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 with Max-Q Design

2017

Why buy it

✅6.2% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
✅50% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (6 GB vs 4 GB).
✅Draws 80W instead of 150W, a 70W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Poor future-proofing: 2017-era hardware with 6 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 15.5 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $500 MSRP).

Radeon Pro 580

2017

Why buy it

✅Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 15.5 vs 0 G3D/$ ($500 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Lower average FPS than GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
❌Less VRAM, with 4 GB vs 6 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
❌Poor future-proofing: 2017-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.
❌87.5% higher power demand at 150W vs 80W.

GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design

2017

Radeon Pro 580

2017

Why buy it

✅6.2% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
✅50% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (6 GB vs 4 GB).
✅Draws 80W instead of 150W, a 70W reduction.

Why buy it

✅Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 15.5 vs 0 G3D/$ ($500 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Poor future-proofing: 2017-era hardware with 6 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 15.5 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $500 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Lower average FPS than GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
❌Less VRAM, with 4 GB vs 6 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
❌Poor future-proofing: 2017-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.
❌87.5% higher power demand at 150W vs 80W.

Quick Answers

So, is GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design better than Radeon Pro 580?

Yes, but this is not really about a huge raw performance gap. GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design averages 6.2% more FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data. The broader synthetic picture is also very close at 7,853 vs 7,753 in G3D Mark. The bigger reason to prefer GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design is the overall package: you are getting no meaningful modern upscaling stack, plus much lower power draw (80W vs 150W).

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting more VRAM at 6 GB instead of 4 GB and the stronger feature stack with no meaningful modern upscaling stack instead of FSR upscaling. That extra memory headroom makes it the safer pick for newer games, heavier textures, and higher settings over time.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper card?

GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design is the smarter buy by a wide margin. GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design is priced in an unclear MSRP range at an unclear MSRP versus $500 MSRP, and you are getting 6.2% more estimated average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data and 1.3% higher G3D Mark. Radeon Pro 580 really only makes sense now as a very cheap stopgap or a used-market placeholder.

Is Radeon Pro 580 still worth buying for gaming in 2026?

No, not for a fresh gaming build. Radeon Pro 580 is 2017 hardware with 4 GB of VRAM, 7,753 in G3D Mark, and FSR upscaling. That is simply too far behind to be an easy modern recommendation.

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.

GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design Benchmark Check

Radeon Pro 580 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design	Radeon Pro 580
1080p
low	82 FPS	81 FPS
medium	70 FPS	69 FPS
high	59 FPS	58 FPS
ultra	39 FPS	38 FPS
1440p
low	72 FPS	71 FPS
medium	62 FPS	62 FPS
high	46 FPS	46 FPS
ultra	30 FPS	29 FPS
4K
low	26 FPS	25 FPS
medium	25 FPS	24 FPS
high	17 FPS	16 FPS
ultra	14 FPS	14 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design Open Radeon Pro 580

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design	Radeon Pro 580
1080p
low	167 FPS	184 FPS
medium	142 FPS	159 FPS
high	118 FPS	127 FPS
ultra	83 FPS	101 FPS
1440p
low	115 FPS	132 FPS
medium	92 FPS	109 FPS
high	73 FPS	89 FPS
ultra	52 FPS	69 FPS
4K
low	50 FPS	71 FPS
medium	41 FPS	61 FPS
high	39 FPS	50 FPS
ultra	30 FPS	37 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design Open Radeon Pro 580

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design	Radeon Pro 580
1080p
low	353 FPS	349 FPS
medium	283 FPS	279 FPS
high	236 FPS	233 FPS
ultra	177 FPS	174 FPS
1440p
low	265 FPS	262 FPS
medium	212 FPS	209 FPS
high	177 FPS	174 FPS
ultra	133 FPS	131 FPS
4K
low	177 FPS	174 FPS
medium	141 FPS	140 FPS
high	118 FPS	116 FPS
ultra	88 FPS	87 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design Open Radeon Pro 580

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design	Radeon Pro 580
1080p
low	214 FPS	162 FPS
medium	182 FPS	134 FPS
high	147 FPS	116 FPS
ultra	125 FPS	99 FPS
1440p
low	164 FPS	119 FPS
medium	142 FPS	100 FPS
high	110 FPS	87 FPS
ultra	90 FPS	73 FPS
4K
low	90 FPS	67 FPS
medium	72 FPS	54 FPS
high	56 FPS	42 FPS
ultra	42 FPS	33 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design Open Radeon Pro 580

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design and Radeon Pro 580

GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design

The GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in June 27 2017. It features the Pascal architecture. The core clock ranges from 1063 MHz to 1480 MHz. It has 1280 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 80W. Manufactured using 16 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 7,853 points.

Radeon Pro 580

The Radeon Pro 580 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in June 5 2017. It features the GCN 4.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1100 MHz to 1200 MHz. It has 2304 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 150W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 7,753 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

The GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design scores 7,853 and the Radeon Pro 580 reaches 7,753 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.3% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design is built on Pascal while the Radeon Pro 580 uses GCN 4.0, both on 16 nm vs 14 nm. Shader units: 1,280 (GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design) vs 2,304 (Radeon Pro 580). Raw compute: 3.789 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design) vs 5.53 TFLOPS (Radeon Pro 580). Boost clocks: 1480 MHz vs 1200 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design	Radeon Pro 580
G3D Mark Score	7,853+1%	7,753
Architecture	Pascal	GCN 4.0
Process Node	16 nm	14 nm
Shading Units	1280	2304+80%
Compute (TFLOPS)	3.789 TFLOPS	5.53 TFLOPS+46%
Boost Clock	1480 MHz+23%	1200 MHz
ROPs	48+50%	32
TMUs	80	144+80%
L1 Cache	480 KB	576 KB+20%
L2 Cache	1.5 MB	2 MB+33%

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

The GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design gives access to NVIDIA DLSS (Deep Learning Super Sampling), widely regarding as the superior upscaling method for image quality. The Radeon Pro 580 relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design	Radeon Pro 580
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 with Max-Q Design comes with 6 GB of VRAM, while the Radeon Pro 580 has 4 GB. The GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design offers 50% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 1.5 MB (GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design) vs 2 MB (Radeon Pro 580) — the Radeon Pro 580 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design	Radeon Pro 580
VRAM Capacity	6 GB+50%	4 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR6
Bus Width	128-bit	128-bit
L2 Cache	1.5 MB	2 MB+33%

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12.1 (GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design) vs 12.0 (Radeon Pro 580). Vulkan: 1.3 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 4.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design	Radeon Pro 580
DirectX	12.1	12.0
Vulkan	1.3	1.3
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
Max Displays	4	4

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC 6.0 (GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design) vs VCE 3.4 (Radeon Pro 580). Decoder: PureVideo HD VP8 vs UVD 6.3. Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design) vs MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC (Radeon Pro 580).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design	Radeon Pro 580
Encoder	NVENC 6.0	VCE 3.4
Decoder	PureVideo HD VP8	UVD 6.3
Codecs	MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9	MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design draws 80W versus the Radeon Pro 580's 150W — a 60.9% difference. The GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design) vs 350W (Radeon Pro 580). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 0mm vs 0mm, occupying 0 vs 0 slots.