GPUBoss Review Our evaluation of RX 480 vs 1060 among Desktop GPUs


Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 21 more


T-Rex, Manhattan, Cloud Gate Factor, Sky Diver Factor and 1 more


Face Detection, Ocean Surface Simulation and 3 more

Performance per Watt

Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 32 more


Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 32 more

Noise and Power

TDP, Idle Power Consumption, Load Power Consumption and 2 more


Overall Score

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!

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
Significantly better T-Rex score 3,356.26 vs 1,675.62 More than 2x better T-Rex score
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
607.54 mHash/s
GeForce GTX 1060
576.55 mHash/s

Face detection Data courtesy CompuBench

Radeon RX 480
120.45 mPixels/s
GeForce GTX 1060
158.41 mPixels/s

Ocean surface simulation Data courtesy CompuBench

Radeon RX 480
2,142.47 frames/s
GeForce GTX 1060
1,764.05 frames/s

Particle simulation Data courtesy CompuBench

Radeon RX 480
834.08 mInteraction/s
GeForce GTX 1060
1,201.95 mInteraction/s

T-Rex (Compubench 1.5) Data courtesy CompuBench

Radeon RX 480
10.63 frames/s
GeForce GTX 1060
8.44 frames/s

Video composition Data courtesy CompuBench

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

T-Rex (GFXBench 3.0) Data courtesy CompuBench

Radeon RX 480
GeForce GTX 1060

Manhattan (GFXBench 3.0) Data courtesy CompuBench

Radeon RX 480
GeForce GTX 1060


Showing 25 comments.
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:
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?
Because Noise and Power... Nobody cares about that Gamers have no problem with Noise and Power??? Every time I do something like that... PC calculated Power consumption ... +200 Watt for reserve and all done.
Hmmmm... Something for the fanboys of Intel and Nvidia... Benchmarks on some sites are a totally bullshit. For example in describes that my GPU and CPU is average and it will be hard for PC to work games on Ultra and blah blah blah... Even so this is my brothers pc Dead rising Ultra Witcher Ultra Fallout 4 Ultra (With mods) and other games working on Ultra (Ultra settings i mean max everything even AA ar other things) and It has no problems at all. No bullshit like "Too hot in my room because AMD" or so and i dont like people who buy a PC and never build a one in their live to talk about PC. Die step on a LEGO block Die by stepping on a lego block... So for those people who never seen a PC From inside or never had a chance to build a PC shut up. I am building PCs, and not for fun because it is my JOB... Thanks For Coming This far. Have a nice Day.
so what you're saying is you hang around with other incompetent posers... good defense - been in systems engineering for "almost exactly" 22 years and I laughed at you, you maladjusted twat so there ya go...
still closer than 5 you asshat - wow you're an embarrassment to engineering
That would be the almost part - perhaps you should go back to remedial reading before you start pretending you have math prowess? Typical poser ignoring your own stupid less than 5 remark when his almost 10 is somehow egregious... dope
so you're wrong and he's the idiot - snowflake much?
So it's March 2017 already - pretentious moron shot down...
So, I'm a little confused by these results, as the RX 480 scores a 7.9/10, whereas the 1060 scores 7.5, yet they recommend the 1060 because of noise and power? Get outta here. I don't like to cry "Nvidia/Intel fanboy" but I'm tempted to in this situation.
The Radeon 480 (8GB) has no chance against the EVGA 6GB GTX 1060 FTW + ACX 3.0, period. Tom's Hardware, & other sites have tested both. The RX 480 is more bark than bite, though in all fairness, both competes best on 1080p displays for gaming. Both cards are also 4K ready, mainly for non-gaming, which is why I went with the GTX 1060. Costs more & has jumped in price by $20 over when I purchased (currently $319). If the 1060 was no good, it wouldn't be continually out of stock on some sites. I did consider the RX 480 (8GB version), though the reviews were too mixed for me to pull the trigger, therefore went with the EVGA FTW + ACX 3.0 (6GB) that had all positive reviews. Consumer feedback is everything & how I make my purchase decisions. Just get the 6GB EVGA FTW + ACX 3.0 & be over with it.;-) Cat
