FirePro W7100 vs GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile with FirePro W7100, including specs and performance data.
1660 Ti Mobile outperforms W7100 by an impressive 85% 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 | 252 | 417 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 26.43 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 24.86 | 7.17 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | TU116 | Tonga |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 23 April 2019 (7 years ago) | 12 August 2014 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $229 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | 1536 | 1792 |
| Core clock speed | 1455 MHz | 920 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1590 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 6,600 million | 5,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 400 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 152.6 | 103.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.884 TFLOPS | 3.297 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 32 |
| TMUs | 96 | 112 |
| L1 Cache | 1.5 MB | 448 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1536 KB | 512 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).
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Bus support | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 241 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Form factor | no data | full height / full length |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 6-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 | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 288.0 GB/s | 160 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 | 4x DisplayPort |
| StereoOutput3D | - | + |
| DisplayPort count | no data | 4 |
| Dual-link DVI support | - | + |
| HD сomponent video output | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 7.5 | - |
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 | 88
+95.6%
| 45−50
−95.6%
|
| 1440p | 58
+93.3%
| 30−35
−93.3%
|
| 4K | 35
+94.4%
| 18−20
−94.4%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.60 | no data |
| 1440p | 3.95 | no data |
| 4K | 6.54 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 147
+96%
|
75−80
−96%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 86
+91.1%
|
45−50
−91.1%
|
| Palworld | 81
+103%
|
40−45
−103%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 75
+87.5%
|
40−45
−87.5%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 111
+85%
|
60−65
−85%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 133
+90%
|
70−75
−90%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 68
+94.3%
|
35−40
−94.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 93
+86%
|
50−55
−86%
|
| Fortnite | 120−130
+93.8%
|
65−70
−93.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 134
+91.4%
|
70−75
−91.4%
|
| Palworld | 70
+100%
|
35−40
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−110
+89.1%
|
55−60
−89.1%
|
| Valorant | 209
+90%
|
110−120
−90%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 103
+87.3%
|
55−60
−87.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 101
+102%
|
50−55
−102%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 260−270
+89.3%
|
140−150
−89.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 54
+100%
|
27−30
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 121
+86.2%
|
65−70
−86.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 89
+97.8%
|
45−50
−97.8%
|
| Fortnite | 120−130
+93.8%
|
65−70
−93.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 125
+92.3%
|
65−70
−92.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 105
+90.9%
|
55−60
−90.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 54
+100%
|
27−30
−100%
|
| Palworld | 55
+104%
|
27−30
−104%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−110
+89.1%
|
55−60
−89.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 103
+87.3%
|
55−60
−87.3%
|
| Valorant | 207
+88.2%
|
110−120
−88.2%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 94
+88%
|
50−55
−88%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 52
+92.6%
|
27−30
−92.6%
|
| Dota 2 | 116
+93.3%
|
60−65
−93.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 83
+108%
|
40−45
−108%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 99
+98%
|
50−55
−98%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 109
+98.2%
|
55−60
−98.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55
+104%
|
27−30
−104%
|
| Valorant | 125
+92.3%
|
65−70
−92.3%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 107
+94.5%
|
55−60
−94.5%
|
| Palworld | 51
+88.9%
|
27−30
−88.9%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+93.3%
|
30−33
−93.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 180−190
+85%
|
100−105
−85%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 45−50
+104%
|
24−27
−104%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30
+87.5%
|
16−18
−87.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+94.4%
|
90−95
−94.4%
|
| Valorant | 197
+97%
|
100−105
−97%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 69
+97.1%
|
35−40
−97.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 25
+108%
|
12−14
−108%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60
+100%
|
30−33
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+94.3%
|
35−40
−94.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
+105%
|
21−24
−105%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 69
+97.1%
|
35−40
−97.1%
|
| Palworld | 35−40
+106%
|
18−20
−106%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+92.9%
|
14−16
−92.9%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 50−55
+85.2%
|
27−30
−85.2%
|
| Metro Exodus | 19
+90%
|
10−11
−90%
|
| Palworld | 21−24
+120%
|
10−11
−120%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35
+94.4%
|
18−20
−94.4%
|
| Valorant | 152
+90%
|
80−85
−90%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 38
+111%
|
18−20
−111%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+92.9%
|
14−16
−92.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 85
+88.9%
|
45−50
−88.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 31
+93.8%
|
16−18
−93.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+91.7%
|
24−27
−91.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+107%
|
14−16
−107%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 27−30
+107%
|
14−16
−107%
|
| Palworld | 21−24
+120%
|
10−11
−120%
|
This is how GTX 1660 Ti Mobile and FirePro W7100 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is 96% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is 93% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is 94% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 25.71 | 13.91 |
| Recency | 23 April 2019 | 12 August 2014 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 400 Watt |
GTX 1660 Ti Mobile has a 85% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 133% more advanced lithography process, and 400% lower power consumption.
FirePro W7100, on the other hand, has a 33% higher maximum VRAM amount.
The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro W7100 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is a notebook graphics card while FirePro W7100 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
