Radeon Pro Duo vs GeForce GTX 1660 Ti
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Radeon Pro Duo, including specs and performance data.
1660 Ti outperforms Pro Duo by a considerable 49% 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 | 314 |
| Place by popularity | 33 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 27.77 | 2.08 |
| Power efficiency | 19.47 | 4.49 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | TU116 | Capsaicin |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Design | no data | reference |
| Release date | 22 February 2019 (7 years ago) | 26 April 2016 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $279 | $1,499 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
GTX 1660 Ti has 1235% better value for money than Pro Duo.
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 | 4096 ×2 |
| Compute units | no data | 128 |
| Core clock speed | 1500 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1770 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 6,600 million | 8,900 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 350 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 169.9 | 256.0 ×2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 5.437 TFLOPS | 8.192 TFLOPS ×2 |
| ROPs | 48 | 64 ×2 |
| TMUs | 96 | 256 ×2 |
| L1 Cache | 1.5 MB | 1 MB |
| L2 Cache | 1536 KB | 2 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).
| Bus support | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 229 mm | 277 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | 3x 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 | GDDR6 | High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 8 GB ×2 |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 4096 Bit ×2 |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 288.0 GB/s | 512 GB/s ×2 |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
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 | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort |
| Eyefinity | - | + |
| Number of Eyefinity displays | no data | 6 |
| HDMI | + | + |
| DisplayPort support | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | - | + |
| CrossFire | - | + |
| Enduro | - | + |
| FRTC | - | + |
| FreeSync | - | + |
| HD3D | - | + |
| LiquidVR | - | + |
| PowerTune | - | + |
| TressFX | - | + |
| TrueAudio | - | + |
| ZeroCore | - | + |
| UVD | - | + |
| VCE | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | DirectX® 12 |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | + |
| Mantle | - | + |
| 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.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
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
+60%
| 65−70
−60%
|
| 1440p | 59
+68.6%
| 35−40
−68.6%
|
| 4K | 39
+62.5%
| 24−27
−62.5%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.68
+760%
| 23.06
−760%
|
| 1440p | 4.73
+806%
| 42.83
−806%
|
| 4K | 7.15
+773%
| 62.46
−773%
|
- GTX 1660 Ti has 760% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GTX 1660 Ti has 806% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- GTX 1660 Ti has 773% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 170−180
+56.4%
|
110−120
−56.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 78
+56%
|
50−55
−56%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 75−80
+54%
|
50−55
−54%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 129
+51.8%
|
85−90
−51.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 170−180
+56.4%
|
110−120
−56.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 71
+57.8%
|
45−50
−57.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 109
+55.7%
|
70−75
−55.7%
|
| Fortnite | 247
+54.4%
|
160−170
−54.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 131
+54.1%
|
85−90
−54.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 107
+52.9%
|
70−75
−52.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 200
+53.8%
|
130−140
−53.8%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+50%
|
130−140
−50%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 112
+49.3%
|
75−80
−49.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 170−180
+56.4%
|
110−120
−56.4%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+52.8%
|
180−190
−52.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 57
+62.9%
|
35−40
−62.9%
|
| Dota 2 | 181
+50.8%
|
120−130
−50.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 99
+52.3%
|
65−70
−52.3%
|
| Fortnite | 143
+50.5%
|
95−100
−50.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 122
+52.5%
|
80−85
−52.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 94
+56.7%
|
60−65
−56.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 119
+48.8%
|
80−85
−48.8%
|
| Metro Exodus | 55
+57.1%
|
35−40
−57.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150
+50%
|
100−105
−50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 116
+54.7%
|
75−80
−54.7%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+50%
|
130−140
−50%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 102
+56.9%
|
65−70
−56.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 46
+53.3%
|
30−33
−53.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 168
+52.7%
|
110−120
−52.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 94
+56.7%
|
60−65
−56.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 97
+49.2%
|
65−70
−49.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 129
+51.8%
|
85−90
−51.8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 62
+55%
|
40−45
−55%
|
| Valorant | 118
+57.3%
|
75−80
−57.3%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 117
+56%
|
75−80
−56%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+57.8%
|
45−50
−57.8%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 210−220
+53.6%
|
140−150
−53.6%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 62
+55%
|
40−45
−55%
|
| Metro Exodus | 33
+57.1%
|
21−24
−57.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+59.1%
|
110−120
−59.1%
|
| Valorant | 220−230
+50.7%
|
150−160
−50.7%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 76
+52%
|
50−55
−52%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27
+50%
|
18−20
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 67
+48.9%
|
45−50
−48.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 77
+54%
|
50−55
−54%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50−55
+51.4%
|
35−40
−51.4%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 75
+50%
|
50−55
−50%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+57.1%
|
21−24
−57.1%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 56
+60%
|
35−40
−60%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21
+50%
|
14−16
−50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 43
+59.3%
|
27−30
−59.3%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+50.8%
|
120−130
−50.8%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 43
+59.3%
|
27−30
−59.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+57.1%
|
21−24
−57.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 11
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
| Dota 2 | 94
+56.7%
|
60−65
−56.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35
+66.7%
|
21−24
−66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 51
+70%
|
30−33
−70%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 39
+62.5%
|
24−27
−62.5%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 25
+56.3%
|
16−18
−56.3%
|
This is how GTX 1660 Ti and Pro Duo compete in popular games:
- GTX 1660 Ti is 60% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1660 Ti is 69% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1660 Ti is 63% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 30.20 | 20.31 |
| Recency | 22 February 2019 | 26 April 2016 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 350 Watt |
GTX 1660 Ti has a 49% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 133% more advanced lithography process, and 192% lower power consumption.
Pro Duo, on the other hand, has a 33% higher maximum VRAM amount.
The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro Duo in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is a desktop graphics card while Radeon Pro Duo 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.
