AMD Radeon RX 480 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 5 GB Comparison

# AMD Radeon RX 480 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 5 GB

The AMD Radeon RX 480 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 5 GB are two end-of-life graphics cards from the same era, but they take notably different approaches to performance and positioning. In aggregate benchmark scores, the RX 480 averages 33,997 across all tests, while the GTX 1060 5 GB averages 33,694 — a razor-thin 0.9% gap that places both cards at the 78th percentile of all GPUs. However, the head-to-head benchmark results tell a more lopsided story, with the RX 480 winning both direct comparisons by substantial margins.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two cards were compared directly in two compute-oriented tests, and the AMD Radeon RX 480 won both. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 480 scored 37,998 against the GTX 1060 5 GB's 33,397, a 13.8% advantage. The gap widened considerably in Geekbench Vulkan, where the RX 480 posted 45,968 versus 33,991 for the GTX 1060 5 GB — a 35.2% lead. That Vulkan result is particularly striking, as it shows the RX 480 delivering more than a third more performance in a modern low-level API workload.

The overall benchmark average tells a different story than the head-to-head results. While the RX 480 holds a 0.9% aggregate advantage, its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 7700S (33,849, +0.4% for the RX 480) and the NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB (34,154, -0.5% for the RX 480). The GTX 1060 5 GB sits just 0.9% behind the RX 480 in average score, but interestingly, its own nearest rival list includes the RX 480 at a -0.9% delta — meaning the two cards are essentially neck-and-neck in overall performance despite the wide divergence in the direct Vulkan benchmark.

The pattern suggests that the RX 480's advantage is workload-dependent. In OpenCL compute, it leads by a healthy margin; in Vulkan, it dominates. The GTX 1060 5 GB's best showing comes in its Vulkan score of 33,991, which is still 4,639 points shy of the RX 480's OpenCL result — and the RX 480's Vulkan score of 45,968 is more than 12,000 points higher than the GTX 1060's best result in either test. For applications that leverage these APIs heavily, the RX 480 is clearly the stronger card.

Architecture Differences

The RX 480 uses AMD's GCN 4.0 architecture on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, built around the Ellesmere chip. The GTX 1060 5 GB employs NVIDIA's Pascal architecture on a 16 nm process at TSMC, using the GP106 chip. The process node difference is modest — 14 nm versus 16 nm — but the transistor counts diverge significantly. The RX 480 packs 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.6M per mm². The GTX 1060 5 GB contains 4,400 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, for a density of 22.0M per mm². The RX 480 is the denser chip by a meaningful margin.

Clock speeds favor NVIDIA substantially. The GTX 1060 5 GB runs at a 1506 MHz base and 1709 MHz boost, while the RX 480 operates at 1120 MHz base and 1266 MHz boost. Despite the lower clocks, the RX 480 compensates with a much wider compute configuration: 2304 shading units and 144 texture mapping units against 1280 shading units and 80 TMUs for the GTX 1060 5 GB. The ROP count flips in NVIDIA's favor — 40 ROPs versus 32 — which explains the GTX 1060's pixel rate advantage of 68.36 GPixel/s versus 40.51 GPixel/s. Texture rate favors AMD at 182.3 GTexel/s versus 136.7 GTexel/s, and FP32 throughput is likewise higher on the RX 480 at 5.834 TFLOPS versus 4.375 TFLOPS.

Memory configurations are fundamentally different. The RX 480 ships with 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 1060 5 GB has 5 GB of GDDR5 on a 160-bit bus, yielding 160.2 GB/s. Both run memory at effectively 8 Gbps effective, but the RX 480's wider bus gives it a 59.9% bandwidth advantage. The GTX 1060 5 GB's FP16 throughput is severely limited at 68.36 GFLOPS with a 1:64 ratio, while the RX 480 offers full-rate FP16 at 5.834 TFLOPS (1:1).

