Is It Worth Upgrading From a GeForce GTX 1060 to a GeForce RTX 2060 - Benchmark Face-Off

Written by Jon Sutton on Mon, Jan 7, 2019 4:53 PM

It’s been a huge day for hardware fans. Nvidia spoiled us in the run-up to CES 2019 with a reveal of its eagerly anticipated GeForce RTX 2060 graphics card. We’ve finally got real-time ray-tracing at the far more palatable price point of $349/£329 for the GeForce RTX 2060. It’s not cheap but it definitely beats the asking price of the RTX 2070.

Since then it’s been an even busier time thanks to hordes of reviews and benchmarks of the RTX 2060 6GB. But the big questions now are whether the GeForce RTX 2060 is a noteworthy improvement over the previous generation, and whether it’s a worthwhile upgrade for the hordes of GeForce GTX 1060 owners out there.

Well, with our new benchmark database here on GD we should be able to answer both of those questions. We’ve got a whole host of GeForce RTX 2060 benchmark results available, covering just about all the major AAA game releases of recent years at both 1080p and 4K resolutions.

You can see the full game FPS benchmark results for each graphics card over on the GPU pages here on GD, as well as directly compare how multiple cards stack up against one another using our hardware comparison tool.

So, is the $349 GeForce RTX 2060 a worthwhile upgrade from the $299 GeForce GTX 1060? 

Nvidia GeForce RTX 2060 6GB vs Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060 6GB 1080p Game FPS Benchmarks

Nvidia's GeForce RTX 2060 6GB is, by all accounts, a fine graphics card, but there's certainly reason to be cautious for those hoping to make a like-for-like upgrade from the GeForce GTX 1060. Most PC gamers in this ballpark will be looking primarily at 1080p performance, and in this front, the RTX 2060, unsurprisingly, has the beating of the GTX 1060 in every benchmark test. It is, flat out, a much faster graphics card.

However, the dramatic uptick in specs doesn't necessarily translate to a night and day improvement in frame rates at 1080p. In a few of these benchmarks, we're looking at about 10-20% higher FPS, although some, such as The Witcher 3 and Battlefield 1, show some pretty large gains.

If you're gaming on a 144Hz monitor there are certainly some benefits to be had by making the upgrade, but if you're playing at 60Hz there's not a great deal to be gained. However, in a lot of newer AAA titles, the RTX 2060 does make the difference between a locked 60 fps and dips. Just Cause 4, for example, hits an average FPs of 70.9 with an RTX 2060, while this plummets to 55 FPS with a GTX 1060. This represents much more stable performance on Nvidia's new graphics card. Likewise, the GTX 1060 can struggle with Shadow of the Tomb Raider, averaging 50.5 FPS on 1080p Ultra, while the RTX 2060 breezes by on 76.8 FPS. 

Nvidia GeForce RTX 2060 6GB vs Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060 6GB 4K Game FPS Benchmarks

At this sub $400 price range, 4K Ultra benchmarks only really serve as proof of concept more than anything. Neither the GeForce RTX 2060 or GTX 1060 are suited to gaming at these settings and it shows. What these benchmarks don't account for is those willing to drop a few graphics settings. It seems perfectly feasible that the GeForce RTX 2060 can achieve 4K 60fps in a ton of games at graphics settings equivalent to the Xbox One X. Console games typically hover around Medium settings on PC, which would dramatically improve the frame rates on the RTX 2060 6GB. It's not optimal for playing at 4K but it's certainly feasible.

With the results in hand, it becomes a tricky prospect to recommend an upgrade for current GeForce GTX 1060 owners. Unless you've got money burning a hole in your pocket, the GTX 1060 is still absolutely doing the job at 1080p. The RTX 2060 does still have the untapped benefits of DLSS to come, as well as the entry-level raytracing support, but in terms of the here and now it's quite a big jump in price for a more moderate improvement in frame rates. For those feeling frugal, the sensible options to be to hold out on the upgrade for now and wait and see what Nvidia or AMD are cooking up with the next-generation of gaming GPUs.

A reminder as well that you can see these FPS game benchmark results for just about every major graphics card here on GD. You can compare any two AMD or Nvidia GPUs at both 1080p and 4K and get an instant readout on performance. Just head to any graphics card page to get the ball rolling, or use our Graphics Card Performance Head to Head page.

