GeForce GTX 1660 vs FirePro S7150
Aggregate performance score
We've compared FirePro S7150 with GeForce GTX 1660, including specs and performance data.
GTX 1660 outperforms S7150 by a whopping 208% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 542 | 241 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 50 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.25 | 28.74 |
| Power efficiency | 4.67 | 18.01 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | Tonga | TU116 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 1 February 2016 (10 years ago) | 14 March 2019 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $2,399 | $219 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
GTX 1660 has 11396% better value for money than FirePro S7150.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 2048 | 1408 |
| Core clock speed | 920 MHz | 1530 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1785 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,000 million | 6,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 120 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 117.8 | 157.1 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.768 TFLOPS | 5.027 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 48 |
| TMUs | 128 | 88 |
| L1 Cache | 512 KB | 1.4 MB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 1536 KB |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 241 mm | 229 mm |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | 1x 8-pin |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1250 MHz | 2001 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 160.0 GB/s | 192.1 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | - | 7.5 |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
GeekBench 5 Vulkan
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 24−27 | 83
+246%
|
| 1440p | 16−18 | 50
+213%
|
| 4K | 8−9
−70.4%
| 27 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 99.96 | 2.64
+97.4%
|
| 1440p | 149.94 | 4.38
+97.1%
|
| 4K | 299.88 | 8.11
+97.3%
|
- GTX 1660 has 97% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GTX 1660 has 97% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- GTX 1660 has 97% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 271 | 271 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 71 | 71 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 79 | 79 |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 78 | 78 |
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110 | 100−110 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 223 | 223 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 58 | 58 |
| Far Cry 5 | 100 | 100 |
| Fortnite | 130−140 | 130−140 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 132 | 132 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 59 | 59 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120 | 110−120 |
| Valorant | 306 | 306 |
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110 | 100−110 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 107 | 107 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280 | 270−280 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 47 | 47 |
| Dota 2 | 219 | 219 |
| Far Cry 5 | 92 | 92 |
| Fortnite | 130−140 | 130−140 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 123 | 123 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 115 | 115 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 46 | 46 |
| Metro Exodus | 57 | 57 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120 | 110−120 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 102 | 102 |
| Valorant | 287 | 287 |
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110 | 100−110 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40 | 40 |
| Dota 2 | 197 | 197 |
| Far Cry 5 | 86 | 86 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 98 | 98 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 36 | 36 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120 | 110−120 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 57 | 57 |
| Valorant | 115 | 115 |
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 130−140 | 130−140 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 62 | 62 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 190−200 | 190−200 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 52 | 52 |
| Metro Exodus | 33 | 33 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 129 | 129 |
| Valorant | 226 | 226 |
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80 | 75−80 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24 | 24 |
| Far Cry 5 | 59 | 59 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 76 | 76 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 24 | 24 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45−50 | 45−50 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 70−75 | 70−75 |
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16 | 16 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 49 | 49 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 18−20 | 18−20 |
| Metro Exodus | 20 | 20 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35 | 35 |
| Valorant | 125 | 125 |
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45 | 40−45 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−33 | 30−33 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10 | 10 |
| Dota 2 | 87 | 87 |
| Far Cry 5 | 30 | 30 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50 | 50 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 13 | 13 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35 | 30−35 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 30−35 | 30−35 |
This is how FirePro S7150 and GTX 1660 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1660 is 246% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1660 is 213% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1660 is 238% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 65 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.99 | 27.70 |
| Recency | 1 February 2016 | 14 March 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 120 Watt |
FirePro S7150 has a 33% higher maximum VRAM amount.
GTX 1660, on the other hand, has a 208% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 57% more advanced lithography process, and 20% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 1660 is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro S7150 in performance tests.
Be aware that FirePro S7150 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce GTX 1660 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
