GeForce GT 340 vs GeForce GTX 1060
GeForce GT 340
Popular choices:
GeForce GTX 1060
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. The GeForce GT 340 is positioned at rank #170 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Lower cost-benefit for your build. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar GeForce GT 340
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GTX 1060 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1263.7% higher G3D Mark score and 500% more VRAM (6 GB vs 1 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce GT 340.
| Insight | GeForce GT 340 | GeForce GTX 1060 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1263.7%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+1263.7%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2014 / Kepler (2012−2018)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2016 / Pascal (2016−2021)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+500%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GTX 1060 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the GeForce GTX 1060 holds the technical lead. Priced at $20 (vs $60), it costs 67% less, resulting in a 354.6% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce GT 340 | GeForce GTX 1060 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+354.6%) |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($20) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($60) |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GT 340 and GeForce GTX 1060
GeForce GT 340
The GeForce GT 340 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in May 29 2014. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock speed is 993 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 64W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 738 points. Launch price was $89.
GeForce GTX 1060
The GeForce GTX 1060 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in May 27 2016. It features the Pascal architecture. The core clock ranges from 1607 MHz to 1733 MHz. It has 2560 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 180W. Manufactured using 16 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 10,064 points. Launch price was $599.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GT 340 scores 738 versus the GeForce GTX 1060's 10,064 — the GeForce GTX 1060 leads by 1263.7%. The GeForce GT 340 is built on Kepler while the GeForce GTX 1060 uses Pascal, both on 28 nm vs 16 nm. Shader units: 384 (GeForce GT 340) vs 2,560 (GeForce GTX 1060). Raw compute: 0.7626 TFLOPS (GeForce GT 340) vs 8.873 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1060).
| Feature | GeForce GT 340 | GeForce GTX 1060 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 738 | 10,064+1264% |
| Architecture | Kepler | Pascal |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 16 nm |
| Shading Units | 384 | 2560+567% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.7626 TFLOPS | 8.873 TFLOPS+1064% |
| ROPs | 16 | 64+300% |
| TMUs | 32 | 160+400% |
| L1 Cache | 32 KB | 960 KB+2900% |
| L2 Cache | 0.25 MB | 2 MB+700% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce GT 340 | GeForce GTX 1060 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | FSR 3 (Compatible) |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The GeForce GT 340 comes with 1 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce GTX 1060 has 6 GB. The GeForce GTX 1060 offers 500% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 192-bit. L2 Cache: 0.25 MB (GeForce GT 340) vs 2 MB (GeForce GTX 1060) — the GeForce GTX 1060 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GT 340 | GeForce GTX 1060 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 1 GB | 6 GB+500% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | Unknown | 192 GB/s |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 192-bit+50% |
| L2 Cache | 0.25 MB | 2 MB+700% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 11.1 (10_1) (GeForce GT 340) vs 12 (GeForce GTX 1060). Vulkan: N/A vs 1.3. OpenGL: 3.3 vs 4.5. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 4.
| Feature | GeForce GT 340 | GeForce GTX 1060 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_1) | 12+8% |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.5+36% |
| Max Displays | 2 | 4+100% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: None (GeForce GT 340) vs NVENC (Pascal) (GeForce GTX 1060). Decoder: VP4 vs NVDEC (Pascal). Supported codecs: H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1 (GeForce GT 340) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC (GeForce GTX 1060).
| Feature | GeForce GT 340 | GeForce GTX 1060 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | None | NVENC (Pascal) |
| Decoder | VP4 | NVDEC (Pascal) |
| Codecs | H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1 | H.264,H.265/HEVC |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GT 340 draws 64W versus the GeForce GTX 1060's 180W — a 95.1% difference. The GeForce GT 340 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GT 340) vs 400W (GeForce GTX 1060). Power connectors: None vs 6-pin. Card length: 168mm vs 173mm, occupying 1 vs 2 slots.
| Feature | GeForce GT 340 | GeForce GTX 1060 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 64W-64% | 180W |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-25% | 400W |
| Power Connector | None | 6-pin |
| Length | 168mm | 173mm |
| Height | 111mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 1-50% | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 75 | — |
| Perf/Watt | 11.5 | 55.9+386% |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GT 340 launched at $100 MSRP and currently averages $20, while the GeForce GTX 1060 launched at $249 and now averages $60. The GeForce GT 340 costs 66.7% less ($40 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 36.9 (GeForce GT 340) vs 167.7 (GeForce GTX 1060) — the GeForce GTX 1060 offers 354.5% better value. The GeForce GTX 1060 is the newer GPU (2016 vs 2014).
| Feature | GeForce GT 340 | GeForce GTX 1060 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $100-60% | $249 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $20-67% | $60 |
| Performance per Dollar | 36.9 | 167.7+354% |
| Codename | GK107 | GP104 |
| Release | May 29 2014 | May 27 2016 |
| Ranking | #777 | #137 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GeForce GT 340 and GeForce GTX 1060
