Synthetics

As always we’ll also take a quick look at synthetic performance. While GTX 1060 is of course a cut down Pascal architecture part, how it has been cut down is interesting. Compared to GP104, GP106 has half the SMs and GPCs, but 3/4 the ROPs, which may prove to have an impact.

Synthetic: TessMark, Image Set 4, 64x Tessellation

Starting off with tessellation performance, we find the GTX 1060 coming in just behind the GTX 980, showing that NVIDIA’s performance estimates generally apply not only to games, but synthetic tests as well. But perhaps more interesting is the fact that the card is neck-and-neck with the Radeon RX 480. NVIDIA has traditionally enjoyed a sizable geometry performance lead over AMD cards, but it looks like those days have come to a close.

Up next, we have SteamVR’s Performance Test. While this test is based on the latest version of Valve’s Source engine, the test itself is purely synthetic, designed to test the suitability of systems for VR, making it our sole VR-focused test at this time. It should be noted that the results in this test are not linear, and furthermore the score is capped at 11. Of particular note, cards that fail to reach GTX 970/R9 290 levels fall off of a cliff rather quickly. So test results should be interpreted a little differently.

SteamVR Performance Test

As NVIDIA’s now entry-level VR card, GTX 1060 looks very good in the Steam VR test. A score of 7.9 Newells means that it’s comfortably above the 6.x range generally required, and it also means the GTX 1060 is comfortably ahead of the RX 480 in this scenario.

Finally, for looking at texel and pixel fillrate, we have the Beyond3D Test Suite. This test offers a slew of additional tests – many of which use behind the scenes or in our earlier architectural analysis – but for now we’ll stick to simple pixel and texel fillrates.

Synthetic: Beyond 3D Suite - Pixel Fillrate

Starting with the pixel fillrate, we can see the impact of GTX 1060’s slightly more unusual ROP and GPC arrangement when it’s compared to the GTX 980. At 54.8 GPixels/second, GTX 1060 trails GTX 980 significantly. The card not only has fewer ROPs, but it has half of the rasterizer throughput (32 pixels/clock) as GTX 980. As we’ve seen in our gaming benchmarks the real-world impact isn’t nearly as great as what happens under these synthetic tests, but it helps to explain why sometimes GTX 1060 is tied with GTX 980, and other times it’s several percent behind. If nothing else, at an architectural level this is what makes GTX 1060 a better 1080p card than a 1440p card.

Synthetic: Beyond 3D Suite - Texel Fillrate

As for texel throughput, things are right where we expect them. GTX 1060 is virtually tied with GTX 980, and while it’s ahead of RX 480 in the process, it’s not by a massive amount.

Compute Power, Temperature, & Noise
Comments Locked

189 Comments

View All Comments

  • fanofanand - Friday, August 5, 2016 - link

    Out of curiosity I searched the site, the last comparison of ANY sort was completed on 11/20/13 by you guessed it, Anand himself. Far as I can tell, there has not been a single comparison article written since Anand's departure.
  • Mr Perfect - Friday, August 5, 2016 - link

    Sssh! I was trying to get one going, if they hear you they won't do one. >_<
  • Ryan Smith - Friday, August 5, 2016 - link

    Anand hasn't written a video card article in about 8 years. You may want to check the byline on that article again.

    Anyhow, I don't know if we'll do a custom 1060 roundup in particular, but you will be seeing more custom card reviews. This is what Dan Williams is on staff for.=)
  • Mr Perfect - Saturday, August 6, 2016 - link

    Excellent, looking forward to Dan doing some custom card reviews.
  • fanofanand - Saturday, August 6, 2016 - link

    I said "of any sort". I actually read the article again because he always had a way of explaining things. I wasn't complaining, this site isn't a "comparison" kind of site.
  • Ranger1065 - Saturday, August 6, 2016 - link

    While the same can't be said of the motherboard section, that is an excellent point and something that I very much regret as well. A certain Swedish gentleman does an excellent job in that area, but OMG the English....
  • Ranger1065 - Saturday, August 6, 2016 - link

    Perhaps a custom 1080 review by Christmas then. I mean Christmas 2016...
  • xenol - Friday, August 5, 2016 - link

    Blower styles are limited to basically the reference design these days, which is now basically limited to the FE cards. The real problem with some of these AIB SKUs is that they're wider than normal. I couldn't fit a MSI Gaming X in my FTZ-01 because the power connectors were too close to the side of the case. I was able to fit a EVGA ACX 3.0 SC in there though and it runs relatively well. It does help the case is compartmentalized more or less.
  • Colin1497 - Friday, August 5, 2016 - link

    I know you've been behind, but Rise of Tomb Raider is running faster in DX12 than DX11 on AMD and about the same on both with the 1060 with the latest patches, I believe. Probably what you did with Hitman would be more appropriate? Maybe a one page followup article that includes some analysis and testing with the latest drivers/patches?
  • prisonerX - Friday, August 5, 2016 - link

    It's almost comical the way Anandtech cover for Nvidia. Benchmarking Gameworks titles without disclosure, slyly avoiding DX12 and Vulcan game benchmarks (you know, what people will mostly be using these cards with, going forward) that favor AMD.

    I don't blame them, getting pre-release cards to write reviews is their bread and butter, and Nvidia has not been shy about punishing those who do not toe the line.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now