Shifting gears, let’s take a look at compute performance on GTX 1060.

As we already had the chance to categorize the Pascal architecture’s compute performance in our GTX 1080 review, there shouldn’t be any surprises here. But it will be interesting to see whether the GTX 1060’s higher ratio of memory bandwidth per FLOP materially impacts overall compute performance.

Starting us off for our look at compute is LuxMark3.1, the latest version of the official benchmark of LuxRender. LuxRender’s GPU-accelerated rendering mode is an OpenCL based ray tracer that forms a part of the larger LuxRender suite. Ray tracing has become a stronghold for GPUs in recent years as ray tracing maps well to GPU pipelines, allowing artists to render scenes much more quickly than with CPUs alone.

Compute: LuxMark 3.1 - Hotel

While GTX 1060 could hang with GTX 980 in gaming benchmarks, we don’t start off the same way with compute benchmarks, with the last-generation flagship holding about 17% ahead. Unfortunately for NVIDIA, this is about where GTX 1060 needed to be to best RX 480; instead it ends up trailing the AMD competition. Otherwise the performance gain versus the GTX 960 stands at 65%.

For our second set of compute benchmarks we have CompuBench 1.5, the successor to CLBenchmark. CompuBench offers a wide array of different practical compute workloads, and we’ve decided to focus on face detection, optical flow modeling, and particle simulations.

Compute: CompuBench 1.5 - Face Detection

Compute: CompuBench 1.5 - Optical Flow

Compute: CompuBench 1.5 - Particle Simulation 64K

Like with GTX 1080, relative performance is all over the place. GTX 1060 wins with face detection, loses at optical flow, and wins again at particle simulation. Even the gains versus GTX 960 are a bit more uneven, though at the end of the day GTX 1060 ends up being significantly faster than its predecessor with all 3 sub-benchmarks.

Moving on, our 3rd compute benchmark is the next generation release of FAHBench, the official Folding @ Home benchmark. Folding @ Home is the popular Stanford-backed research and distributed computing initiative that has work distributed to millions of volunteer computers over the internet, each of which is responsible for a tiny slice of a protein folding simulation. FAHBench can test both single precision and double precision floating point performance, with single precision being the most useful metric for most consumer cards due to their low double precision performance. Each precision has two modes, explicit and implicit, the difference being whether water atoms are included in the simulation, which adds quite a bit of work and overhead. This is another OpenCL test, utilizing the OpenCL path for FAHCore 21.

Compute: Folding @ Home Single Precision

Compute: Folding @ Home Double Precision

Finally, in Folding@Home, we see the usual split between single precision and double precision performance. GTX 1060 is solidly in the lead when using FP32, but NVIDIA’s poor FP64 rate means that if double precision is needed, RX 480 will pull ahead.

Hitman Synthetics


View All Comments

  • ddriver - Friday, August 5, 2016 - link

    You are imagining things, I did not state that it "doesn't make me happy", nor does this implies some website determines how I feel, the very notion is stupid on its face. As for zepi and all the other "happy" campers - it is understandable, they are "happy" because reading 'in-depth" materials cultivates an illusion of being smart, and even if they don't get the just of it, they will at least memorize a few phrases to add to their fanboy internet warrior arsenal ;)

    The point people seem to be missing is I was not complaining about "in-depth" articles, merely stating that vendors wouldn't be too motivated to send samples if they don't get immediate publicity for their products. And this site is not about anyone's happiness but the people who bought it to cram stupid ads in our faces for profit.
  • Alexvrb - Saturday, August 6, 2016 - link

    The whole basis of your argument is that they won't give samples to sites that "take too long". But they didn't give samples out to many sites that DO produce swift reviews, as Devo pointed out. Nice try though, I'm sure you'll find something else to whine about soon enough. I mean, uh, something else to educate us peons on. Since you're so insightful and clever. Reply
  • mkaibear - Saturday, August 6, 2016 - link

    Oh dear. Calm down ddriver, you'll give yourself palpitations.

    It amuses me that you're quite happy to throw aspersions on other people's motives for liking the in-depth articles and yet don't spot the obvious counterpoint.

    Ah well. I have better things to do than argue with a troll. Ta-ta!
  • Fujikoma - Sunday, August 7, 2016 - link

    In the matter of cultivating the illusion of being smart...
    It's 'gist of it' not 'just of it'.
  • ddriver - Monday, August 8, 2016 - link

    OK strawmen, you win because "grammar nazi" ;)

    BTW would love yo see your proficiency across half a dozen of languages.
  • Manch - Monday, August 8, 2016 - link

    It's gist, not just. If you're going to stand on your pedestal of superiority mocking all the small minded peons that disagree with your all knowing word, at least use proper grammar so they do not see that the God like keyboard warrior bleeds too, you twit... Reply
  • ddriver - Monday, August 8, 2016 - link

    Gotta love it how with your illusions threatened you cuddle together like a herd of frightened sheep, to find comfort in your numbers, and strength to try and "make a point" using your limited arsenal of insinuations, grammar nazism and personal attacks. Hopefully you do realize that this only adds further proof to my point, not that it needed any, as it is already totally obvious. Try harder next time... Reply
  • snowmyr - Tuesday, August 9, 2016 - link

    You're right. You seem very happy. Reply
  • Michael Bay - Saturday, August 6, 2016 - link

    >expecting any self-awareness
  • at80eighty - Saturday, August 6, 2016 - link

    he's explaining why your wall of whining in response to Ryan's brief & matter-of-fact answer is irrelevant. you want average/sub-par reviews? plenty of sites available. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now