If the Rx 480 outscores the GTX 1060 in 11 out of 15 including the overall score, how can they judge the 1060 the winner, doesn't add up in my head.
technically they make SOCs which are cpus but he meant to say intel ...
Did he say the 7870? no he said the r9 270 which launched in Nov 2013. He was calling the guy out for saying he had an r9 270 for five years NOT a 7870 for 5 years. If the guy had a 7870 he would have said so. I dont care that they are essentially the same card. All that proves is that AMD slacked off for like 6 years because the r9 3xx series is just a rehash of the 2xx series as well. They did something with the fury x at the time and slacked off with the rest.
There is no such word "biast", you don't even know how to use the word "bias" correctly. Secondly, if you use any of the -boss sites as a reliable source of information, you're a complete idiot. Use HWBench or UserBenchmark, where relevant information is compared. And of course you could watch hundreds of hours of YouTube videos comparing cards, like I have. Also, Pascal has the largest performance increase between Nvidia generations in a long time(possible ever). The 1080 is over 60% faster than the 980, while the 980 was only about 25% faster than the 780, which was only 35% faster than the 680(which was 45% faster than the 580, which was 20 faster than the 480). Pascal is actually really good architecture, it's not bias, and I'm not a biased person. You know what the 490 will be? 1080 Ti performance for 50-100 bucks less for 100W more. It's been several generations since AMD has tried to actually push ahead and be something. And if you think they don't have the same greed any big corporation has, well, then you're just naive.
So, Pascal is pretty much Maxwell and their 2000 line is suppose to be a recycle of 10 series. Besides at this point it is AMD who has the new technology and nvidia behind. And for once this site is not being nvidia biast as the RX 480 does beat the 1060. Lastly nvidia re-use old tech too. And then gimp the drivers and make previous gen perf worse.
Funny, the overall score indicates the REFERENCE 480 is faster, but the 1060 wins.
I'm still studying for my mech/aero degree - "focusing on my tests for my Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering degree". (I have 1 year left). 5 Years... I was saying that my ridiculously priced GPU (V8650 Fire-GL) was obsolete in 5 years. Its 9 now, but notice how it stopped at DX 10 support (we are at 12, DX 10 started sometime around 2008), and this has long term support since its a pro-series. It's probably a little better than Intel HD graphics, but even with Crossfire this would loose to a single RX 460. My engineer buddies got a chuckle out of "Almost exactly..." when we were studying for finals. "exactly" is all I meant about rounding. I agree 9 is almost 10 (which I stated previously), but to say "exactly" when its not even accurate to 1 significant digit is so wrong to us, its funny (maybe its because we were studying for Measurements, which uses specific terminology, and "almost exactly" is an oxymoron). Try not to take offense by that comment, also that link I sent actually helped with one of the problems on the final, almost forgot about decimal place significant figures in subtraction. "Hey kid, where are your parents?" -wow, funny since you said "you seem to be very immature". (to note: I am not offended at all by your comment, I do find it funny though)
You cant prove anything on the internet which leads me to believe half of the shit you say is probably bs, don't get me wrong you could be 100% correct but lets be honest you cant even do simple math so how do you expect me to believe you have a Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering degree, also assuming from your attitude you seem to be very immature and hurt by everyones opinion, cant even do simple rounding or math, "Whoa... 10 years? How about less than 5? My $2,799 GPU from 2007" So you would round the 9 years to 5 years even though it is closer to 10? and still have the nerves to try prove yourself right with rounding in "engineering terms"? This world doesn't revolve around engineering. Hey kid, where are your parents?
It's like you fanboys think I'm lying when I say I own and use this processor with great results. Search YouTube for videos of this CPU in action. Though I'm sure your cognitive bias won't let you believe what you see.
comments powered by Disqus