Do you think it's worth upgrading to an RTX 2060 from a GTX 1060?

Login or Register to join the debate

Rep
0
Offline
07:43 Jan-09-2019

Imagine paying 350$ (400$ board parters card, most likely 500 $ in my country) when you can buy a PS4 PRO for that money.
Imagine buying super expensive pc parts when you can buy a PS4 pro for the price of just one pc component. Imagine playing boring, casual, unoptimized, unfinished politically correct, ****e games full of microtransactions/ cosmetics/ pay to win/ grind like Fallout 76, Pubg,

-1
Rep
0
Offline
07:43 Jan-09-2019

Atlas, Star Wars Battlefront 2, Battlefield 5, COD Black Opps 4, Star Citizen, No Mans Sky, We Happy Few, Assasins Creed Unity on super expensive components when you can play awesome games like Last of Us, Shadow of Colossus, The Last Guardian, Red Dead Redemption 2,God of War,Horizon Zero Dawn,Spider Man,Death Stranding,Days Gone,Ghost of Tsushima,LAst of Us 2 on hardware that costs much less.

0
Rep
0
Offline
07:44 Jan-09-2019

So glad i bought a PS4 PRO for 350 $. Next is a 50" 4k TV and the games. In the end i'll pay half the money i would pay on a gaming pc and play awesome games. Sayonara pc gaming.
NGreedia, Shintel, Ubisoft, EA, Bets hida can just go f**ck themselves!

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
07:58 Jan-09-2019

Yep, I pretty much agree with you IF the only thing you do is gaming, but keep in mind most of the "bad example" games you mentioned are available for the PS4 too. Also, games are cheaper(in my case at least from local stores PS4 games vs anywhere PC games) for the PS4 than PC, unless you go to G2A or other key sites with the chance to match prices.


The big downside to consoles is that you have to pay to use your internet(PSN+ and Xbox Live), which is absolute bullcrap...

0
Rep
0
Offline
07:59 Jan-09-2019

Even if I will not use the internet? I don't wanna play multiplayer games. Stick a disk in and play.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
08:25 Jan-09-2019

I too play only singleplayer games on the PS4, but you can't imagine everybody would want to play only singleplayer games... actually multiplayer is far preferred to singleplayer.

0
Rep
0
Offline
09:37 Jan-09-2019

Was only asking for myself.

0
Rep
116
Offline
11:09 Jan-09-2019

There's no denying that PC is expensive,especially today, and if the only thing you do is gaming than a console is a great choice. But all of those bad games you mentioned are cross platform ones, none are exclusives to PC, and you're not locked into only playing AAA games and nothing else.
But consoles are not a utopia either. You're locked to only one store, you have to pay a monthly sub to use your net, and publishers as of late are fixated on limiting physical trading.

0
Rep
116
Offline
11:13 Jan-09-2019

And your selection of games is still subjective. While all great games, I personally only like 3 of those, GoW, HZD and Spider-Man, and have zero interest in any upcoming PS4 exclusive apart from maybe Ghost of Tsushima. For me, personally, a console with a few great games yearly is not the best choice of spending, especially considering i'd have to limit myself away from strategy games, which is a massive no for me.

0
Rep
0
Offline
13:51 Jan-14-2019

Yeah but for those strategy games most likely you wont need to upgrade your pc.
My choice was upgrade or buy ps4.
Let's say you keep your pc for strategy games but instead of upgrading your pc for AAA titles you buy a ps4 and play the good exclusive PS4 has plus the AAA games.


PS: My gpu now is GTX 1050. The Gtx 1060 i sold with profit during the mining episode.

0
Rep
116
Offline
14:08 Jan-14-2019

Only 3 PS exclusives are catching my eye, and I don't think that's a great value for me. If it is for you than that's a smart choice.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
14:37 Jan-14-2019

A PS4 is 200$. People that have been gaming on PC for a while upgrade GPUs usually for 1-2 games that their current can't run(before others that come out later and require it). It is the same with exclusives, 3 currently have your attention, more will come out in the future. Similar thing if you ask me. :)

0
Rep
116
Offline
15:40 Jan-14-2019

That is true. PS4 is nearing the end of it's life though. That coupled with the fact that I only would want to play currently 3 games on that system is just not worth it for me.
I was never a big fan of consoles either. I owned PS2 back in the day, and it sadly sat there being turned on once or twice a month. I got rid of it after a while, I felt stupid just watching it gather dust.

