
GeForce GTX 1060
Popular choices:

Quadro K2000
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.
Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook
This comparison brings together gaming FPS, raw graphics performance, VRAM, feature set, power efficiency, pricing context, and long-term value so you can see which GPU actually makes more sense.
GeForce GTX 1060
2016Why buy it
- ✅+536.2% higher PassMark G3D performance.
- ✅Costs $350 less on MSRP ($249 MSRP vs $599 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 1430.4% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 40.4 vs 2.6 G3D/$ ($249 MSRP vs $599 MSRP).
- ✅200% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (6 GB vs 2 GB).
- ✅Less risky long-term buy than Quadro K2000: it remains the more sensible modern option while Quadro K2000 is already obsolete for modern gaming.
Trade-offs
- ❌Poor future-proofing: 2016-era hardware with 6 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.
- ❌252.9% higher power demand at 180W vs 51W.
Quadro K2000
2013Why buy it
- ✅Draws 51W instead of 180W, a 129W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (1,582 vs 10,064).
- ❌Less VRAM, with 2 GB vs 6 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
- ❌Very weak future-proofing: 2013-era hardware with 2 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
- ❌140.6% HIGHER MSRP$599 MSRPvs$249 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 2.6 vs 40.4 G3D/$ ($599 MSRP vs $249 MSRP).
GeForce GTX 1060
2016Quadro K2000
2013Why buy it
- ✅+536.2% higher PassMark G3D performance.
- ✅Costs $350 less on MSRP ($249 MSRP vs $599 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 1430.4% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 40.4 vs 2.6 G3D/$ ($249 MSRP vs $599 MSRP).
- ✅200% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (6 GB vs 2 GB).
- ✅Less risky long-term buy than Quadro K2000: it remains the more sensible modern option while Quadro K2000 is already obsolete for modern gaming.
Why buy it
- ✅Draws 51W instead of 180W, a 129W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Poor future-proofing: 2016-era hardware with 6 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.
- ❌252.9% higher power demand at 180W vs 51W.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (1,582 vs 10,064).
- ❌Less VRAM, with 2 GB vs 6 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
- ❌Very weak future-proofing: 2013-era hardware with 2 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
- ❌140.6% HIGHER MSRP$599 MSRPvs$249 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 2.6 vs 40.4 G3D/$ ($599 MSRP vs $249 MSRP).
Quick Answers
So, is GeForce GTX 1060 better than Quadro K2000?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper card?
Is Quadro K2000 still worth buying for gaming in 2026?
Games Benchmarks
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 9800X3D 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.

Path of Exile 2
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1060 | Quadro K2000 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 117 FPS | 14 FPS |
| medium | 105 FPS | 9 FPS |
| high | 91 FPS | 5 FPS |
| ultra | 77 FPS | 3 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 103 FPS | 9 FPS |
| medium | 87 FPS | 5 FPS |
| high | 76 FPS | 2 FPS |
| ultra | 67 FPS | 1 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 55 FPS | 4 FPS |
| medium | 49 FPS | 2 FPS |
| high | 41 FPS | 1 FPS |
| ultra | 37 FPS | 1 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1060 | Quadro K2000 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 216 FPS | 34 FPS |
| medium | 181 FPS | 15 FPS |
| high | 148 FPS | 11 FPS |
| ultra | 113 FPS | 8 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 134 FPS | 10 FPS |
| medium | 107 FPS | 4 FPS |
| high | 87 FPS | 3 FPS |
| ultra | 68 FPS | 3 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 62 FPS | 3 FPS |
| medium | 51 FPS | 2 FPS |
| high | 49 FPS | 1 FPS |
| ultra | 41 FPS | 1 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1060 | Quadro K2000 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 453 FPS | 71 FPS |
| medium | 362 FPS | 57 FPS |
| high | 302 FPS | 47 FPS |
| ultra | 226 FPS | 36 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 340 FPS | 53 FPS |
| medium | 272 FPS | 43 FPS |
| high | 226 FPS | 36 FPS |
| ultra | 170 FPS | 27 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 226 FPS | 36 FPS |
| medium | 181 FPS | 28 FPS |
| high | 151 FPS | 24 FPS |
| ultra | 113 FPS | 18 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1060 | Quadro K2000 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 358 FPS | 63 FPS |
| medium | 302 FPS | 50 FPS |
| high | 260 FPS | 28 FPS |
| ultra | 226 FPS | 18 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 299 FPS | 7 FPS |
| medium | 254 FPS | 5 FPS |
| high | 208 FPS | 4 FPS |
| ultra | 170 FPS | 2 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 170 FPS | 4 FPS |
| medium | 133 FPS | 3 FPS |
| high | 123 FPS | 2 FPS |
| ultra | 102 FPS | 1 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1060 and Quadro K2000

