GPUBoss Review Our evaluation of RX 480 vs 1060 among Desktop 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

Value

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
MSI GeForce GTX 1060 

GPUBoss recommends the MSI GeForce GTX 1060  based on its noise and power.

See full details

Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with GPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!
VS

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Radeon RX 480

Reasons to consider the
AMD Radeon RX 480

Report a correction
Higher memory bandwidth 256 GB/s vs 192.2 GB/s Around 35% higher memory bandwidth
More memory 8,192 MB vs 6,144 MB Around 35% more memory
Better floating-point performance 5,834 GFLOPS vs 3,953 GFLOPS Around 50% better floating-point performance
Higher texture rate 182.3 GTexel/s vs 123.5 GTexel/s Around 50% higher texture rate
More shading units 2,304 vs 1,280 1024 more shading units
More texture mapping units 144 vs 80 64 more texture mapping units
Front view of GeForce GTX 1060

Reasons to consider the
MSI GeForce GTX 1060

Report a correction
Significantly higher clock speed 1,544 MHz vs 1,120 MHz Around 40% higher clock speed
Higher pixel rate 74.1 GPixel/s vs 40.5 GPixel/s Around 85% higher pixel rate
Significantly higher turbo clock speed 1,759 MHz vs 1,266 MHz Around 40% higher turbo clock speed
More render output processors 48 vs 32 16 more render output processors
Lower TDP 120W vs 150W 20% lower TDP

