
GeForce GTX 1060
Popular choices:

RTX PRO 2000 Blackwell
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
- ✅Costs $600 less on MSRP ($249 MSRP vs $849 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 138.9% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 40.4 vs 16.9 G3D/$ ($249 MSRP vs $849 MSRP).
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower average FPS than RTX PRO 2000 Blackwell across 49 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ❌Less VRAM, with 6 GB vs 16 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.
- ❌157.1% higher power demand at 180W vs 70W.
RTX PRO 2000 Blackwell
2025Why buy it
- ✅41.6% more average FPS across 49 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ✅166.7% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (16 GB vs 6 GB).
- ✅More future proof: Blackwell 2.0 on 5nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
- ✅Draws 70W instead of 180W, a 110W reduction.
- ✅Measures 167mm instead of 173mm, a 6mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.
Trade-offs
- ❌241% HIGHER MSRP$849 MSRPvs$249 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 16.9 vs 40.4 G3D/$ ($849 MSRP vs $249 MSRP).
GeForce GTX 1060
2016RTX PRO 2000 Blackwell
2025Why buy it
- ✅Costs $600 less on MSRP ($249 MSRP vs $849 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 138.9% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 40.4 vs 16.9 G3D/$ ($249 MSRP vs $849 MSRP).
Why buy it
- ✅41.6% more average FPS across 49 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ✅166.7% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (16 GB vs 6 GB).
- ✅More future proof: Blackwell 2.0 on 5nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
- ✅Draws 70W instead of 180W, a 110W reduction.
- ✅Measures 167mm instead of 173mm, a 6mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower average FPS than RTX PRO 2000 Blackwell across 49 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ❌Less VRAM, with 6 GB vs 16 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.
- ❌157.1% higher power demand at 180W vs 70W.
Trade-offs
- ❌241% HIGHER MSRP$849 MSRPvs$249 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 16.9 vs 40.4 G3D/$ ($849 MSRP vs $249 MSRP).
Quick Answers
So, is RTX PRO 2000 Blackwell better than GeForce GTX 1060?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper card?
Is GeForce GTX 1060 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 | RTX PRO 2000 Blackwell |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 117 FPS | 181 FPS |
| medium | 105 FPS | 160 FPS |
| high | 91 FPS | 135 FPS |
| ultra | 77 FPS | 99 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 103 FPS | 158 FPS |
| medium | 87 FPS | 133 FPS |
| high | 76 FPS | 99 FPS |
| ultra | 67 FPS | 72 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 55 FPS | 80 FPS |
| medium | 49 FPS | 68 FPS |
| high | 41 FPS | 49 FPS |
| ultra | 37 FPS | 44 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1060 | RTX PRO 2000 Blackwell |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 216 FPS | 294 FPS |
| medium | 181 FPS | 255 FPS |
| high | 148 FPS | 211 FPS |
| ultra | 113 FPS | 170 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 134 FPS | 212 FPS |
| medium | 107 FPS | 181 FPS |
| high | 87 FPS | 152 FPS |
| ultra | 68 FPS | 121 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 62 FPS | 99 FPS |
| medium | 51 FPS | 83 FPS |
| high | 49 FPS | 70 FPS |
| ultra | 41 FPS | 52 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1060 | RTX PRO 2000 Blackwell |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 453 FPS | 646 FPS |
| medium | 362 FPS | 517 FPS |
| high | 302 FPS | 431 FPS |
| ultra | 226 FPS | 323 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 340 FPS | 485 FPS |
| medium | 272 FPS | 388 FPS |
| high | 226 FPS | 323 FPS |
| ultra | 170 FPS | 242 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 226 FPS | 323 FPS |
| medium | 181 FPS | 259 FPS |
| high | 151 FPS | 215 FPS |
| ultra | 113 FPS | 162 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1060 | RTX PRO 2000 Blackwell |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 358 FPS | 290 FPS |
| medium | 302 FPS | 247 FPS |
| high | 260 FPS | 203 FPS |
| ultra | 226 FPS | 177 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 299 FPS | 229 FPS |
| medium | 254 FPS | 198 FPS |
| high | 208 FPS | 165 FPS |
| ultra | 170 FPS | 139 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 170 FPS | 139 FPS |
| medium | 133 FPS | 116 FPS |
| high | 123 FPS | 93 FPS |
| ultra | 102 FPS | 76 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1060 and RTX PRO 2000 Blackwell

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.

