
GeForce GTX 1060
Popular choices:

Tesla M2090
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
- ✅+618.9% higher PassMark G3D performance.
- ✅Costs $2,251 less on MSRP ($249 MSRP vs $2,500 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 7117.4% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 40.4 vs 0.6 G3D/$ ($249 MSRP vs $2,500 MSRP).
- ✅1100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (6 GB vs 512 MB).
- ✅Less risky long-term buy than Tesla M2090: it remains the more sensible modern option while Tesla M2090 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.
Tesla M2090
2011Why buy it
- ✅Competitive enough if your priority is price, power, or specific feature preference.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (1,400 vs 10,064).
- ❌Less VRAM, with 512 MB vs 6 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
- ❌Very weak future-proofing: 2011-era hardware with 512 MB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
- ❌904% HIGHER MSRP$2,500 MSRPvs$249 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0.6 vs 40.4 G3D/$ ($2,500 MSRP vs $249 MSRP).
GeForce GTX 1060
2016Tesla M2090
2011Why buy it
- ✅+618.9% higher PassMark G3D performance.
- ✅Costs $2,251 less on MSRP ($249 MSRP vs $2,500 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 7117.4% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 40.4 vs 0.6 G3D/$ ($249 MSRP vs $2,500 MSRP).
- ✅1100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (6 GB vs 512 MB).
- ✅Less risky long-term buy than Tesla M2090: it remains the more sensible modern option while Tesla M2090 is already obsolete for modern gaming.
Why buy it
- ✅Competitive enough if your priority is price, power, or specific feature preference.
Trade-offs
- ❌Poor future-proofing: 2016-era hardware with 6 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (1,400 vs 10,064).
- ❌Less VRAM, with 512 MB vs 6 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
- ❌Very weak future-proofing: 2011-era hardware with 512 MB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
- ❌904% HIGHER MSRP$2,500 MSRPvs$249 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0.6 vs 40.4 G3D/$ ($2,500 MSRP vs $249 MSRP).
Quick Answers
So, is GeForce GTX 1060 better than Tesla M2090?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper card?
Is Tesla M2090 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 | Tesla M2090 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 117 FPS | 63 FPS |
| medium | 105 FPS | 50 FPS |
| high | 91 FPS | 42 FPS |
| ultra | 77 FPS | 32 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 103 FPS | 47 FPS |
| medium | 87 FPS | 38 FPS |
| high | 76 FPS | 32 FPS |
| ultra | 67 FPS | 24 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 55 FPS | 27 FPS |
| medium | 49 FPS | 25 FPS |
| high | 41 FPS | 17 FPS |
| ultra | 37 FPS | 14 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1060 | Tesla M2090 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 216 FPS | 63 FPS |
| medium | 181 FPS | 50 FPS |
| high | 148 FPS | 42 FPS |
| ultra | 113 FPS | 32 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 134 FPS | 47 FPS |
| medium | 107 FPS | 38 FPS |
| high | 87 FPS | 32 FPS |
| ultra | 68 FPS | 24 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 62 FPS | 32 FPS |
| medium | 51 FPS | 25 FPS |
| high | 49 FPS | 21 FPS |
| ultra | 41 FPS | 16 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1060 | Tesla M2090 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 453 FPS | 63 FPS |
| medium | 362 FPS | 50 FPS |
| high | 302 FPS | 42 FPS |
| ultra | 226 FPS | 32 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 340 FPS | 47 FPS |
| medium | 272 FPS | 38 FPS |
| high | 226 FPS | 32 FPS |
| ultra | 170 FPS | 24 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 226 FPS | 32 FPS |
| medium | 181 FPS | 25 FPS |
| high | 151 FPS | 21 FPS |
| ultra | 113 FPS | 16 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1060 | Tesla M2090 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 358 FPS | 63 FPS |
| medium | 302 FPS | 50 FPS |
| high | 260 FPS | 42 FPS |
| ultra | 226 FPS | 32 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 299 FPS | 47 FPS |
| medium | 254 FPS | 38 FPS |
| high | 208 FPS | 32 FPS |
| ultra | 170 FPS | 24 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 170 FPS | 32 FPS |
| medium | 133 FPS | 25 FPS |
| high | 123 FPS | 21 FPS |
| ultra | 102 FPS | 16 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1060 and Tesla M2090

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.

Tesla M2090
Tesla M2090
The Tesla M2090 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in July 25 2011. It features the Fermi 2.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 651 MHz. It has 512 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 250W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,400 points.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1060 scores 10,064 versus the Tesla M2090's 1,400 — the GeForce GTX 1060 leads by 618.9%. The GeForce GTX 1060 is built on Pascal while the Tesla M2090 uses Fermi 2.0, both on 16 nm vs 40 nm. Shader units: 2,560 (GeForce GTX 1060) vs 512 (Tesla M2090). Raw compute: 8.873 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1060) vs 1.332 TFLOPS (Tesla M2090).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1060 | Tesla M2090 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 10,064+619% | 1,400 |
| Architecture | Pascal | Fermi 2.0 |
| Process Node | 16 nm | 40 nm |
| Shading Units | 2560+400% | 512 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 8.873 TFLOPS+566% | 1.332 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64+33% | 48 |
| TMUs | 160+150% | 64 |
| L1 Cache | 0.94 MB | 1 MB+6% |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB+167% | 0.75 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 Tesla M2090 relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1060 | Tesla M2090 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 Tesla M2090 has 512 MB. The GeForce GTX 1060 offers 1100% 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 0.75 MB (Tesla M2090) — the GeForce GTX 1060 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1060 | Tesla M2090 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 6 GB+1100% | 0.5 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 192-bit+200% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB+167% | 0.75 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1060) vs 12 (FL 11_0) (Tesla M2090). OpenGL: 4.5 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 0.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1060 | Tesla M2090 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (FL 11_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6+2% |
| Max Displays | 4 | 0 |
Media & Encoding
Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC (GeForce GTX 1060) vs CUDA,OpenCL (Tesla M2090).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1060 | Tesla M2090 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC (Pascal) | — |
| Decoder | NVDEC (Pascal) | — |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265/HEVC | CUDA,OpenCL |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1060 draws 180W versus the Tesla M2090's 250W — a 32.6% difference. The GeForce GTX 1060 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 400W (GeForce GTX 1060) vs 350W (Tesla M2090). Power connectors: 6-pin vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 173mm vs 248mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1060 | Tesla M2090 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 180W-28% | 250W |
| Recommended PSU | 400W | 350W-13% |
| Power Connector | 6-pin | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 173mm | 248mm |
| Height | 111mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 2 | 2 |
| Perf/Watt | 55.9+898% | 5.6 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1060 launched at $249 MSRP, while the Tesla M2090 launched at $2500. The GeForce GTX 1060 costs 90% less ($2251 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 40.4 (GeForce GTX 1060) vs 0.6 (Tesla M2090) — the GeForce GTX 1060 offers 6633.3% better value. The GeForce GTX 1060 is the newer GPU (2016 vs 2011).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1060 | Tesla M2090 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $249-90% | $2500 |
| Performance per Dollar | 40.4+6633% | 0.6 |
| Codename | GP104 | GF110 |
| Release | May 27 2016 | July 25 2011 |
| Ranking | #137 | #530 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.













