual GPU AMD board.. So being fair and objective as they are they obviously removed the title from the test suite to avoid a false negative that would obviously sway public opinion right ? Nope, they kept it and even awarded points to the GTX-690 for for the intentional ace in the hole.

    Now a 1 time inclusion of a title like "project cars" may only be a little distasteful and is nowhere near as serious as the obvious stacking of the deck I previously described.. That said the repetitive inclusion of a title with such bias and unrealistic results does begin to rival the blatant and intentional nature of the 7990 v. 690 debacle I previously described.

    Me personally, I will be choosing the RX-480. Comparably less expensive AIB boards will be neck and neck with similar GTX 1060 boards in the now and continually faster going forward. Historically AMD hardware has always been more powerful from a raw throughput standpoint. Where Nvidia makes up this ground is by heavily optimizing current gen hardware for current gen games. When an Nvidia hardware/game generation becomes dated and is no longer optimized for, it begins to fall off of the performance curve rather drastically (just look at the GTX-6/7XX family now..)

    Compare this to AMD who while often slightly behind at launch due to less optimization, tend to significantly improve hardware/driver optimization globally across their architecture over time. Just look at how the GTX-760 used to strongly beat a 7950 and at times even challenge the flagship 7970. Now it lags behind behind even the 7870/R9-270X and cant touch the 7970/280X/380X that now even beats the faster GTX-960.

    My point in all this ? I think the 1060 is a good little card; especially for the TDP, well done Nvidia. That said.. I have said for a long time and will continue to say that Toms has a way of shining nvidia cards in the best possible light at launch and that throughout time the GTX-1060 will slide solidly behind the RX-480 in terms of performance and longevity. Oh and get rid of project cars, trash.
  • Other Comments
  • Vosgy
    Well with it's price point above the 480 and performance performance difference relatively matching the price difference seems like it will come down to what someone can afford at the time.
    Guess I'll recommend either from now on.
    Thanks for the review guys, pleasure as always :D
  • mitch074
    I wonder: with Battlefield 4, why not add the Mantle-enabled rendering path? All existing tests show it to be pretty much equivalent to DX12, and future high-performance, low-latency titles are much more likely to make use of DX12, Vulkan etc. than DX11 or OpenGL...
    On that review, as a matter of fact, you use pretty much only DX11 games and only one DX12 title; new API paths are available in Dota2, Talos Principle and Doom 2016... Why not include them, as a reference for the future of gaming, instead of only showing off DX11 games?
  • LFCavalcanti
    You could have included in the value discussion the question about having 2 RX480 in Crossfire vs a single 1070, sort off denying a market place in value for the 1060.
    I don't know what NVidia is thinking... their marketing campaign might be stronger than I understand and people will still buy the 1060, but value on it just don't make sense right now.
  • BrutalPigeon
    Where are DX12 reviews? Hitman DX12? Time Spy? 1060 gets rekt in DX12. Nvidia biased review again, also project Cars? How is this even a benchmark, obviously gimped for Radeons.
  • kicsako
    This review is kinda strange. You use Project Cars what is known of running so bad on AMD cards, yet there are no dx/vulkan 12 titles except AOTS. We already have Doom(Vulkan), and Total War+Hitman for dx12. This review is weirdly Nvidia biased. People who buy mid lvl cards are not going to change it for at least 2-3 years. And we will see more and more dx12/vulkan titles yet you only include dx11 games with mostly Nvidia support. Never gona read tomshardware ever again.
  • Myrmidonas
    Yes indeed. I read elsewhere on DX12 benchmarks GTX 1060 does not cope well against rx480. Also, why not DOOM?

    Long story short, if you have Win7 and don't plan to upgrade for the next 2-3 years you have a solid reason to get a GTX 1060. The "plot changes" in favor of RX480 if you are going all forward with Win10.
  • logainofhades
    No SLI, on a card of this caliber. Quite the disappointment. Doesn't appear that it quite met the hype. Solid card, at its price point, but still not quite what was expected.
  • IceMyth
    What I understood from this review is either get 1070 or 1080 or RX 480... the 1060 is a waste of money and time since you cant SLI so what you will get will be fixed and to get better gaming you will need to replace the whole GPU to one of the 3 top.

    Honestly I expected something decent but seems they released a cheap GPU for NVidia fans rather than to compete with AMD performance and prices!
  • AndrewJacksonZA
    Thank you for the review Chris! It was a pleasure to read high-quality writing with good English - my brain really thanks you! :-)

    I would also like to join others in their request for:
    - including 2x RX480s in Crossfire (price-wise they are comparable to a 1070,)
    - a benchmark using Doom's Vulkan rendering path, and
    - results from the TimeSpy benchmark please.

    Thank you again for a relaxing and informative read,
    Andrew
  • cknobman
    I'd say typical Nvidia cash grab.

