ATI FirePro M7740 vs GeForce GTX 1660 Ti
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with FirePro M7740, including specs and performance data.
1660 Ti outperforms M7740 by a whopping 1418% 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 | 212 | 949 |
| Place by popularity | 40 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 28.12 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 19.48 | 2.57 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | TeraScale (2005−2013) |
| GPU code name | TU116 | M97 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 22 February 2019 (7 years ago) | 4 August 2009 (17 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $279 | 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 | 640 |
| Core clock speed | 1500 MHz | 650 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1770 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 6,600 million | 826 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 60 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 169.9 | 20.80 |
| Floating-point processing power | 5.437 TFLOPS | 0.832 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 16 |
| TMUs | 96 | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 1.5 MB | 128 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1536 KB | 128 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 | no data | large |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 229 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | None |
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 | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 846 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 288.0 GB/s | 54.14 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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 10.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| 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.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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 | 104
+1633%
| 6−7
−1633%
|
| 1440p | 59
+1867%
| 3−4
−1867%
|
| 4K | 39
+1850%
| 2−3
−1850%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.68 | no data |
| 1440p | 4.73 | no data |
| 4K | 7.15 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 170−180
+4200%
|
4−5
−4200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 78
+1850%
|
4−5
−1850%
|
| Palworld | 75−80
+1217%
|
6−7
−1217%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 75−80
+7600%
|
1−2
−7600%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 129
+2480%
|
5−6
−2480%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 170−180
+4200%
|
4−5
−4200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 71
+1675%
|
4−5
−1675%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 109
+2080%
|
5−6
−2080%
|
| Fortnite | 247
+2644%
|
9−10
−2644%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 131
+1210%
|
10−11
−1210%
|
| Palworld | 75−80
+1217%
|
6−7
−1217%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 200
+1718%
|
10−12
−1718%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+395%
|
35−40
−395%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 112
+2140%
|
5−6
−2140%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 170−180
+4200%
|
4−5
−4200%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+571%
|
40−45
−571%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 57
+1325%
|
4−5
−1325%
|
| Dota 2 | 181
+723%
|
21−24
−723%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 99
+1880%
|
5−6
−1880%
|
| Fortnite | 143
+1489%
|
9−10
−1489%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 122
+1120%
|
10−11
−1120%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 119
+3867%
|
3−4
−3867%
|
| Metro Exodus | 55
+1733%
|
3−4
−1733%
|
| Palworld | 75−80
+1217%
|
6−7
−1217%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150
+1264%
|
10−12
−1264%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 116
+1350%
|
8−9
−1350%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+395%
|
35−40
−395%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 102
+1940%
|
5−6
−1940%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 46
+1050%
|
4−5
−1050%
|
| Dota 2 | 168
+664%
|
21−24
−664%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 94
+1780%
|
5−6
−1780%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 97
+870%
|
10−11
−870%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 129
+1073%
|
10−12
−1073%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 62
+675%
|
8−9
−675%
|
| Valorant | 118
+203%
|
35−40
−203%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 117
+1200%
|
9−10
−1200%
|
| Palworld | 75−80
+1217%
|
6−7
−1217%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+1675%
|
4−5
−1675%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 210−220
+1436%
|
14−16
−1436%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 62
+1450%
|
4−5
−1450%
|
| Metro Exodus | 33
+1550%
|
2−3
−1550%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+775%
|
20−22
−775%
|
| Valorant | 220−230
+1500%
|
14−16
−1500%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 76
+1420%
|
5−6
−1420%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27
+2600%
|
1−2
−2600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 67
+3250%
|
2−3
−3250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 77
+1440%
|
5−6
−1440%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50−55
+1667%
|
3−4
−1667%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 75
+2400%
|
3−4
−2400%
|
| Palworld | 40−45
+1367%
|
3−4
−1367%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+1550%
|
2−3
−1550%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 56
+273%
|
14−16
−273%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21
+2000%
|
1−2
−2000%
|
| Palworld | 24−27
+2500%
|
1−2
−2500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 43
+2050%
|
2−3
−2050%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+1710%
|
10−11
−1710%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 43
+2050%
|
2−3
−2050%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+1550%
|
2−3
−1550%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 11 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 94
+2250%
|
4−5
−2250%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 51 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 39
+1200%
|
3−4
−1200%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 25
+733%
|
3−4
−733%
|
| Palworld | 24−27
+2500%
|
1−2
−2500%
|
This is how GTX 1660 Ti and ATI M7740 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1660 Ti is 1633% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1660 Ti is 1867% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1660 Ti is 1850% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Resident Evil 4 Remake, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the GTX 1660 Ti is 7600% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 1660 Ti surpassed ATI M7740 in all 52 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 30.21 | 1.99 |
| Recency | 22 February 2019 | 4 August 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 60 Watt |
GTX 1660 Ti has a 1418% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 233% more advanced lithography process.
ATI M7740, on the other hand, has 100% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro M7740 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is a desktop graphics card while FirePro M7740 is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