GeForce GTX 1060
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.

Quadro K2000
Quadro K2000
The Quadro K2000 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in March 1 2013. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock speed is 954 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 51W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,582 points. Launch price was $599.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1060 scores 10,064 versus the Quadro K2000's 1,582 — the GeForce GTX 1060 leads by 536.2%. The GeForce GTX 1060 is built on Pascal while the Quadro K2000 uses Kepler, both on 16 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 2,560 (GeForce GTX 1060) vs 384 (Quadro K2000). Raw compute: 8.873 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1060) vs 0.7327 TFLOPS (Quadro K2000).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1060 | Quadro K2000 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 10,064+536% | 1,582 |
| Architecture | Pascal | Kepler |
| Process Node | 16 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 2560+567% | 384 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 8.873 TFLOPS+1111% | 0.7327 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64+300% | 16 |
| TMUs | 160+400% | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 960 KB+2900% | 32 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB+700% | 0.25 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
The GeForce GTX 1060 gives access to NVIDIA DLSS (Deep Learning Super Sampling), widely regarding as the superior upscaling method for image quality. The Quadro K2000 relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1060 | Quadro K2000 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | Upscaling support | Upscaling support |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | NVIDIA Reflex | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The GeForce GTX 1060 comes with 6 GB of VRAM, while the Quadro K2000 has 2 GB. The GeForce GTX 1060 offers 200% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 192-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 2 MB (GeForce GTX 1060) vs 0.25 MB (Quadro K2000) — the GeForce GTX 1060 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1060 | Quadro K2000 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 6 GB+200% | 2 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 192-bit+200% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB+700% | 0.25 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1060) vs 12 (11_0) (Quadro K2000). Vulkan: 1.3 vs 1.2. OpenGL: 4.5 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 4.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1060 | Quadro K2000 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (11_0) |
| Vulkan | 1.3+8% | 1.2 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6+2% |
| Max Displays | 4 | 4 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC (Pascal) (GeForce GTX 1060) vs NVENC 1st gen (Quadro K2000). Decoder: NVDEC (Pascal) vs NVDEC 1st gen. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC (GeForce GTX 1060) vs H.264 (Quadro K2000).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1060 | Quadro K2000 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC (Pascal) | NVENC 1st gen |
| Decoder | NVDEC (Pascal) | NVDEC 1st gen |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265/HEVC | H.264 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1060 draws 180W versus the Quadro K2000's 51W — a 111.7% difference. The Quadro K2000 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 400W (GeForce GTX 1060) vs 350W (Quadro K2000). Power connectors: 6-pin vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 173mm vs 202mm, occupying 2 vs 1 slots.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1060 | Quadro K2000 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 180W | 51W-72% |
| Recommended PSU | 400W | 350W-13% |
| Power Connector | 6-pin | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 173mm | 202mm |
| Height | 111mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 2 | 1-50% |
| Temp (Load) | — | 70°C |
| Perf/Watt | 55.9+80% | 31.0 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1060 launched at $249 MSRP, while the Quadro K2000 launched at $599. The GeForce GTX 1060 costs 58.4% less ($350 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 40.4 (GeForce GTX 1060) vs 2.6 (Quadro K2000) — the GeForce GTX 1060 offers 1453.8% better value. The GeForce GTX 1060 is the newer GPU (2016 vs 2013).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1060 | Quadro K2000 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $249-58% | $599 |
| Performance per Dollar | 40.4+1454% | 2.6 |
| Codename | GP104 | GK107 |
| Release | May 27 2016 | March 1 2013 |
| Ranking | #137 | #756 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.