0
Rep
0
Offline
07:46 Jan-15-2019

The winner game of year and second are ps4 exclusives. What are we comparing here?
Can you really compare the ps4 exclusive with the pc exclusive? The pc exclusive are a joke or practically nonexistent.
Name three good pc exclusive from 2018 and three from 2019 and beyond.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
08:07 Jan-15-2019

You'd be correct almost no good PC exclusives have come out since 2011 with the odd rare exception. Like pretty much all the exclusive PC games have been multiplayer-only, match based and are usually MOBA or something similar.

0
Rep
116
Offline
09:54 Jan-15-2019

PC doesn't need exclusives, no one benefits from them, nor did I ever compare those two. It doesn't need exclusives and vast majority of games developed on PC are cross platform.
That doesn't mean anything though, nor does it prove anything, and if you ask me, exclusives are bad for the community as a whole. They are a simple marketing tactic.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
11:21 Jan-15-2019

Yes, but PC should have games that wouldn't be able to run on consoles. They should be epic singleplayer, story-driven experiences, with awesome gameplay, mechanics, level design that couldn't be matched any and would be too good for the always bashed weak consoles... where are those games?
Oh yeah, I forgot, most people don't own PCs stronger than the Xbox One X and PS4 Pro... so it's a complete waste of PC hardware to just enhance a bit console game ports, so sad... -_-

0
Rep
383
Offline
senior admin badge
12:02 Jan-15-2019

I think I probably agree with most of what you've said there Psychoman. The massive majority of PC players are going to have a GTX 1060 or weaker so yeah, making a game that can take advantage of the most powerful systems for gameplay purposes just doesn't have the returns.


What I would say though is there are a few games that do play to one of the key hardware strengths of PC (although I wish there were more games) and that's the CPU. It's holding back the consoles and there's potential there with stuff like Bannerlord to portray some epic-sized battles and the like. These examples are fairly few though, sadly.

0
Rep
116
Offline
13:00 Jan-15-2019

I can see that Jon, and I can agree with some of it.
There should be more games that push the CPU limits. Although most PC gamers tend to have console level GPUs, CPUs in general tend to be more powerful in most cases.
So a case could very well be made there.

0
Rep
58
Offline
admin approved badge
21:48 Jan-08-2019

Who said no? lol

1
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
21:55 Jan-08-2019

People with common sense?

3
Rep
58
Offline
admin approved badge
22:30 Jan-08-2019

How is 30+ FPS gain in BF5 not common sense? That is a huge gain in my books...

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
22:42 Jan-08-2019

First ALWAYS think in Percentages and what the increase means. 30Fps increase from 15fps makes it 45fps, but also playable and a 200% increase. 30fps increase from a 100fps makes it 130fps, which is a 30% increase and changes basically nothing...


For a GPU 3 years later that costs 370 euro(in Europe) FE MSRP(and just like the rest of the rtx 2000 series it will cost more than the FE MSRP) which is 48% higher than the MSRP of the gtx 1060 6GB and 24% higher than the gtx 1060 6GB FE MSRP, it's not that much of an improvement... 50% improvement for most-likely 24-48% increase in price is not really in improvement after a 3 year period... And it's only in heavily optimized Nvidia titles...

3
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
22:43 Jan-08-2019

... and other games that it does much better have either gameworks, ray tracing or are just in general very Nvidia optimized. At least it can do those phony, cheese effects without such a big hit to the performance like previous gen GPUs.

1
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
22:45 Jan-08-2019

Deus Ex mankind devided sees a 10% increase in performance... same with far cry 5 and AC:Unity... don't cherry pick...

1
Rep
58
Offline
admin approved badge
23:24 Jan-08-2019

percentages are always misleading...The actual fps number is what matters to me really..

