
GeForce GTX 1060
Popular choices:

Radeon R7 A8-8650
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
- ✅+1299.7% higher PassMark G3D performance.
- ✅Delivers 175.4% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 40.4 vs 14.7 G3D/$ ($249 MSRP vs $49 MSRP).
- ✅1100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (6 GB vs 512 MB).
- ✅Less risky long-term buy than Radeon R7 A8-8650: it remains the more sensible modern option while Radeon R7 A8-8650 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.
- ❌500% higher power demand at 180W vs 30W.
Radeon R7 A8-8650
2014Why buy it
- ✅Costs $200 less on MSRP ($49 MSRP vs $249 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 30W instead of 180W, a 150W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (719 vs 10,064).
- ❌Less VRAM, with 512 MB vs 6 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
- ❌Very weak future-proofing: 2014-era hardware with 512 MB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 14.7 vs 40.4 G3D/$ ($49 MSRP vs $249 MSRP).
GeForce GTX 1060
2016Radeon R7 A8-8650
2014Why buy it
- ✅+1299.7% higher PassMark G3D performance.
- ✅Delivers 175.4% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 40.4 vs 14.7 G3D/$ ($249 MSRP vs $49 MSRP).
- ✅1100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (6 GB vs 512 MB).
- ✅Less risky long-term buy than Radeon R7 A8-8650: it remains the more sensible modern option while Radeon R7 A8-8650 is already obsolete for modern gaming.
Why buy it
- ✅Costs $200 less on MSRP ($49 MSRP vs $249 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 30W instead of 180W, a 150W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Poor future-proofing: 2016-era hardware with 6 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.
- ❌500% higher power demand at 180W vs 30W.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (719 vs 10,064).
- ❌Less VRAM, with 512 MB vs 6 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
- ❌Very weak future-proofing: 2014-era hardware with 512 MB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 14.7 vs 40.4 G3D/$ ($49 MSRP vs $249 MSRP).
Quick Answers
So, is GeForce GTX 1060 better than Radeon R7 A8-8650?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper card?
Is Radeon R7 A8-8650 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 | Radeon R7 A8-8650 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 117 FPS | 13 FPS |
| medium | 105 FPS | 8 FPS |
| high | 91 FPS | 4 FPS |
| ultra | 77 FPS | 3 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 103 FPS | 7 FPS |
| medium | 87 FPS | 4 FPS |
| high | 76 FPS | 2 FPS |
| ultra | 67 FPS | 1 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 55 FPS | 3 FPS |
| medium | 49 FPS | 2 FPS |
| high | 41 FPS | 1 FPS |
| ultra | 37 FPS | 1 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1060 | Radeon R7 A8-8650 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 216 FPS | 32 FPS |
| medium | 181 FPS | 20 FPS |
| high | 148 FPS | 14 FPS |
| ultra | 113 FPS | 10 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 134 FPS | 12 FPS |
| medium | 107 FPS | 6 FPS |
| high | 87 FPS | 4 FPS |
| ultra | 68 FPS | 4 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 62 FPS | 3 FPS |
| medium | 51 FPS | 2 FPS |
| high | 49 FPS | 2 FPS |
| ultra | 41 FPS | 1 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1060 | Radeon R7 A8-8650 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 453 FPS | 32 FPS |
| medium | 362 FPS | 26 FPS |
| high | 302 FPS | 22 FPS |
| ultra | 226 FPS | 16 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 340 FPS | 24 FPS |
| medium | 272 FPS | 19 FPS |
| high | 226 FPS | 16 FPS |
| ultra | 170 FPS | 12 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 226 FPS | 16 FPS |
| medium | 181 FPS | 13 FPS |
| high | 151 FPS | 11 FPS |
| ultra | 113 FPS | 8 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1060 | Radeon R7 A8-8650 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 358 FPS | 32 FPS |
| medium | 302 FPS | 26 FPS |
| high | 260 FPS | 19 FPS |
| ultra | 226 FPS | 13 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 299 FPS | 5 FPS |
| medium | 254 FPS | 3 FPS |
| high | 208 FPS | 3 FPS |
| ultra | 170 FPS | 2 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 170 FPS | 3 FPS |
| medium | 133 FPS | 2 FPS |
| high | 123 FPS | 2 FPS |
| ultra | 102 FPS | 1 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1060 and Radeon R7 A8-8650

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.

