GeForce GTX 1660 vs P102-100

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared P102-100 with GeForce GTX 1660, including specs and performance data.

P102-100
2018, $599
5 GB GDDR5X, 250 Watt
9.23

GTX 1660 outperforms P102-100 by a whopping 201% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking531235
Place by popularitynot in top-10054
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.0730.08
Power efficiency2.8718.00
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameGP102TU116
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date12 February 2018 (8 years ago)14 March 2019 (7 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$599 $219

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

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

GTX 1660 has 2711% better value for money than P102-100.

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 cores32001408
Core clock speed1582 MHz1530 MHz
Boost clock speed1683 MHz1785 MHz
Number of transistors11,800 million6,600 million
Manufacturing process technology16 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)250 Watt120 Watt
Texture fill rate336.6157.1
Floating-point processing power10.77 TFLOPS5.027 TFLOPS
ROPs8048
TMUs20088
L1 Cache1.2 MB1.4 MB
L2 Cache2.5 MB1536 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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x4PCIe 3.0 x16
Length267 mm229 mm
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors2x 8-pin1x 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 typeGDDR5XGDDR5
Maximum RAM amount5 GB6 GB
Memory bus width320 Bit192 Bit
Memory clock speed1376 MHz2001 MHz
Memory bandwidth440.3 GB/s192.1 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 outputs1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
HDMI-+

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.46.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.2.1311.2.131
CUDA6.17.5

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.

P102-100 9.23
GTX 1660 27.81
+201%

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.

P102-100 3854
Samples: 14
GTX 1660 11608
+201%
Samples: 9692

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

P102-100 63349
+9.4%
GTX 1660 57904

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.

P102-100 66856
+19%
GTX 1660 56196

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 HD27−3083
+207%
1440p16−1850
+213%
4K8−9
−70.4%
27

Cost per frame, $

1080p22.192.64
+88.1%
1440p37.444.38
+88.3%
4K74.888.11
+89.2%
  • GTX 1660 has 88% lower cost per frame in 1080p
  • GTX 1660 has 88% lower cost per frame in 1440p
  • GTX 1660 has 89% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Atomic Heart 111 111
Counter-Strike 2 271 271
Cyberpunk 2077 71 71
Resident Evil 4 Remake 78 78

Full HD
Medium

Atomic Heart 83 83
Battlefield 5 100−110 100−110
Counter-Strike 2 223 223
Cyberpunk 2077 58 58
Far Cry 5 100 100
Fortnite 130−140 130−140
Forza Horizon 4 132 132
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120 110−120
Valorant 306 306

Full HD
High

Atomic Heart 49 49
Battlefield 5 100−110 100−110
Counter-Strike 2 107 107
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280 270−280
Cyberpunk 2077 47 47
Dota 2 219 219
Far Cry 5 92 92
Fortnite 130−140 130−140
Forza Horizon 4 123 123
Grand Theft Auto V 115 115
Metro Exodus 57 57
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120 110−120
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 102 102
Valorant 287 287

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 100−110 100−110
Cyberpunk 2077 40 40
Dota 2 197 197
Far Cry 5 86 86
Forza Horizon 4 98 98
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120 110−120
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 57 57
Valorant 115 115

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 130−140 130−140

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 62 62
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 190−200 190−200
Grand Theft Auto V 52 52
Metro Exodus 33 33
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 129 129
Valorant 226 226

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 75−80 75−80
Cyberpunk 2077 24 24
Far Cry 5 59 59
Forza Horizon 4 76 76
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 45−50 45−50

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 70−75 70−75

4K
High

Atomic Heart 21−24 21−24
Counter-Strike 2 16 16
Grand Theft Auto V 49 49
Metro Exodus 20 20
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35 35
Valorant 125 125

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 40−45 40−45
Counter-Strike 2 30−33 30−33
Cyberpunk 2077 10 10
Dota 2 87 87
Far Cry 5 30 30
Forza Horizon 4 50 50
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35 30−35

4K
Epic

Fortnite 30−35 30−35

This is how P102-100 and GTX 1660 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1660 is 207% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1660 is 213% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 1660 is 238% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 62 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.23 27.81
Recency 12 February 2018 14 March 2019
Maximum RAM amount 5 GB 6 GB
Chip lithography 16 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 250 Watt 120 Watt

GTX 1660 has a 201% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 20% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 25% more advanced lithography process, and 52% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1660 is our recommended choice as it beats the P102-100 in performance tests.

Be aware that P102-100 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce GTX 1660 is a desktop 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.


3.8 41 votes

Rate P102-100 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 6579 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about P102-100 or GeForce GTX 1660, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.