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
23:28 Jan-08-2019

Still a terrible upgrade... 24-48% more expensive, 3 years later, 5-50% better... -_-

1
Rep
383
Offline
senior admin badge
09:18 Jan-09-2019

I think both percentages and FPS are important, you can't decide without both bits of information, on they're on they're pretty useless

0
Rep
116
Offline
11:24 Jan-09-2019

If you only plan to play BF5 and the Witcher 3, than 2060 is a fantastic choice. But if you get rid of those 3 or 4 outliers, those gains don't look neither as big nor as appealing anymore. It's at best around 30% overall increase over 1060 in other titles, which for 50% more money is not the greatest deal in my book, and it seems like it's not good to plenty of other people too.

0
Rep
58
Offline
admin approved badge
14:21 Jan-09-2019

But you are also getting RT which looks fantastic no?

0
Rep
116
Offline
14:29 Jan-09-2019

If you want the best RT experience with playable framerates than I wouldn't take anything below 2080. 2070 already struggles with titles and is unable reach playable framerates so my expectations about 2060 doing so is not that great.

0
Rep
383
Offline
senior admin badge
14:52 Jan-09-2019

There's only one RT-supported title though and that's BFV, and the RTX 2070 already does great?

0
Rep
116
Offline
15:20 Jan-09-2019

It barely holds 60fps on low RTX settings. I don't that's that great.

0
Rep
383
Offline
senior admin badge
16:37 Jan-10-2019

It hits 69fps on Ultra? link

1
Rep
116
Offline
18:20 Jan-10-2019

That's a MechWarrior 5 trailer.
You're right though, I did some searching and wasn't aware that there was an update which fixed the performance significantly. Day one reviews showed that only low settings got over 60fps, but that's not the case anymore.
So sorry about that misinformation. Should've checked it prior.

1
Rep
383
Offline
senior admin badge
10:04 Jan-17-2019

lol whoops don't know how I did that. Hope you enjoyed the trailer at least. But yeah, day one performance was rough, seems they're finding ways to optimise it at least

0
Rep
105
Offline
18:02 Jan-09-2019

The thing is it is not worth the price, if you for example have something like a 960 or even 970 then 260 is a really good upgrade, but changing from 1060 to 2060 it is just dumb.

0
Rep
58
Offline
admin approved badge
20:21 Jan-10-2019

Well i'm upgrading from my intergrated HD4600 on my i5 4690K that I have been using for a while now cause Someone stole my GTX 1060. I was moving and I put my GTX 1060 in its box then put that box in a bigger box, and by the time I made it from the car to the second floor of my old apartment building the box was gone! It really happened lol

0
Rep
12
Offline
20:10 Jan-08-2019

This is getting stupid nvidia.So you're geting 1070-1070ti performance for the same money you would buy a new 1070,while you can get a 1070 for around 200$.I'm waiting for the new rx gpus. I mean rtx 2070 performance for 250$?

1
Rep
41
Offline
17:38 Jan-08-2019

As a casual gamer, something with the same performance of 1060 for a low price would be fine for me. I heard RX 3060 is going to offer RX 580's performance for $130, it's very attractive.

3
Rep
55
Offline
17:42 Jan-08-2019

if the RX 3070 is gonna be like thx rx 470 price-wise - go for it!! You'll be golden for less than 175$!

2
Rep
15
Offline
16:41 Jan-08-2019

For me, yes. Because I have 1060 3GB. And I do not play games on Ultra Settings.
"1080p - Combination Medium/High for me is enough"

1
Rep
58
Offline
admin approved badge
21:50 Jan-08-2019

I'm in the same boat plus I also have a 144Hz 32 inch monitor so its worth it for me big time!

0
Rep
4
Offline
13:23 Jan-08-2019

since 1060 is pretty good for 1080p and very high settings not worth it.

3
Rep
0
Offline
12:03 Jan-08-2019

Sorry ,but this is fake benchmarks. If you look at Guru 3D and other sites, RTX 2060 same with GTX 1070 Ti and 1080 not 1060

0
Rep
383
Offline
senior admin badge
12:09 Jan-08-2019
0
Rep
0
Offline
16:39 Jan-08-2019

I didn't see page sorry.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
12:26 Jan-08-2019

They are compared here due to names alone... technically the rtx 2060 is a higher-end chip than the gtx 1080(445mm^2 die size for the rtx 2060 and 312mm^2 die size for the gtx 1080, then you wonder why the gtx 1080 was 700$ MSRP at launch XD)

0
Rep
21
Offline
08:39 Jan-08-2019

I really don't understand why does reviewers compare the same naming models while they should be comparing similar price point cards. Well then why don't reviewers compare R9 Fury X with vega 56, seeing as they both are top of the stack in their own respective generations.

