
GeForce GTX 1060
Popular choices:

Radeon R9 390
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
- ✅17.5% more average FPS across 29 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ✅Costs $80 less on MSRP ($249 MSRP vs $329 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 50.2% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 40.4 vs 26.9 G3D/$ ($249 MSRP vs $329 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 180W instead of 300W, a 120W reduction.
- ✅Measures 173mm instead of 275mm, a 102mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.
Trade-offs
- ❌Less VRAM, with 6 GB vs 8 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
- ❌Poor future-proofing: 2016-era hardware with 6 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.
Radeon R9 390
2015Why buy it
- ✅33.3% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (8 GB vs 6 GB).
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower average FPS than GeForce GTX 1060 across 29 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ❌Poor future-proofing: 2015-era hardware with 8 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.
- ❌32.1% HIGHER MSRP$329 MSRPvs$249 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 26.9 vs 40.4 G3D/$ ($329 MSRP vs $249 MSRP).
- ❌66.7% higher power demand at 300W vs 180W.
GeForce GTX 1060
2016Radeon R9 390
2015Why buy it
- ✅17.5% more average FPS across 29 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ✅Costs $80 less on MSRP ($249 MSRP vs $329 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 50.2% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 40.4 vs 26.9 G3D/$ ($249 MSRP vs $329 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 180W instead of 300W, a 120W reduction.
- ✅Measures 173mm instead of 275mm, a 102mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.
Why buy it
- ✅33.3% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (8 GB vs 6 GB).
Trade-offs
- ❌Less VRAM, with 6 GB vs 8 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
- ❌Poor future-proofing: 2016-era hardware with 6 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower average FPS than GeForce GTX 1060 across 29 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ❌Poor future-proofing: 2015-era hardware with 8 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.
- ❌32.1% HIGHER MSRP$329 MSRPvs$249 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 26.9 vs 40.4 G3D/$ ($329 MSRP vs $249 MSRP).
- ❌66.7% higher power demand at 300W vs 180W.
Quick Answers
So, is GeForce GTX 1060 better than Radeon R9 390?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper card?
Is Radeon R9 390 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 R9 390 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 117 FPS | 105 FPS |
| medium | 105 FPS | 89 FPS |
| high | 91 FPS | 73 FPS |
| ultra | 77 FPS | 49 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 103 FPS | 89 FPS |
| medium | 87 FPS | 75 FPS |
| high | 76 FPS | 55 FPS |
| ultra | 67 FPS | 36 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 55 FPS | 36 FPS |
| medium | 49 FPS | 32 FPS |
| high | 41 FPS | 20 FPS |
| ultra | 37 FPS | 17 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1060 | Radeon R9 390 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 216 FPS | 184 FPS |
| medium | 181 FPS | 162 FPS |
| high | 148 FPS | 134 FPS |
| ultra | 113 FPS | 103 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 134 FPS | 131 FPS |
| medium | 107 FPS | 106 FPS |
| high | 87 FPS | 85 FPS |
| ultra | 68 FPS | 65 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 62 FPS | 60 FPS |
| medium | 51 FPS | 50 FPS |
| high | 49 FPS | 45 FPS |
| ultra | 41 FPS | 36 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1060 | Radeon R9 390 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 453 FPS | 398 FPS |
| medium | 362 FPS | 319 FPS |
| high | 302 FPS | 266 FPS |
| ultra | 226 FPS | 199 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 340 FPS | 299 FPS |
| medium | 272 FPS | 239 FPS |
| high | 226 FPS | 199 FPS |
| ultra | 170 FPS | 149 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 226 FPS | 199 FPS |
| medium | 181 FPS | 159 FPS |
| high | 151 FPS | 133 FPS |
| ultra | 113 FPS | 100 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1060 | Radeon R9 390 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 358 FPS | 224 FPS |
| medium | 302 FPS | 193 FPS |
| high | 260 FPS | 156 FPS |
| ultra | 226 FPS | 132 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 299 FPS | 170 FPS |
| medium | 254 FPS | 146 FPS |
| high | 208 FPS | 113 FPS |
| ultra | 170 FPS | 92 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 170 FPS | 95 FPS |
| medium | 133 FPS | 75 FPS |
| high | 123 FPS | 59 FPS |
