
GeForce GTX 1060
Popular choices:

Radeon R9 M385X
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
- ✅+404.7% higher PassMark G3D performance.
- ✅Costs $51 less on MSRP ($249 MSRP vs $300 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 508.1% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 40.4 vs 6.6 G3D/$ ($249 MSRP vs $300 MSRP).
- ✅1100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (6 GB vs 512 MB).
- ✅Less risky long-term buy than Radeon R9 M385X: it remains the more sensible modern option while Radeon R9 M385X 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.
- ❌140% higher power demand at 180W vs 75W.
Radeon R9 M385X
2015Why buy it
- ✅Draws 75W instead of 180W, a 105W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (1,994 vs 10,064).
- ❌Less VRAM, with 512 MB vs 6 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
- ❌Very weak future-proofing: 2015-era hardware with 512 MB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
- ❌20.5% HIGHER MSRP$300 MSRPvs$249 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 6.6 vs 40.4 G3D/$ ($300 MSRP vs $249 MSRP).
GeForce GTX 1060
2016Radeon R9 M385X
2015Why buy it
- ✅+404.7% higher PassMark G3D performance.
- ✅Costs $51 less on MSRP ($249 MSRP vs $300 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 508.1% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 40.4 vs 6.6 G3D/$ ($249 MSRP vs $300 MSRP).
- ✅1100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (6 GB vs 512 MB).
- ✅Less risky long-term buy than Radeon R9 M385X: it remains the more sensible modern option while Radeon R9 M385X is already obsolete for modern gaming.
Why buy it
- ✅Draws 75W instead of 180W, a 105W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Poor future-proofing: 2016-era hardware with 6 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.
- ❌140% higher power demand at 180W vs 75W.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (1,994 vs 10,064).
- ❌Less VRAM, with 512 MB vs 6 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
- ❌Very weak future-proofing: 2015-era hardware with 512 MB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
- ❌20.5% HIGHER MSRP$300 MSRPvs$249 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 6.6 vs 40.4 G3D/$ ($300 MSRP vs $249 MSRP).
Quick Answers
So, is GeForce GTX 1060 better than Radeon R9 M385X?
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 M385X 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 M385X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 117 FPS | 36 FPS |
| medium | 105 FPS | 22 FPS |
| high | 91 FPS | 15 FPS |
| ultra | 77 FPS | 8 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 103 FPS | 24 FPS |
| medium | 87 FPS | 14 FPS |
| high | 76 FPS | 7 FPS |
| ultra | 67 FPS | 4 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 55 FPS | 9 FPS |
| medium | 49 FPS | 6 FPS |
| high | 41 FPS | 4 FPS |
| ultra | 37 FPS | 3 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1060 | Radeon R9 M385X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 216 FPS | 53 FPS |
| medium | 181 FPS | 29 FPS |
| high | 148 FPS | 21 FPS |
| ultra | 113 FPS | 14 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 134 FPS | 26 FPS |
| medium | 107 FPS | 15 FPS |
| high | 87 FPS | 9 FPS |
| ultra | 68 FPS | 7 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 62 FPS | 7 FPS |
| medium | 51 FPS | 4 FPS |
| high | 49 FPS | 4 FPS |
| ultra | 41 FPS | 3 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1060 | Radeon R9 M385X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 453 FPS | 90 FPS |
| medium | 362 FPS | 72 FPS |
| high | 302 FPS | 60 FPS |
| ultra | 226 FPS | 45 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 340 FPS | 67 FPS |
| medium | 272 FPS | 54 FPS |
| high | 226 FPS | 45 FPS |
| ultra | 170 FPS | 34 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 226 FPS | 45 FPS |
| medium | 181 FPS | 36 FPS |
| high | 151 FPS | 30 FPS |
| ultra | 113 FPS | 22 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1060 | Radeon R9 M385X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 358 FPS | 63 FPS |
| medium | 302 FPS | 52 FPS |
| high | 260 FPS | 39 FPS |
| ultra | 226 FPS | 32 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 299 FPS | 37 FPS |
| medium | 254 FPS | 31 FPS |
| high | 208 FPS | 26 FPS |
| ultra | 170 FPS | 21 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 170 FPS | 25 FPS |
| medium | 133 FPS | 20 FPS |
| high | 123 FPS | 16 FPS |
| ultra | 102 FPS | 12 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1060 and Radeon R9 M385X

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 M385X
Radeon R9 M385X
The Radeon R9 M385X is manufactured by AMD. It was released in May 5 2015. It features the GCN 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1000 MHz to 1100 MHz. It has 896 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,994 points.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1060 scores 10,064 versus the Radeon R9 M385X's 1,994 — the GeForce GTX 1060 leads by 404.7%. The GeForce GTX 1060 is built on Pascal while the Radeon R9 M385X uses GCN 2.0, both on 16 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 2,560 (GeForce GTX 1060) vs 896 (Radeon R9 M385X). Raw compute: 8.873 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1060) vs 1.971 TFLOPS (Radeon R9 M385X). Boost clocks: 1733 MHz vs 1100 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1060 | Radeon R9 M385X |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 10,064+405% | 1,994 |
| Architecture | Pascal | GCN 2.0 |
| Process Node | 16 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 2560+186% | 896 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 8.873 TFLOPS+350% | 1.971 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1733 MHz+58% | 1100 MHz |
| ROPs | 64+300% | 16 |
| TMUs | 160+186% | 56 |
| L1 Cache | 960 KB+329% | 224 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 R9 M385X relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1060 | Radeon R9 M385X |
|---|---|---|
| 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 M385X 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 R9 M385X) — the GeForce GTX 1060 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1060 | Radeon R9 M385X |
|---|---|---|
| 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 R9 M385X). Vulkan: 1.3 vs 1.2. OpenGL: 4.5 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 4.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1060 | Radeon R9 M385X |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (12_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 VCE 2.0 (Radeon R9 M385X). Decoder: NVDEC (Pascal) vs UVD 4.2. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC (GeForce GTX 1060) vs H.264,MPEG-4,VC-1,MPEG-2 (Radeon R9 M385X).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1060 | Radeon R9 M385X |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC (Pascal) | VCE 2.0 |
| Decoder | NVDEC (Pascal) | UVD 4.2 |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265/HEVC | H.264,MPEG-4,VC-1,MPEG-2 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1060 draws 180W versus the Radeon R9 M385X's 75W — a 82.4% difference. The Radeon R9 M385X is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 400W (GeForce GTX 1060) vs 350W (Radeon R9 M385X). Power connectors: 6-pin vs Mobile. Card length: 173mm vs 0mm, occupying 2 vs 0 slots.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1060 | Radeon R9 M385X |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 180W | 75W-58% |
| Recommended PSU | 400W | 350W-13% |
| Power Connector | 6-pin | Mobile |
| Length | 173mm | 0mm |
| Height | 111mm | 0mm |
| Slots | 2 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | — | 85 |
| Perf/Watt | 55.9+110% | 26.6 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1060 launched at $249 MSRP, while the Radeon R9 M385X launched at $300. The GeForce GTX 1060 costs 17% less ($51 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 40.4 (GeForce GTX 1060) vs 6.6 (Radeon R9 M385X) — the GeForce GTX 1060 offers 512.1% better value. The GeForce GTX 1060 is the newer GPU (2016 vs 2015).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1060 | Radeon R9 M385X |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $249-17% | $300 |
| Performance per Dollar | 40.4+512% | 6.6 |
| Codename | GP104 | Strato |
| Release | May 27 2016 | May 5 2015 |
| Ranking | #137 | #681 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.













