Winner
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile
GPUBoss recommends the Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile based on its benchmarks and compute performance.
See full details GeForce GTX 960 vs 1060 Mobile |
VS
GPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 960 vs 1060 Mobile among all GPUs
Gaming | |
| | |
| Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 21 more | |
Graphics | |
| | |
| T-Rex, Manhattan, Cloud Gate Factor, Sky Diver Factor and 1 more | |
Computing | |
| | |
| Face Detection, Ocean Surface Simulation and 3 more | |
Performance per Watt | |
| | |
| Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 32 more | |
Noise and Power | |
| | |
| TDP, Idle Power Consumption, Load Power Consumption and 2 more | |
| 8.3 | Overall Score |
| | |
 | Winner |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with GPUBoss?
VS
| |  | Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060 MobileGPUBoss Winner |
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| GPUBoss is not aware of any important advantages of the 960 vs the 1060 Mobile. | |||||||
| |||||||
| Better PassMark score | 8,710 | vs | 5,813 | Around 50% better PassMark score | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Higher clock speed | 1,404 MHz | vs | 1,127 MHz | Around 25% higher clock speed | |||
| More memory | 6,144 MB | vs | 2,048 MB | 3x more memory | |||
| Higher memory bandwidth | 192.2 GB/s | vs | 112.2 GB/s | More than 70% higher memory bandwidth | |||
| Higher pixel rate | 67.4 GPixel/s | vs | 36.1 GPixel/s | More than 85% higher pixel rate | |||
| Significantly higher turbo clock speed | 1,670 MHz | vs | 1,178 MHz | More than 40% higher turbo clock speed | |||
| Higher effective memory clock speed | 8,008 MHz | vs | 7,012 MHz | Around 15% higher effective memory clock speed | |||
| Better floating-point performance | 3,594 GFLOPS | vs | 2,308.1 GFLOPS | More than 55% better floating-point performance | |||
| Significantly better bitcoin mining score | 496.27 mHash/s | vs | 111.95 mHash/s | Around 4.5x better bitcoin mining score | |||
| Higher texture rate | 112.3 GTexel/s | vs | 72.1 GTexel/s | More than 55% higher texture rate | |||
| More render output processors | 48 | vs | 32 | 16 more render output processors | |||
| Significantly better PassMark direct compute score | 5,039 | vs | 3,046 | More than 65% better PassMark direct compute score | |||
| Higher thief framerate | 68.6 | vs | 50.6 | More than 35% higher thief framerate | |||
| Higher memory clock speed | 2,002 MHz | vs | 1,753 MHz | Around 15% higher memory clock speed | |||
| Lower TDP | 80W | vs | 120W | Around 35% lower TDP | |||
Report a correction