Benchmarks Real world tests of Radeon RX 480 vs GeForce GTX 1060

Bitcoin mining Data courtesy CompuBench

Radeon RX 480
608.32 mHash/s
GeForce GTX 1060
577.04 mHash/s

Face detection Data courtesy CompuBench

Radeon RX 480
120.17 mPixels/s
GeForce GTX 1060
158.52 mPixels/s

Ocean surface simulation Data courtesy CompuBench

Radeon RX 480
2,139.74 frames/s
GeForce GTX 1060
1,764.05 frames/s

Particle simulation Data courtesy CompuBench

Radeon RX 480
833.13 mInteraction/s
GeForce GTX 1060
1,200.96 mInteraction/s

T-Rex (Compubench 1.5) Data courtesy CompuBench

Radeon RX 480
10.58 frames/s
GeForce GTX 1060
8.48 frames/s

Video composition Data courtesy CompuBench

Radeon RX 480
121.16 frames/s
GeForce GTX 1060
113.77 frames/s

T-Rex (GFXBench 3.0) Data courtesy CompuBench

Radeon RX 480
3,356.26

Manhattan (GFXBench 3.0) Data courtesy CompuBench

Radeon RX 480
3,717.86
GeForce GTX 1060
3,718.26

Comments

Showing 25 comments.
It handles anything you throw at it in 1440p too? I highly doubt that, I highly doubt you're able to run a lot of graphics intensive games at 1080p lol. Don't lie mate.
To bad to compare a basic architectur from factory, RX 480 vs gtx 1060 from a brand like MSI witch their job is to get the best of those architecture even without o.c.
We live in different realities. Give it 10 - 20 years you'll understand it.
I own stock in both Nvidia and AMD. I am a fanboy of the GPU industry not one specific manufacturer. Plebs pls.
he didn't say 7870 tho, he said r9 270 which is what he bought. total misrepresentation of reality.
Damn, I was hoping to read through the comments and find some useful information about comparisons with this card but it's just dumb fanboys arguing...
I'm not saying it's bad for them to showcase the best possible scenario for their new card, it's what I would expect from any company. You clearly misread or misunderstood, I didn't compare the 480 to a 1080, I compared it to a 1060, and inferred a similar performance delta between "Vega" and the 1080 as you see between the 480 and 1060(which shows the 1060 smacking the 480 around in some games, vice versa in other games, and similar performance in other). Unless you're referring to something else I've said throughout the 3 months I keep getting emails that drag me back to this abortion of a "tech" site.
It's Feb now, so you were 2 months off, but yes it was close enough to 5 years that a person should be attacked for their statement.
And in all that you hit the crux of the situation when reviewing AMD to Nvidia cards, which is those who write the software for games favor Nvidia. They will optimize to the Nvidia, so even if an AMD SHOULD be able to compete in various games, they tend to fall behind. Not a lot, but enough to where the typical consumer is going to be steered to the Nvidia. So maybe if the writers stuck with a tech such as DX11/DX12 or Vulcan and let the two companies do the drivers which can includes optimizations to particular games then AMD would compete just as well, or close enough. Moving away from games the AMD cards do well and DO compete. So, do you blame AMD for showcasing where they win? Nvidia doesn't? And how can you compare a $250 card to a $600 card? You can't compare the 480 to a 1080. It's one thing that AMD has to undersell Intel in the CPU world; I think it would be unfair for the consumers to think getting an AMD product always means better price/performance.
AMD is releasing variations of RyZen from my understanding. The two main variations are either with or without a built in GPU, just like what Intel does, but maybe they can figure out a more organized way to do it so it's easier to figure out what's what. If you are talking strictly about GPUs, AMD needs to do some work to keep up with NVidia, just like they had to do to catch up with Intel. What do you mean by saying "totally useless to anyone not running a workstation"? I take it you're talking about the higher end RyZen? If that's the case I don't understand what you mean by workstation, because I've always heard that term used in business or in regards to PCs hooked up to a network. Any app that requires really good CPU performance, for which there are quite a few and considering more people are dealing with video editing and some 4K video AND it's an excellent gaming platform I'd say it has a lot of areas it can fill, including a spot in my living room next to the TV.
The latest info says that it should be better than the 1080. It is known that AMD has better DX 12 campatibility [Or so said(So i heard)]. But we cant talk about it right now. When the Vega comes aut then we will see the real numbers... BTW sorry about the CPU comment but so said i made a mistake. The CPU from AMD looks like a challenger for the Skylake, maybe the Kaby Lake, because the changes between the CPUs in the way of intel are really small, the difference some blogs says are 10% but in the way of AMD it should be 35%. I only write here what i heard or read so i dont know the real statistics.