RTX PRO 2000 Blackwell
RTX PRO 2000 Blackwell
The RTX PRO 2000 Blackwell is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in August 11 2025. It features the Blackwell 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 982 MHz to 1957 MHz. It has 4352 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 70W. Manufactured using 5 nm process technology. It features 34 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 14,363 points.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1060 scores 10,064 versus the RTX PRO 2000 Blackwell's 14,363 — the RTX PRO 2000 Blackwell leads by 42.7%. The GeForce GTX 1060 is built on Pascal while the RTX PRO 2000 Blackwell uses Blackwell 2.0, both on 16 nm vs 5 nm. Shader units: 2,560 (GeForce GTX 1060) vs 4,352 (RTX PRO 2000 Blackwell). Raw compute: 8.873 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1060) vs 17.03 TFLOPS (RTX PRO 2000 Blackwell). Boost clocks: 1733 MHz vs 1957 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1060 | RTX PRO 2000 Blackwell |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 10,064 | 14,363+43% |
| Architecture | Pascal | Blackwell 2.0 |
| Process Node | 16 nm | 5 nm |
| Shading Units | 2560 | 4352+70% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 8.873 TFLOPS | 17.03 TFLOPS+92% |
| Boost Clock | 1733 MHz | 1957 MHz+13% |
| ROPs | 64 | 64 |
| TMUs | 160+18% | 136 |
| L1 Cache | 0.94 MB | 4.3 MB+357% |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 32 MB+1500% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1060 | RTX PRO 2000 Blackwell |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | Upscaling support | Upscaling support |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | NVIDIA Reflex | NVIDIA Reflex |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The GeForce GTX 1060 comes with 6 GB of VRAM, while the RTX PRO 2000 Blackwell has 16 GB. The RTX PRO 2000 Blackwell offers 166.7% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 192-bit vs 256-bit. L2 Cache: 2 MB (GeForce GTX 1060) vs 32 MB (RTX PRO 2000 Blackwell) — the RTX PRO 2000 Blackwell has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1060 | RTX PRO 2000 Blackwell |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 6 GB | 16 GB+167% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Bus Width | 192-bit | 256-bit+33% |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 32 MB+1500% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1060) vs 12.0 (RTX PRO 2000 Blackwell). Vulkan: 1.3 vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.5 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 4.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1060 | RTX PRO 2000 Blackwell |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.4+8% |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6+2% |
| Max Displays | 4 | 4 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC (Pascal) (GeForce GTX 1060) vs 9th Gen NVENC (RTX PRO 2000 Blackwell). Decoder: NVDEC (Pascal) vs 6th Gen NVDEC. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC (GeForce GTX 1060) vs MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 (RTX PRO 2000 Blackwell).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1060 | RTX PRO 2000 Blackwell |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC (Pascal) | 9th Gen NVENC |
| Decoder | NVDEC (Pascal) | 6th Gen NVDEC |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265/HEVC | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1060 draws 180W versus the RTX PRO 2000 Blackwell's 70W — a 88% difference. The RTX PRO 2000 Blackwell is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 400W (GeForce GTX 1060) vs 500W (RTX PRO 2000 Blackwell). Power connectors: 6-pin vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 173mm vs 167mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1060 | RTX PRO 2000 Blackwell |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 180W | 70W-61% |
| Recommended PSU | 400W-20% | 500W |
| Power Connector | 6-pin | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 173mm | 167mm |
| Height | 111mm | 68mm |
| Slots | 2 | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | — | 70°C |
| Perf/Watt | 55.9 | 205.2+267% |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1060 launched at $249 MSRP, while the RTX PRO 2000 Blackwell launched at $849. The GeForce GTX 1060 costs 70.7% less ($600 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 40.4 (GeForce GTX 1060) vs 16.9 (RTX PRO 2000 Blackwell) — the GeForce GTX 1060 offers 139.1% better value. The RTX PRO 2000 Blackwell is the newer GPU (2025 vs 2016).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1060 | RTX PRO 2000 Blackwell |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $249-71% | $849 |
| Performance per Dollar | 40.4+139% | 16.9 |
| Codename | GP104 | GB206 |
| Release | May 27 2016 | August 11 2025 |
| Ranking | #137 | #165 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.













