Radeon PRO W7900 vs GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile with Radeon PRO W7900, including specs and performance data.

GTX 1660 Ti Mobile
2019, $229
6 GB GDDR6, 80 Watt
25.54
PRO W7900
2023, $3,999
48 GB GDDR6, 295 Watt
66.05
+159%

PRO W7900 outperforms 1660 Ti Mobile by a whopping 159% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking26125
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation24.297.29
Power efficiency24.9017.46
ArchitectureTuring (2018−2022)RDNA 3 (2023−2025)
GPU code nameTU116Navi 31
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date23 April 2019 (7 years ago)26 May 2023 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$229 $3,999

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

GTX 1660 Ti Mobile has 233% better value for money than PRO W7900.

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 cores15366144
Core clock speed1455 MHz1760 MHz
Boost clock speed1590 MHz2495 MHz
Number of transistors6,600 million57.7 billion
Manufacturing process technology12 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)80 Watt295 Watt
Texture fill rate152.6958.1
Floating-point processing power4.884 TFLOPSno data
ROPs48192
TMUs96384
Ray Tracing Coresno data96
L0 Cacheno data3 MB
L1 Cache1.5 MB3 MB
L2 Cache1536 KB6 MB
L3 Cacheno data96 MB

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 sizemedium sizedno data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Lengthno data280 mm
Widthno data3-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data2x 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 typeGDDR6GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount6 GB48 GB
Memory bus width192 Bit384 Bit
Memory clock speed1500 MHz2250 MHz
Memory bandwidth288.0 GB/s864.0 GB/s
Shared memory--
Resizable BAR-+

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 ConnectorsNo outputs3x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (12_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.56.9
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.22.0
Vulkan1.2.1311.4
CUDA7.5-

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 HD88
−60%
220−230
1440p58
−58.6%
140−150
4K3590−95
+157%

Cost per frame, $

1080p2.60
+85.7%
18.18
1440p3.95
+86.2%
28.56
4K6.54
+85.3%
44.43
  • GTX 1660 Ti Mobile has 86% lower cost per frame in 1080p
  • GTX 1660 Ti Mobile has 86% lower cost per frame in 1440p
  • GTX 1660 Ti Mobile has 85% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 147 350−400
+138%
Cyberpunk 2077 86 220−230
+156%
Hogwarts Legacy 74 190−200
+157%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 75 190−200
+153%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 111 280−290
+152%
Counter-Strike 2 133 300−310
+126%
Cyberpunk 2077 68 170−180
+150%
Far Cry 5 93 240−250
+158%
Fortnite 120−130 300−310
+138%
Forza Horizon 4 134 300−310
+124%
Hogwarts Legacy 62 160−170
+158%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 100−110 260−270
+150%
Valorant 209 500−550
+139%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 103 260−270
+152%
Counter-Strike 2 101 260−270
+157%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 260−270 650−700
+145%
Cyberpunk 2077 54 130−140
+141%
Dota 2 121 300−310
+148%
Far Cry 5 89 230−240
+158%
Fortnite 120−130 300−310
+138%
Forza Horizon 4 125 300−310
+140%
Grand Theft Auto V 105 270−280
+157%
Hogwarts Legacy 48 120−130
+150%
Metro Exodus 54 130−140
+141%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 100−110 260−270
+150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 103 260−270
+152%
Valorant 207 500−550
+142%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 94 240−250
+155%
Cyberpunk 2077 52 130−140
+150%
Dota 2 116 290−300
+150%
Far Cry 5 83 210−220
+153%
Forza Horizon 4 99 250−260
+153%
Hogwarts Legacy 35 90−95
+157%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 109 280−290
+157%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 55 140−150
+155%
Valorant 125 300−310
+140%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 107 270−280
+152%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 55−60 140−150
+141%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 180−190 450−500
+143%
Grand Theft Auto V 45−50 120−130
+145%
Metro Exodus 30 75−80
+150%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 450−500
+157%
Valorant 197 500−550
+154%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 69 170−180
+146%
Cyberpunk 2077 25 60−65
+140%
Far Cry 5 60 150−160
+150%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70 170−180
+150%
Hogwarts Legacy 27−30 70−75
+141%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40−45 110−120
+156%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 69 170−180
+146%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 27−30 65−70
+141%
Grand Theft Auto V 50−55 120−130
+140%
Hogwarts Legacy 16−18 40−45
+135%
Metro Exodus 19 45−50
+137%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35 90−95
+157%
Valorant 152 350−400
+130%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 38 95−100
+150%
Counter-Strike 2 27−30 65−70
+141%
Cyberpunk 2077 10 24−27
+140%
Dota 2 85 210−220
+147%
Far Cry 5 31 80−85
+158%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50 110−120
+139%
Hogwarts Legacy 16−18 40−45
+135%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 27−30 70−75
+141%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 27−30 70−75
+141%

This is how GTX 1660 Ti Mobile and PRO W7900 compete in popular games:

  • PRO W7900 is 150% faster in 1080p
  • PRO W7900 is 141% faster in 1440p
  • PRO W7900 is 157% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 25.54 66.05
Recency 23 April 2019 26 May 2023
Maximum RAM amount 6 GB 48 GB
Chip lithography 12 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 80 Watt 295 Watt

GTX 1660 Ti Mobile has 73% lower power consumption.

PRO W7900, on the other hand, has a 159% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 58% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon PRO W7900 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is a notebook graphics card while Radeon PRO W7900 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.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4.3 1824 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 90 votes

Rate Radeon PRO W7900 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile or Radeon PRO W7900, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.