The latest information shows that the new AMD card will be their 1080. It beats the 1080 in Doom by a wide enough margin that it compares to how the 480 beats the 1060 in Doom. AMD picked the best case scenario to show off, when the reality is that it will fall behind a 1080 in games that generally favor Nvidia cards. So I was actually wrong, I compared it to the 1080 Ti, which is probably giving it a little too much credit. Either way, can't wait for it to come out and either not be dog shit, or drop the 1080's in price. So I can get 2.
Broadwell? You mean Broadwell-E...there's a difference. Broadwell-E are WORKSTATION CPUs and provide no benefit(and even sometimes a hindrance) in basic computing tasks or gaming. Broadwell was almost entirely mobile CPUs and server CPUs, with 2 desktop CPUs that weren't even available for retail sale(plus the enthusiast line). And all of this is circa 2014...Skylake and Kaby Lake smack Broadwell around like a red headed step child(thanks to the low clock speeds of all Broadwell CPUs), and Broadwell-E is useless power to the vast majority of consumers. Will it be good to see a 6900K equivalent CPU released for $500 instead of $1000? Absolutely. But it will be totally useless to anybody not running a workstation...Never mind the fact that AMD is going to be very hard pressed to provide gaming performance similar to a G4560 for less than 70 bucks.
Nice to see people that have new information. The ZEN processors will be a equivalent to a Broadwell processors of the intel series. Good jump AMD really nice. But more cheaper.
AMD Vega bro... AMD Vega. Dont talk when you dont have the lattest information.
Glad to see someone got this Topic back in line. That said, I'm not a fanboy of anything, have a complete AMD system topped off with a FX-6300 that's under appreciated (it's as fast as some mid-rated i5's), and running a GTX 960, which by chance is in it's 4th home in less than 2 years (purchased in March 2015). Looks like it's going to stay that way. And to top it off, the system is in an old Systemax case that originally shipped with a P4! So some OEM cases are reusable, many says not, though this case has to have been shipped with an early P4. Plus Systemax wasn't that large. While most of my systems are Intel, that's one exception that I don't mind saying was worth the investment of a FX-6300 CPU on promo, as was the MB & PSU. The rest was on hand from other builds. Plus have a AMD 1GB GDDR5 Radeon 7770 GHz edition awaiting another build from spare components. As to the GTX 1060 (6GB version), it beats the RX 480 hands down, though at a higher cost, and my more costly GTX 1070 puts a fist through it. Regardless of AMD or NVIDIA, what happened to the 512 bit models that was once popular? Most all cards on the market now are between 128 & 256 bit, with the GTX 1060 falling in between the numbers at 192 bit. The only weakness that I can see with the GTX 1060 is that two cards cannot be paired, in that case, sure the RX 480 would beat it out. Yet it would take both, and a lot more heat & energy. BTW, before anyone says to go back home if I don't like paying the electric bill, I have a dozen builds here, not counting 3 notebooks. I realize that if I want to play, then I must pay. While for $70 more, I could had snagged a $369.99 Gigabyte GTX 1070, chose to go with the very best model of the GTX 1060 series instead. At the lowered price, something had to be missing, maybe not a good overclocker, and the reviews, as with the RX 480, were mixed. Chances are, both the GTX 1060 & RX 480 are OK for 1080/1440p gaming, as well as watching 4K content when used with a Displayport 2.0 monitor. That connection is a critical one, so ensure the monitor has it, DP 1.2 is faster than HDMI 2.0. And DP 1.3/1.4 (which the GTX 1060 has), will make the card even better. Problem being, that by the time DP 1.4 monitors hits the market, both the GTX 1060 & RX 480 will be 8-10 years old & dated tech. It's in part on the consumers for not emailing the OEM's and demanding for better. Cat
wanna talk custom cards huh? xfx rx480 8gb gtr black edition
Zen now = RyZen, and the platform will be far superior to the current AMD platform. Do some reading about it. They will be released (REALLY) prob Feb but maybe Mar. The boards already exist for them and was shown at one of the last Tech shows in Jan. They match the performance of the better Intel chips but don't beat them, but that's good enough when they say they are committed to competing at the top end and I believe them They'll be priced less than the equiv Intel so to give better price/performance, but that's based on Intel maintaining their current prices and that could change if they start losing market share, and they very well could. What I don't like about t
BEST GTX 1060
It triggers me. They are absolute cancer, every time, no exceptions.