1
Rep
383
Offline
senior admin badge
09:15 Jan-08-2019

Well the entire point of the article is you can do exactly that yourself, in seconds. R9 Fury X v Vega 56 or RTX 2060 v RX Vega 56

2
Rep
7
Offline
06:26 Jan-08-2019

Just stop comparing 1060 to 2060. The 2060 is aimed to replace 1070ti (JayZ said in his video, he asked a nvdia representative). Just compare them and their prices, then we will know that it is perfect upgrade.
Also, probably 2050ti will be a replacement to the 1060.

1
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
07:32 Jan-08-2019

Well, that's not true... the idea is that you get better hardware each generation for the same price...
what's the point of releasing a 350$ MSRP(That will most-likely be around 400$ judging by how none of the rtx 2000 series cost even FE MSRP, but higher) to compete with 2-3 year old GPUs(yes the gtx 1070ti came out last year, but it's 2016 tech, just Re-Speced/Cut down gtx 1080).

2
Rep
7
Offline
08:38 Jan-08-2019

launch price of 1070ti was much higher than $349, so in my opinion the price is justified. We should count the next generation by the price, not by the name.

2
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
09:03 Jan-08-2019

Yeah, cuz Nvidia was aiming to operate at around 100% profit margin... -_-
They can't do that with the rtx 2000 series GPUs.
The gtx 1070ti came out costing 400$ MSRP, I don't think you could have found it for 400$ though.
I can guess it will be the same with the RTX 2060, most likely you won't be able to find it at FE MSRP and will be around 400$ instead, like the rest of the rtx GPUs costed above their Founder's Edition MSRP...


A worth it upgrade is when it's at the very least 80%(1.8x times) better for about the same price. Or the opposite the same performance but 1.8x times cheaper...

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
09:03 Jan-08-2019

hell even if we were to be ignorant and lower the standards to what today is accepted(sadly) as an upgrade, at least 1.4x times improvement for the same price or the same performance for 1.4x times lower price...

0
Rep
116
Offline
02:07 Jan-09-2019

2060 is a direct replacement to 1060, otherwise why would it carry the same designation?
Of course Nvidia wants 2060 to replace the 1070ti because that justifies the price hike. But they shouldn't be let to get away with that.
Also we should never count generations by the price alone, that is absurd. Letting that go would be catastrophic. We already regressed a lot by mostly counting relative performance instead of chip size, which is the true designation of the GPU tier.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
07:30 Jan-09-2019

Well, the gtx 680 was a replacement for the gtx 560, it was even about to be called a gtx 660 before release... designation doesn't matter much. The GTX 980 was a nearly direct replacement for the gtx 770, but it didn't have the same designation...

0
Rep
383
Offline
senior admin badge
09:17 Jan-08-2019

As I said above, the entire point of the article is you can do exactly that yourself, in seconds, here on GD. R9 Fury X v Vega 56 or RTX 2060 v RX Vega 56

0
Rep
105
Offline
05:16 Jan-08-2019

It is never a good upgrade when we are talking about the same mid end lineup that it is not even 2 generations away, 2160 should be a good upgrade to "justify" the purchase of the card.

3
Rep
76
Offline
admin approved badge
23:16 Jan-07-2019

1060 being mid-range card, I think 2060 totally misses its target audience.I really hope AMD does well with Navi, I don't think it will be hard for them offer similar performance for a lot less money. This card is yet another proof how nVidia is abusing lack of competition and showing overpriced cards down our throats.

4
Rep
34
Offline
21:03 Jan-07-2019

147 FPS in BF1? It beat me by 10-27 FPS then... Unless it's singleplayer which I haven't played.

0
Rep
28
Offline
19:59 Jan-07-2019

Who buys 2060/1060 for 4k? wouldnt 1440p benchmarks be more relevant?

