Radeon R5 M255 vs GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB with Radeon R5 M255, including specs and performance data.

GTX 1060 3 GB
2016
3 GB GDDR5, 120 Watt
24.85
+1688%

GTX 1060 3 GB outperforms R5 M255 by a whopping 1688% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking2161003
Place by popularity26not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation22.32no data
Power efficiency14.43no data
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)
GPU code nameGP106Topaz
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date18 August 2016 (8 years ago)12 October 2014 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$199 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores1152384
Compute unitsno data5
Core clock speed1506 MHz925 MHz
Boost clock speed1708 MHz940 MHz
Number of transistors4,400 million1,550 million
Manufacturing process technology16 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)120 Wattno data
Texture fill rate123.022.56
Floating-point processing power3.935 TFLOPS0.7219 TFLOPS
ROPs488
TMUs7224

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).

Bus supportno dataPCIe 3.0 x8
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x8
Length250 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinno data

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 typeGDDR5DDR3
Maximum RAM amount3 GB4 GB
Memory bus width192 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed2002 MHz1000 MHz
Memory bandwidth192.2 GB/s16 GB/s
Shared memory--

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPortNo outputs
Eyefinity-+
HDMI+-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

AppAcceleration-+
HD3D-+
PowerTune-+
DualGraphics-+
ZeroCore-+
Switchable graphics-+

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (12_1)DirectX® 11
Shader Model6.46.3
OpenGL4.64.4
OpenCL1.2Not Listed
Vulkan+-
Mantle-+
CUDA6.1-

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GTX 1060 3 GB 24.85
+1688%
R5 M255 1.39

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

GTX 1060 3 GB 9588
+1682%
R5 M255 538

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:

900p350−400
+1567%
21
−1567%
Full HD230−240
+1669%
13
−1669%

Cost per frame, $

1080p0.87no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 6
+0%
6
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Hitman 3 5
+0%
5
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 9
+0%
9
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12
+0%
12
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8
+0%
8
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21
+0%
21
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 5
+0%
5
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8
+0%
8
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3
+0%
3
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Hitman 3 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

This is how GTX 1060 3 GB and R5 M255 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1060 3 GB is 1567% faster in 900p
  • GTX 1060 3 GB is 1669% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 49 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 24.85 1.39
Recency 18 August 2016 12 October 2014
Maximum RAM amount 3 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 16 nm 28 nm

GTX 1060 3 GB has a 1687.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 75% more advanced lithography process.

R5 M255, on the other hand, has a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount.

The GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R5 M255 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB is a desktop card while Radeon R5 M255 is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB
GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB
AMD Radeon R5 M255
Radeon R5 M255

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4.2 8599 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.4 65 votes

Rate Radeon R5 M255 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.