I said in 5 years, a GPU is really obsolete. Then I gave examples (original Titan was in Feb 2013 (the old titan before titan black, titan Z, titan X, titan XP) and its demolished by a $160 RX 470 (40+% faster)** and the GTX 1060). This should prove that almost any card, even the very best, will be really irrelevant in 5 years, and will be crushed by low end to mid range cards, so spending $1000+ on a GPU to make it "last longer" is pretty pointless when you can upgrade every year and its cheaper. The rounding was only the "almost exactly" which are two conflicting words. Sorry if it offended you. I also used the ATI card I had, because it was the absolute best (cost 4x the GT 8800, which was the Titan of the time). It has no limits like Vram (2GB of GDDR4 at 512 bus width), so it showed its the actual chip that is weak, and not choking on low Vram. It was also beaten by a factor of 4 by my R9 270 in most games (not to mention only DX 10 support), these had a 6 year launch difference, and the 270 was the weakest R9 ever made, crushing the best GPU from 6 years earlier by 4x the performance. The R9 270 may not have been entry level, but it wasn't super high end, and it demolishes the world's most expensive card from 6 years ago. That's fairly impressive. Tomb Raider (2013): 30 FPS hair tess off vs 120 FPS hair tess on, max AA, max settings is nothing to scoff about. I also still have an FX-8350 paired with a $40 motherboard (so very little overclocking), and its still doing fairly well. My system with that, the R9 270, AIO cooler, 8GB ram, case, DVD burner, 500w PSU, SSD... cost less than $500 last year (all new parts). If I had a HDD, it would have been $405, so it was an awesome deal. CPUs last longer than GPUs since they don't double in performance as fast as GPUs tend too. Even with this CPU, its doing fine in most of my games. I'm not even sure if I will upgrade to Zen (obviously if they are dirt cheap I will, but that's not even really for gaming reasons). I'm pretty happy with what I've got. It may not be the best, but like you said, price is really important. **Sources: http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13210550? http://www.3dmark.com/spy/359496
I've seen the RX 470 vs GTX 1060 and the 470 was almost the same. The 480 is much better than 470, why is 1060 better? I don't know, but in games the 480 has allways higher fps, not much more fps but like 5~10 fps more.
Dude, just because you're being such as ass about the year thing, give the month of 2007. Your last post was one month ago (and a handful of days I imagine). This is Jan 2017. If you got the PC at the beginning of 2007, you are at the 10 year mark, and I'm dropping the days and sticking with month so as not to be confusing. At the point you made the comment, the LATEST you could have bought the computer was Dec 2007, and of course it actually be in the year 2007. To give an example because it seems you need it, going from Feb 2007 - Feb 2017 is 10 years. So when you made the comment one month ago, your PC was somewhere in the 9 year mark, meaning 9 years and x months. If I were going to grade on who got closer, your first remark said it was a 5 YO system. Well, that's WAY OFF. For Jklw10, if you actually bought the computer Jan 2017, and his comment was also last month, he was one month off. Some people think in terms of rounding, so as not to give an answer such as 9.75458645 years (yes that's possible once you get into figuring out the second that you bought the computer at (example: Jan 15, 2007 @ 1545:43) So, when he said ALMOST 10 years, that ALMOST, being a word that conveys an inaccurate value, I would say his answer FAR better than yours. So, your math studies as they are, please don't get involved in design or engineering, because your numbers need to accurate the first time around. Those fields require people who are meticulous. Now, I haven't actually said anything about the video cards because I don't really care than much about using a video card that's 10 years old because why would I? I did have a 1st gen HDMI 1080p standard output graphics card that did what I needed it to do until a couple years ago when web pages where getting too crazy with the amount of crap they throw at you and the number of videos on a single page ARE growing exponentially. It lasted about 5 years I think. I'm not going to give the exact year and month I bought it because I can't remember and it's not worth digging through me receipts for computer equipment. I even gamed with it, but they were older DX8 or 9 games. Right now my game rig (not the same as my gen. use PC) uses an AMD setup and has 2 R9 380s on a 990FX gaming board that does CrossfireX. I know it's getting antiquated because the AMD FX's are getting too old, but there are plenty of videos on YouTube that are recent and people OCing their systems and running MOST games at at least 60 fps, and that's fine with me, because I don't try to make it do something it won't, and theoretically AMD is coming out with RyZen very shortly and I figure by next year (2018), or maybe even this year during the discounted holiday season I can move the two vid cards to a newer system and the older MB/CPU/mem can become an internet system with something like a 1060 or 470 in it, and then later I can replace the 2 R9 380s with whatever is at a good price and good value in 1.5 to 2 years from now. What I don't know is if I'll stick with AMD as a platform or if Intel will get into a price war with AMD and set their i-7's at a price that's worth making a killer gaming platform ND NOT COST SO MUCH. My current internet platform is a 990FX system with an FX-8350 and a 1050Ti 4GB card and it runs great. No OC necessary.
Now need to wait for the ZEN series of AMD CPU. It is becoming interesting.
But is fun to see the comments here or is it only me?
comments powered by Disqus