Radeon R7 A8-8650
Radeon R7 A8-8650
The Radeon R7 A8-8650 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in January 9 2014. It features the GCN 1.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 725 MHz to 825 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 30W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 719 points.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1060 scores 10,064 versus the Radeon R7 A8-8650's 719 — the GeForce GTX 1060 leads by 1299.7%. The GeForce GTX 1060 is built on Pascal while the Radeon R7 A8-8650 uses GCN 1.0, both on 16 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 2,560 (GeForce GTX 1060) vs 384 (Radeon R7 A8-8650). Raw compute: 8.873 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1060) vs 0.6336 TFLOPS (Radeon R7 A8-8650). Boost clocks: 1733 MHz vs 825 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1060 | Radeon R7 A8-8650 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 10,064+1300% | 719 |
| Architecture | Pascal | GCN 1.0 |
| Process Node | 16 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 2560+567% | 384 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 8.873 TFLOPS+1300% | 0.6336 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1733 MHz+110% | 825 MHz |
| ROPs | 64+700% | 8 |
| TMUs | 160+567% | 24 |
| L1 Cache | 960 KB+900% | 96 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 Radeon R7 A8-8650 relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1060 | Radeon R7 A8-8650 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | Upscaling support | FSR Upscaling / FSR 4 |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | NVIDIA Reflex | AMD Anti-Lag |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The GeForce GTX 1060 comes with 6 GB of VRAM, while the Radeon R7 A8-8650 has 512 MB. The GeForce GTX 1060 offers 1100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 192-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 2 MB (GeForce GTX 1060) vs 0.25 MB (Radeon R7 A8-8650) — the GeForce GTX 1060 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1060 | Radeon R7 A8-8650 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 6 GB+1100% | 0.5 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 192 GB/s | Unknown |
| Bus Width | 192-bit+50% | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB+700% | 0.25 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1060) vs 12 (12_0) (Radeon R7 A8-8650). Vulkan: 1.3 vs 1.2. OpenGL: 4.5 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 3.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1060 | Radeon R7 A8-8650 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (12_0) |
| Vulkan | 1.3+8% | 1.2 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6+2% |
| Max Displays | 4+33% | 3 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC (Pascal) (GeForce GTX 1060) vs VCE 2.0 (Radeon R7 A8-8650). Decoder: NVDEC (Pascal) vs UVD 6.0. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC (GeForce GTX 1060) vs H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,MPEG-4 (Radeon R7 A8-8650).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1060 | Radeon R7 A8-8650 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC (Pascal) | VCE 2.0 |
| Decoder | NVDEC (Pascal) | UVD 6.0 |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265/HEVC | H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,MPEG-4 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1060 draws 180W versus the Radeon R7 A8-8650's 30W — a 142.9% difference. The Radeon R7 A8-8650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 400W (GeForce GTX 1060) vs 350W (Radeon R7 A8-8650). Power connectors: 6-pin vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 173mm vs 0mm, occupying 2 vs 0 slots.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1060 | Radeon R7 A8-8650 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 180W | 30W-83% |
| Recommended PSU | 400W | 350W-13% |
| Power Connector | 6-pin | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 173mm | 0mm |
| Height | 111mm | 0mm |
| Slots | 2 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | — | 72 |
| Perf/Watt | 55.9+133% | 24.0 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1060 launched at $249 MSRP, while the Radeon R7 A8-8650 launched at $49. The Radeon R7 A8-8650 costs 80.3% less ($200 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 40.4 (GeForce GTX 1060) vs 14.7 (Radeon R7 A8-8650) — the GeForce GTX 1060 offers 174.8% better value. The GeForce GTX 1060 is the newer GPU (2016 vs 2014).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1060 | Radeon R7 A8-8650 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $249 | $49-80% |
| Performance per Dollar | 40.4+175% | 14.7 |
| Codename | GP104 | Opal |
| Release | May 27 2016 | January 9 2014 |
| Ranking | #137 | #890 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.













