GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB vs Radeon Pro Vega 56
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro Vega 56 with GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB, including specs and performance data.
Pro 56 outperforms 1060 3 GB by a significant 26% 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 | 222 | 272 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 25 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 15.76 | 19.83 |
| Power efficiency | 10.58 | 14.68 |
| Architecture | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | Vega 10 | GP106 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 14 August 2017 (8 years ago) | 18 August 2016 (9 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $399 | $199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
GTX 1060 3 GB has 26% better value for money than Pro Vega 56.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 cores | 3584 | 1152 |
| Core clock speed | 1138 MHz | 1506 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1250 MHz | 1708 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 12,500 million | 4,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 16 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 210 Watt | 120 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 280.0 | 123.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 8.96 TFLOPS | 3.935 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 48 |
| TMUs | 224 | 72 |
| L1 Cache | 896 KB | 432 KB |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB | 1536 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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 250 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 6-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 | HBM2 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 3 GB |
| Memory bus width | 2048 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 786 MHz | 2002 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 402.4 GB/s | 192.2 GB/s |
| 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 | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | + | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.125 | + |
| CUDA | - | 6.1 |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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.
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 | 96
+28%
| 75−80
−28%
|
| 4K | 57
+26.7%
| 45−50
−26.7%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.16
−56.6%
| 2.65
+56.6%
|
| 4K | 7.00
−58.3%
| 4.42
+58.3%
|
- GTX 1060 3 GB has 57% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GTX 1060 3 GB has 58% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 160−170
+27.7%
|
130−140
−27.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 65−70
+32%
|
50−55
−32%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+30.6%
|
85−90
−30.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 160−170
+27.7%
|
130−140
−27.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 65−70
+32%
|
50−55
−32%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 100−110
+27.1%
|
85−90
−27.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 95−100
+26.7%
|
75−80
−26.7%
|
| Fortnite | 130−140
+36%
|
100−105
−36%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120
+27.8%
|
90−95
−27.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 90−95
+32.9%
|
70−75
−32.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+31.1%
|
90−95
−31.1%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+34.3%
|
140−150
−34.3%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+30.6%
|
85−90
−30.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 160−170
+27.7%
|
130−140
−27.7%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+30.5%
|
210−220
−30.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 65−70
+32%
|
50−55
−32%
|
| Dota 2 | 107
+33.8%
|
80−85
−33.8%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 100−110
+27.1%
|
85−90
−27.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 95−100
+26.7%
|
75−80
−26.7%
|
| Fortnite | 130−140
+36%
|
100−105
−36%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120
+27.8%
|
90−95
−27.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 90−95
+32.9%
|
70−75
−32.9%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 100−110
+30%
|
80−85
−30%
|
| Metro Exodus | 65−70
+34%
|
50−55
−34%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+31.1%
|
90−95
−31.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 116
+28.9%
|
90−95
−28.9%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+34.3%
|
140−150
−34.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+30.6%
|
85−90
−30.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 65−70
+32%
|
50−55
−32%
|
| Dota 2 | 102
+27.5%
|
80−85
−27.5%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 100−110
+27.1%
|
85−90
−27.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 95−100
+26.7%
|
75−80
−26.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120
+27.8%
|
90−95
−27.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+31.1%
|
90−95
−31.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 64
+28%
|
50−55
−28%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+34.3%
|
140−150
−34.3%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 130−140
+36%
|
100−105
−36%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+34%
|
50−55
−34%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 200−210
+28.8%
|
160−170
−28.8%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 55−60
+26.7%
|
45−50
−26.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40−45
+36.7%
|
30−33
−36.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+34.6%
|
130−140
−34.6%
|
| Valorant | 220−230
+32.4%
|
170−180
−32.4%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
+33.3%
|
60−65
−33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+29.2%
|
24−27
−29.2%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 65−70
+38%
|
50−55
−38%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
+38%
|
50−55
−38%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
+30%
|
60−65
−30%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50−55
+42.9%
|
35−40
−42.9%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 70−75
+32.7%
|
55−60
−32.7%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+29.2%
|
24−27
−29.2%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 55−60
+28.9%
|
45−50
−28.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+44.4%
|
18−20
−44.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 42
+40%
|
30−33
−40%
|
| Valorant | 170−180
+26.4%
|
140−150
−26.4%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+31.4%
|
35−40
−31.4%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+29.2%
|
24−27
−29.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+40%
|
10−11
−40%
|
| Dota 2 | 96
+28%
|
75−80
−28%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 30−35
+37.5%
|
24−27
−37.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+33.3%
|
27−30
−33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+30%
|
40−45
−30%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+41.7%
|
24−27
−41.7%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 30−35
+41.7%
|
24−27
−41.7%
|
This is how Pro Vega 56 and GTX 1060 3 GB compete in popular games:
- Pro Vega 56 is 28% faster in 1080p
- Pro Vega 56 is 27% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 28.94 | 22.93 |
| Recency | 14 August 2017 | 18 August 2016 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 3 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 16 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 210 Watt | 120 Watt |
Pro Vega 56 has a 26.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 months, a 166.7% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 14.3% more advanced lithography process.
GTX 1060 3 GB, on the other hand, has 75% lower power consumption.
The Radeon Pro Vega 56 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon Pro Vega 56 is a mobile workstation graphics card while GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