2
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
20:19 Jan-07-2019

Sadly 1440p 16:9 is not very popular at all, for some reason it never caught on, most likely due to lack of marketing and due to the fact that usually resolutions at least 2x times as big as the current(at the time) mainstream resolution are considered an upgrade, 1440p 16:9 is "only" 71% higher than 1080p 16:9. Just like 900p never became widely used, since it was around 55% higher than 720p, while 1080p was 2.11x higher than 720p.

3
Rep
10
Offline
01:45 Jan-08-2019

It's just as popular as 4K, I got mine because it has 144hz, 24inches so it looks a lot nicer than a standard 24" 1080p panel because the higher DPI, and I can run 100+ frame rates on demanding titles that would let the 144hz Freesync panel shine. I could have gotten 4K but I'm not doing anything that warrants 4K resolution.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
07:29 Jan-08-2019

Yes, but 4k(2160p) was first available to the consumers back in 2012, while 1440p has existed since the CRT monitor era, do you see the difference?

0
Rep
10
Offline
00:44 Jan-11-2019

Well that's irrelevant for today's comparison, 1440p wasn't as popular a few years back, sure. It is now and I see it becoming more popular than 4k for gaming. Eventually becoming the new 1080p long down the road.


Btw we had 4k in 2003 in the form of the first 4K camera (Dalsa Origin), and in 2004 with Sony's 4K projectors. It just took a while for it to trickle down to monitors.

0
Rep
57
Offline
11:38 Jan-08-2019

also other media as movies have only 1080p or 4k format so 1440p is mainly for gaming

0
Rep
28
Offline
21:17 Jan-07-2019

according to steam hardware survey 2k has 3.89% vs 4k has 1.42% of all users. I could say with some certainty that 1440p is more popular than 4k,

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
21:44 Jan-07-2019

2k is 1920x1080?
And 1440p has been at a price around what 4k is now since around 2008-2009... In 2010-2011 it seemed like it's popularity was on the rise and then AMD and Nvidia stopped improving their GPUs as much since 2011 aaaand back to 1080p it was... now till this day, 1080p is mainstream.


Also, Steam's survey is a terrible representation... for anything really...

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
21:45 Jan-07-2019

I doubt many people have put their TVs' resolutions on steam, or many people that use 4k for graphical or other work(like splitting the screen) have done the steam survey either... hell I haven't done the steam survey and I've got a truckload of games on steam XD

0
Rep
28
Offline
21:51 Jan-07-2019

better than basing my assumptions on nothing but "likely" /"lack of marketing". AMD nvidia stopped improving their gpus? Dude there are literally thousands of benchmarks that say otherwise.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
22:01 Jan-07-2019

When we get back on 80-120% every 1-2 years for around the same price again then I'd call that an actual generational improvement. When we get 15-30% every 1-2 years then it's not really an improvement...
gtx 1080ti vs gtx 980ti 40-50% improvement for 2 years... that's 20-25% improvement per year, Year Over Year is even worse.
gtx 2080ti vs gtx 1080ti 25-35% improvement for 2 years...
gtx 680 vs gtx 580 25-35% improvement over 1 year...
and on top of that prices kept going up for smaller die sizes

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
22:01 Jan-07-2019

Well, it's not nothing, logic and common sense. 1440p TVs are much rarer than 4k TVs and have been for the past 4 years. TVs are much more bought than monitors outside offices and in offices they go for cheap 1080p or 720p if the workload doesn't require a quality screen and if it does it's either 4k or multi-1080p...

0
Rep
28
Offline
22:14 Jan-07-2019

on the issue of gpu improvement does the moore´s law ring any bells? Also i dont think every 4k tv owner is gonna build themself a 1000$ pc but most have a console or netflix on it. Tv really not the ideal place for pc games it would at that point make more sense buying/owning a console.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
22:33 Jan-07-2019

You have to realize that gaming is one of the smallest hardware market share... And Moore's law(observation) is alive and kicking with IBM proving it time and time again.
Also, now that I think about it, there were 1440p CRT consumer TVs and monitors back in the day, that's how old 1440p is and it's not popular at all now...

0
Rep
9
Offline
19:48 Jan-07-2019

Enable ray tracing=fps off!
ps.:Im good with my gtx 1060!

4
Rep
3
Offline
12:48 Jan-08-2019

me too

1
Rep
9
Offline
22:09 Jan-11-2019

Yep bro! :)

0
Rep
55
Offline
18:19 Jan-07-2019

you call a mid-range GPU for 350+ $ a worthy upgrade???
Who's side are ya even on, GD??