    A. Card is priced about $50 too high as review kind of indicates.
    B. SLI is removed because Nvidia wants you to spend more $$$$$$$ on their higher priced cards. They dont want people trying to achieve playable 4k resolution without paying that Nvidia premium tax.

    Right now if I was buying to play 1080-1440 I'd go AMD 480 all the way.
  • AndrewJacksonZA
    Anonymous said:
    1060 gets rekt in DX12. Nvidia biased review again, also project Cars? How is this even a benchmark, obviously gimped for Radeons.
    I can't agree with the 1060 suffering in DX12 without seeing the proof, sorry. And I have enough faith in Chris to believe that he would have more integrity than to be dishonest.


    Anonymous said:
    You use Project Cars what is known of running so bad on AMD cards, yet there are no dx/vulkan 12 titles except AOTS. We already have Doom(Vulkan), and Total War+Hitman for dx12. This review is weirdly Nvidia biased. People who buy mid lvl cards are not going to change it for at least 2-3 years. And we will see more and more dx12/vulkan titles yet you only include dx11 games with mostly Nvidia support.
    I agree with you there. I imagine that Project Cars is an EXTREMELY niche title compared to the new Doom. If one wants to include a racing game, why not one of the Dirt Rally games?
    Anonymous said:
    Never gona read tomshardware ever again.
    I'll watch out for your next comment. ;-)


    Anonymous said:
    Yes indeed. I read elsewhere on DX12 benchmarks GTX 1060 does not cope well against rx480. Also, why not DOOM?
    Source please, Myrmidonas? Edit: I found one (over at what I personally consider to be a usually Nvidia biased site, no less!): http://www.hardocp.com/article/2016/07/19/nvidia_geforce_gtx_1060_founders_edition_review/4
  • rush21hit
    >advertised as 120watt max but gets 130+ under stressed.
    >no SLI bridge
    >$250 for 3gb and 300 for the 6.
    >not exactly better than RX480 or even the 980, more like comparable in performance
    >small OC headroom, well RX 480 OC headroom was near non-existent too.

    Any AIB's RX480 are much better value than this.
    *reads AIB's 1060, 480 still much better value

    ...realizes people would still buy this.
  • LORD_ORION
    Look at Ashes of the Singularity... this current gen of cards is terrible.
  • 17seconds
    A very good mid-range card that beats the RX480 in every metric possible: heat, noise, power consumption, features, and performance. If you can afford a few dollars more, it's worth the extra cost.
  • elbert
    Looks like from several reviews the GTX 1060 and RX480 are running about even. The GTX1060's max OC is 2~2.1Ghz but for an even test would require a custom RX480 which may release in the coming weeks. Big issue is no SLI vs the Rx480's know good crossfire results. The advantage the GTX 1060 has is lower stock power requirements.
  • bwcbwc
    Looks like I'll be waiting for the RX 480 4 GB edition around $200... I'm gaming at 1080p, and just about any of the new generation cards seem to be able to handle that with max details. a 3rd party GTX 1060 at $250 vs. an RX 480 8 GB at (about) the same price point is probably a winner for the 1440p crowd. But the $300 FE is obviously off the table, especially with the after-market 1070s already available for slightly more.
  • Vandenplas
    The RX 480 is destroying the GTX 1060 in Doom/Vulkan.

    A respectable 25% lead in 1080p and a hefty 32% lead in 1440p.
    Likely, the GTX 1060 won't match the performance of an RX 480 in Doom/Vulkan at stock clock, even if overclocked to 2+GHz.

    Also the RX 480 seems generally have some performance advantages in next-gen games and API combinations.

    http://www.hardocp.com/article/2016/07/19/nvidia_geforce_gtx_1060_founders_edition_review/4#.V448Ue2lilM
  • InvalidError
    Anonymous said:
    What I understood from this review is either get 1070 or 1080 or RX 480... the 1060 is a waste of money and time since you cant SLI so what you will get will be fixed and to get better gaming you will need to replace the whole GPU to one of the 3 top.

    A pair of GTX1060 would set you back $500 or more. At that point, might as well go with a 1080 for $50-100 more and not have to worry about multi-GPU performance scaling and compatibility issues. If you drop the SLI motherboard, larger case, extra case cooling, etc., getting a single GTX1080 might be cheaper than getting a pair of GTX1060.
  • bwcbwc
    Derp...for some reason, I thought the 1070s were going around $350, not $450. Supply and demand at work...
  • n0ns3ns3
    Anonymous said:
    Nvidia drives unprecedented efficiency into the mainstream with its Pascal-based GeForce GTX 1060, but can it compete with AMD's $200 Radeon RX 480?

    Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060 6GB Review : Read more


    It is not supposed to compete with 200$ 4GB RX 480. For that we will have ~200$ 3GB pascal card whatever they will call it (1050, 1060 3GB).
    GTX 1060 6GB supposed to compete with 8GB RX 480 and it does the job for now.
    For me it looks like "RIP AMD"