Rise of the Tomb Raider

Starting things off in our benchmark suite is the built-in benchmark for Rise of the Tomb Raider, the latest iteration in the long-running action-adventure gaming series. One of the unique aspects of this benchmark is that it’s actually the average of 4 sub-benchmarks that fly through different environments, which keeps the benchmark from being too weighted towards a GPU’s performance characteristics under any one scene.

Rise of the Tomb Raider - 2560x1440 - Very High Quality (DX11)

Rise of the Tomb Raider - 1920x1080 - Very High Quality (DX11)

NVIDIA promised GTX 980-like performance for the GTX 1060, and this is more or less where they’ve landed under Tomb Raider. The otherwise stock clocked GTX 1060FE underperforms GTX 980 by only a frame or two, delivering about 97% of the performance, while the factory overclocked ASUS card makes up the difference and takes the lead. Or to compare things to the next tier up, GTX 1060 is delivering about 72% of GTX 1070’s performance for about 65% of the price.

Meanwhile the performance gains over the past generation GTX x60 cards are remarkable. Whereas GTX 960 struggled to break out of the 30s on framerate, GTX 1060 just cracks 80fps. This is 215% of GTX 960’s performance, more than doubling its predecessor. Some of this I don’t doubt comes down to memory – our GTX 960 is the more common 2GB variety – but it also goes to show once again how 2GB cards are now VRAM limited under modern games. And the performance gains are even greater if we go back to 2013’s GTX 760 or 2012’s GTX 660. GTX 960’s one disappointment was that it didn’t make as much progress over GTX 760 as everyone would like, but GTX 1060 more than makes up for this.

As for the AMD competition, things shape up about as you’d expect. In our look at RX 480 we found that it delivered GTX 970-like performance, while GTX 1060 is slated to deliver GTX 980-like performance. As a result we see the GTX 1060 lead by around 15% at both resolutions for Tomb Raider.

The Test DiRT Rally
Comments Locked

189 Comments

View All Comments

  • MarkieGcolor - Friday, August 5, 2016 - link

    Yes 960 sucked, but this card isn't much better. It can't sli, and you should still recommend at least a 1070 over this.
  • Morawka - Friday, August 5, 2016 - link

    just imagine how good the mobile 1060 will be. finally a $1000 laptop that can play 1080p @ 60FPS on High (not ultra)
  • zeeBomb - Friday, August 5, 2016 - link

    life is good
  • fanofanand - Friday, August 5, 2016 - link

    The 1060 costs 30% more (reference to reference) and provides 15-30% more performance. Sounds about right, it's up to the customer's wallet to decide which one works best for them, though the 1060 seems a tiny bit overkill for 1080P gaming.
  • Morawka - Friday, August 5, 2016 - link

    nah it's not overkill.. Look at the 99th percentile numbers on all games.. thats the true number you need to be worrying about unless you have Gsync displays. if it's running 58FPS, then it might as well be 30FPS due to vsync.
  • eddman - Saturday, August 6, 2016 - link

    Turn off vsync then.
  • Simplex - Sunday, August 7, 2016 - link

    "if it's running 58FPS, then it might as well be 30FPS due to vsync"
    Ridiculous statement. Ever heard of triple buffering?
  • bug77 - Monday, August 8, 2016 - link

    If you're using adaptive v-sync or fastsync (which you should), then 58fps is 58fps.
  • eddman - Saturday, August 6, 2016 - link

    30% more that what?

    There are 1060s at $250 and 8GB 480s at $240 on anandtech, unless you're comparing it to the 4GB 480.
  • eddman - Saturday, August 6, 2016 - link

    Damn, I meant newegg. This is what happens when you skip lunch.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now