FirePro S10000 vs GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile with FirePro S10000, including specs and performance data.
1060 Mobile outperforms S10000 by an impressive 66% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 350 | 481 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 10.38 | 0.25 |
| Power efficiency | 17.47 | 2.25 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) |
| GPU code name | GP106 | Tahiti |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 15 August 2016 (10 years ago) | 12 November 2012 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $237.11 | $3,599 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
GTX 1060 Mobile has 4052% better value for money than S10000.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 1280 | 4096 ×2 |
| Core clock speed | 1506 MHz | 825 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1708 MHz | 950 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 4,400 million | 4,313 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 750 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 94 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 133.6 | 106.4 ×2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.275 TFLOPS | 3.405 TFLOPS ×2 |
| ROPs | 48 | 32 ×2 |
| TMUs | 80 | 112 ×2 |
| L1 Cache | 480 KB | 448 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1536 KB | 768 KB |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 305 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Form factor | no data | full height / full length |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 2x 8-pin |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 6 GB ×2 |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 384 Bit ×2 |
| Memory clock speed | 2002 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192 GB/s | 480 GB/s ×2 |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | DP 1.43, HDMI 2.0b, Dual Link-DVI | 1x DVI, 4x mini-DisplayPort |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDCP | 2.2 | - |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
| Dual-link DVI support | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| GameStream | + | - |
| GPU Boost | 3.0 | no data |
| VR Ready | + | no data |
| Ansel | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | - |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 68
+70%
| 40−45
−70%
|
| 1440p | 45
+66.7%
| 27−30
−66.7%
|
| 4K | 30
+66.7%
| 18−20
−66.7%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.49
+2480%
| 89.98
−2480%
|
| 1440p | 5.27
+2430%
| 133.30
−2430%
|
| 4K | 7.90
+2430%
| 199.94
−2430%
|
- GTX 1060 Mobile has 2480% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GTX 1060 Mobile has 2430% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- GTX 1060 Mobile has 2430% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 73
+82.5%
|
40−45
−82.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 137
+71.3%
|
80−85
−71.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 37
+76.2%
|
21−24
−76.2%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 51
+70%
|
30−33
−70%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 96
+74.5%
|
55−60
−74.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110
+69.2%
|
65−70
−69.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30
+66.7%
|
18−20
−66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75
+66.7%
|
45−50
−66.7%
|
| Fortnite | 177
+77%
|
100−105
−77%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 102
+70%
|
60−65
−70%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 69
+72.5%
|
40−45
−72.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 78
+73.3%
|
45−50
−73.3%
|
| Valorant | 136
+70%
|
80−85
−70%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 32
+77.8%
|
18−20
−77.8%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 81
+80%
|
45−50
−80%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 73
+82.5%
|
40−45
−82.5%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 222
+70.8%
|
130−140
−70.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 25
+78.6%
|
14−16
−78.6%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
+76.7%
|
60−65
−76.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 68
+70%
|
40−45
−70%
|
| Fortnite | 105
+75%
|
60−65
−75%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 91
+82%
|
50−55
−82%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 61
+74.3%
|
35−40
−74.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 74
+85%
|
40−45
−85%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40
+66.7%
|
24−27
−66.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 67
+67.5%
|
40−45
−67.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 69
+72.5%
|
40−45
−72.5%
|
| Valorant | 134
+67.5%
|
80−85
−67.5%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 71
+77.5%
|
40−45
−77.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 23
+91.7%
|
12−14
−91.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 118
+68.6%
|
70−75
−68.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 64
+82.9%
|
35−40
−82.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 71
+77.5%
|
40−45
−77.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 52
+73.3%
|
30−33
−73.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 39
+85.7%
|
21−24
−85.7%
|
| Valorant | 72
+80%
|
40−45
−80%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 81
+80%
|
45−50
−80%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+76.2%
|
21−24
−76.2%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 130−140
+66.3%
|
80−85
−66.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+72.2%
|
18−20
−72.2%
|
| Metro Exodus | 23
+91.7%
|
12−14
−91.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
+73.7%
|
95−100
−73.7%
|
| Valorant | 133
+66.3%
|
80−85
−66.3%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 53
+76.7%
|
30−33
−76.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+70%
|
10−11
−70%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 43
+79.2%
|
24−27
−79.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 57
+90%
|
30−33
−90%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+68.8%
|
16−18
−68.8%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 50
+66.7%
|
30−33
−66.7%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 14−16
+66.7%
|
9−10
−66.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+77.8%
|
9−10
−77.8%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+83.3%
|
18−20
−83.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14
+75%
|
8−9
−75%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 26
+85.7%
|
14−16
−85.7%
|
| Valorant | 117
+67.1%
|
70−75
−67.1%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 28
+75%
|
16−18
−75%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+77.8%
|
9−10
−77.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
+82.9%
|
35−40
−82.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21
+75%
|
12−14
−75%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35
+66.7%
|
21−24
−66.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 17
+70%
|
10−11
−70%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 23
+91.7%
|
12−14
−91.7%
|
This is how GTX 1060 Mobile and S10000 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1060 Mobile is 70% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1060 Mobile is 67% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1060 Mobile is 67% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 18.06 | 10.89 |
| Recency | 15 August 2016 | 12 November 2012 |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 750 Watt |
GTX 1060 Mobile has a 66% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 75% more advanced lithography process, and 838% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro S10000 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile is a notebook graphics card while FirePro S10000 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