12
Rep
10
Offline
18:10 Jan-07-2019

WHAT???!!!!!!! Many channels on Youtube have concluded the 2060 50% more powerful than the 1060 based on the benchmarks. But GD's benchmark shows a difference of up to like 15% I suppose! Guess not either of them could be correct until the real tests come out on Jan 15.

1
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
18:56 Jan-07-2019

Well, coincidentally they test the best case scenario games for the rtx 2060, while here on GD there are a ton of games tests.

4
Rep
10
Offline
17:13 Jan-07-2019

Is there a mistake at the 4K benchmark for Shadow of the Tomb Raider? It says that the 1060 got better FPS than the 2060.

2
Rep
383
Offline
senior admin badge
17:31 Jan-07-2019

Yes you are right, one sec I will fix

0
Rep
383
Offline
senior admin badge
17:34 Jan-07-2019

OK, fixed (was a rogue data point)

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
17:32 Jan-07-2019

Most likely.

1
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
17:02 Jan-07-2019

First, judging by other RTX 2000 series GPUs, you'd be lucky to get a RTX 2060 for Founder's Edition price. On top of that, it's not that better, with some rare exceptions, so no not at all. A good upgrade for a gtx 1060 user is a GPU with a RTX 2070 performance of the same price(or a bit more expensive) that person bought the gtx 1060.


A RTX 2060 gives you 5-52%(that's a big range like damn, but those are the rare exceptions that get a big performance boost) more performance than the gtx 1060, usually you'd like about 80% minimum improvement for around the same price to make an ideal difference and future-proof your GPU a little, until your next upgrade.

6

Can They Run... |

| 60FPS, High, 1080p
Ryzen 7 5800H 8-Core 3.2GHz GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile 16GB
| 30FPS, Medium, 1080p
Xeon E3-1230 GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Gigabyte G1 Gaming 4GB 16GB
100% Yes [1 votes]
| 30FPS, Low, 1080p
Core i5-3470 3.2GHz GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Gigabyte G1 Gaming 4GB 12GB
100% Yes [1 votes]
| 60FPS, Medium, 720p
Core i3-10100E 4-Core 3.20GHz GeForce GTX 750 Ti Asus OC 2GB Edition 16GB
Ryzen 5 3500X 6-Core 3.6GHz GeForce GTX 1660 Super 6GB 16GB
| 30FPS, Ultra, 1440p
Ryzen 5 3500X 6-Core 3.6GHz GeForce GTX 1660 Super 6GB 16GB
100% Yes [1 votes]
| 60FPS, Medium, 1440p
Ryzen 5 3600 6-Core 3.6GHz GeForce RTX 2060 Asus Dual OC 6GB 16GB
100% Yes [4 votes]
| High, 1080p
Core i5-10400 6-Core 2.90GHz GeForce GTX 1660 Super 6GB 16GB
100% Yes [3 votes]
| 30FPS, Medium, 1080p
Athlon II X2 245 GeForce GTS 250 4GB
| 60FPS, Ultra, 1080p
Ryzen 7 2700X Radeon RX 5700 XT 8GB 16GB
| 60FPS, High, 1440p
Core i7-10700K 8-Core 3.8GHz GeForce RTX 2080 Super 8GB 16GB
100% Yes [2 votes]
Phenom II X6 1100T GeForce GTX 1050 EVGA Gaming 2GB 8GB
| 30FPS, Low, 1080p
Ryzen 5 5600X 6-Core 3.7GHz Radeon RX Vega 8 16GB
100% Yes [2 votes]
| 30FPS, Medium, 1080p
Ryzen 5 5600X 6-Core 3.7GHz Radeon RX Vega 8 16GB
| 60FPS, High, 1080p
Ryzen 7 5800H 8-Core 3.2GHz GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile 16GB
| 30FPS, Low, 1080p
Core i5-8400 6-Core 2.8GHz GeForce GTX 1050 8GB
100% Yes [2 votes]
Core i5-4460 3.2GHz GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Gigabyte OC 4GB 16GB
| 60FPS, High, 1080p
Ryzen 7 5800H 8-Core 3.2GHz GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile 16GB