Power characteristics also differ. The RX 480 draws 150 W TDP with a suggested 450 W PSU, while the GTX 1060 5 GB is more efficient at 120 W TDP and a 300 W suggested PSU. Both use a single 6-pin power connector and occupy dual-slot designs. The RX 480 measures 240 mm in length; the GTX 1060 5 GB is slightly longer at 250 mm.

The Verdict

Benchmark data clearly favors the RX 480 in direct comparison, with wins in both head-to-head tests — a 13.8% lead in OpenCL and a 35.2% lead in Vulkan. The RX 480 also offers more memory (8 GB versus 5 GB), higher bandwidth (256.0 GB/s versus 160.2 GB/s), and greater compute throughput (5.834 TFLOPS versus 4.375 TFLOPS FP32). For users running Vulkan-based titles or OpenCL compute workloads, the RX 480 is the data-supported choice.

However, the GTX 1060 5 GB is not without merits. Its 40 ROPs and higher clock speeds deliver superior pixel fill rate (68.36 GPixel/s versus 40.51 GPixel/s), which can matter in geometry-heavy scenarios. It also runs cooler in terms of TDP at 120 W versus 150 W, and its smaller die size (200 mm² versus 232 mm²) suggests more efficient use of silicon. The aggregate benchmark average shows only a 0.9% difference, so in mixed workloads, the two cards are effectively tied.

The GTX 1060 5 GB's Vulkan API support is listed as 1.4 versus 1.3 for the RX 480, and it supports DirectX 12_1 versus 12_0. But the benchmark results show the RX 480's Vulkan performance is vastly superior in practice. For users prioritizing raw compute performance, memory capacity, and API-level performance in Vulkan/OpenCL, the RX 480 is the pick. For users who value efficiency and pixel throughput — and who don't need the extra VRAM — the GTX 1060 5 GB holds its own.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 480 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 5 GB |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | Pascal |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 16 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |

| Transistors | 5,700 million | 4,400 million |

| Die Size | 232 mm² | 200 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 24.6M / mm² | 22.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1120 MHz | 1506 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1266 MHz | 1709 MHz |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 5 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 160 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 256.0 GB/s | 160.2 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2304 | 1280 |

| TMUs | 144 | 80 |

| ROPs | 32 | 40 |

| Pixel Rate | 40.51 GPixel/s | 68.36 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 182.3 GTexel/s | 136.7 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 5.834 TFLOPS | 4.375 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 5.834 TFLOPS (1:1) | 68.36 GFLOPS (1:64) |

| TDP | 150 W | 120 W |

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | 300 W |

| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (12_1) |

| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.4 |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Length | 240 mm (9.4 inches) | 250 mm (9.8 inches) |

| Release Date | 2016-06-28 | 2017-12-25 |

| Launch MSRP | 229 USD | null |

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 480 averages 33,997 across all benchmark tests, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 5 GB averages 33,694, putting the RX 480 ahead by 0.9%.

Q: How much faster is the RX 480 in Vulkan?

A: In Geekbench Vulkan, the RX 480 scores 45,968 versus 33,991 for the GTX 1060 5 GB, a 35.2% advantage for the AMD card.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The RX 480 offers 256.0 GB/s over a 256-bit bus, while the GTX 1060 5 GB provides 160.2 GB/s over a 160-bit bus — a 59.9% bandwidth advantage for the RX 480.

Q: Does the GTX 1060 5 GB have any performance advantage?

A: Yes, in pixel rate. The GTX 1060 5 GB delivers 68.36 GPixel/s versus 40.51 GPixel/s for the RX 480, due to its 40 ROPs and higher clocks, despite having fewer shading units and TMUs.

Q: Which card supports newer API versions?

A: The GTX 1060 5 GB supports DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4, while the RX 480 supports DirectX 12_0 and Vulkan 1.3. However, benchmark scores show the RX 480 performing much better in Vulkan workloads.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The RX 480 has a 150 W TDP and requires a 450 W PSU, while the GTX 1060 5 GB has a 120 W TDP and requires a 300 W PSU. Both use a single 6-pin power connector.