GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q vs HD Graphics

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared HD Graphics with GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q, including specs and performance data.

HD Graphics
2012
35 Watt
0.72
GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q
2019, $229
6 GB GDDR6, 60 Watt
21.16
+2839%

1660 Ti Max-Q outperforms HD Graphics by a whopping 2839% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1239307
Place by popularity56not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data18.37
Power efficiency1.5927.28
ArchitectureGeneration 7.0 (2012−2013)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameIvy Bridge GT1TU116
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date1 April 2012 (14 years ago)23 April 2019 (7 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$229

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

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

no data

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 cores481536
Core clock speed650 MHz1140 MHz
Boost clock speed1050 MHz1335 MHz
Number of transistors392 million6,600 million
Manufacturing process technology22 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt60 Watt
Texture fill rate6.300128.2
Floating-point processing power0.1008 TFLOPS4.101 TFLOPS
ROPs148
TMUs696
L1 Cacheno data1.5 MB
L2 Cacheno data1536 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 sizeno datamedium sized
InterfacePCIe 1.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
WidthIGPno data
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeSystem SharedGDDR6
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared6 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared192 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared1500 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data288.0 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

API and SDK support

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

DirectX11.1 (11_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.06.5
OpenGL4.04.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.1.801.2.131
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.

HD Graphics 0.72
GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 21.16
+2839%

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.

HD Graphics 301
Samples: 847
GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 8814
+2828%
Samples: 1673

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.

HD Graphics 300
GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 13355
+4352%

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 HD2−3
−3850%
79
+3850%
4K1−2
−3200%
33
+3200%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data2.90
4Kno data6.94

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 83
+0%
83
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Far Cry 5 69
+0%
69
+0%
Fortnite 92
+0%
92
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Valorant 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 78
+0%
78
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 240−250
+0%
240−250
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Dota 2 94
+0%
94
+0%
Far Cry 5 66
+0%
66
+0%
Fortnite 90
+0%
90
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 87
+0%
87
+0%
Metro Exodus 48
+0%
48
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 92
+0%
92
+0%
Valorant 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 73
+0%
73
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Dota 2 86
+0%
86
+0%
Far Cry 5 62
+0%
62
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 51
+0%
51
+0%
Valorant 93
+0%
93
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 79
+0%
79
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 31
+0%
31
+0%
Valorant 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 38
+0%
38
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Dota 2 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Far Cry 5 30
+0%
30
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

This is how HD Graphics and GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is 3850% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is 3200% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 60 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.72 21.16
Recency 1 April 2012 23 April 2019
Chip lithography 22 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 60 Watt

HD Graphics has 71% lower power consumption.

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q, on the other hand, has a 2839% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, and a 83% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics in performance tests.

Be aware that HD Graphics is a desktop graphics card while GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is a notebook 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.


2.2 3364 votes

Rate HD Graphics on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.3 618 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about HD Graphics or GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.