| ultra | 102 FPS | 45 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1060 and Radeon R9 390

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 R9 390
Radeon R9 390
The Radeon R9 390 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in June 18 2015. It features the GCN 2.0 architecture. The boost clock speed is 1000 MHz. It has 2560 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 300W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 8,855 points. Launch price was $329.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1060 scores 10,064 versus the Radeon R9 390's 8,855 — the GeForce GTX 1060 leads by 13.7%. The GeForce GTX 1060 is built on Pascal while the Radeon R9 390 uses GCN 2.0, both on 16 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 2,560 (GeForce GTX 1060) vs 2,560 (Radeon R9 390). Raw compute: 8.873 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1060) vs 5.12 TFLOPS (Radeon R9 390). Boost clocks: 1733 MHz vs 1000 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1060 | Radeon R9 390 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 10,064+14% | 8,855 |
| Architecture | Pascal | GCN 2.0 |
| Process Node | 16 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 2560 | 2560 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 8.873 TFLOPS+73% | 5.12 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1733 MHz+73% | 1000 MHz |
| ROPs | 64 | 64 |
| TMUs | 160 | 160 |
| L1 Cache | 960 KB+50% | 640 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB+100% | 1 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 R9 390 relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1060 | Radeon R9 390 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 R9 390 has 8 GB. The Radeon R9 390 offers 33.3% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 192 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1060) vs 320 GB/s (Radeon R9 390) — a 66.7% advantage for the Radeon R9 390. Bus width: 192-bit vs 512-bit. L2 Cache: 2 MB (GeForce GTX 1060) vs 1 MB (Radeon R9 390) — the GeForce GTX 1060 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1060 | Radeon R9 390 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 6 GB | 8 GB+33% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 192 GB/s | 320 GB/s+67% |
| Bus Width | 192-bit | 512-bit+167% |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB+100% | 1 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1060) vs 12.0 (Radeon R9 390). Vulkan: 1.3 vs 1.2. OpenGL: 4.5 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 6.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1060 | Radeon R9 390 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.3+8% | 1.2 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6+2% |
| Max Displays | 4 | 6+50% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC (Pascal) (GeForce GTX 1060) vs VCE 2.0 (Radeon R9 390). Decoder: NVDEC (Pascal) vs UVD 4.2. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC (GeForce GTX 1060) vs MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1 (Radeon R9 390).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1060 | Radeon R9 390 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC (Pascal) | VCE 2.0 |
| Decoder | NVDEC (Pascal) | UVD 4.2 |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265/HEVC | MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1060 draws 180W versus the Radeon R9 390's 300W — a 50% difference. The GeForce GTX 1060 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 400W (GeForce GTX 1060) vs 750W (Radeon R9 390). Power connectors: 6-pin vs 6-pin + 8-pin. Card length: 173mm vs 275mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1060 | Radeon R9 390 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 180W-40% | 300W |
| Recommended PSU | 400W-47% | 750W |
| Power Connector | 6-pin | 6-pin + 8-pin |
| Length | 173mm | 275mm |
| Height | 111mm | 109mm |
| Slots | 2 | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | — | 95°C |
| Perf/Watt | 55.9+89% | 29.5 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1060 launched at $249 MSRP, while the Radeon R9 390 launched at $329. The GeForce GTX 1060 costs 24.3% less ($80 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 40.4 (GeForce GTX 1060) vs 26.9 (Radeon R9 390) — the GeForce GTX 1060 offers 50.2% better value. The GeForce GTX 1060 is the newer GPU (2016 vs 2015).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1060 | Radeon R9 390 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $249-24% | $329 |
| Performance per Dollar | 40.4+50% | 26.9 |
| Codename | GP104 | Grenada |
| Release | May 27 2016 | June 18 2015 |
| Ranking | #137 | #296 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.













