GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q vs Apple M1 8-Core GPU

M1 7-Core GPU M1 8-Core GPU M1 GPU M1 Max 24-Core GPU M1 Max 32-Core GPU M1 Pro 14-Core GPU M1 Pro 16-Core GPU
VS
GTX 1660 Max-Q GTX 1660 Mobile GTX 1660 Ti Mobile GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q GTX 1660 Ti Mobile Refresh

Aggregate performance score

We've compared M1 8-Core GPU and GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Apple M1 8-Core GPU
2020
13.74

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q outperforms Apple M1 8-Core GPU by an impressive 67% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Apple M1 8-Core GPU M1 8-Core GPU
GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking388256
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data68.97
Power efficiencyno data26.21
Architectureno dataTuring (2018−2022)
GPU code nameno dataTU116
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date10 November 2020 (4 years ago)23 April 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$229

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores81536
Core clock speed1278 MHz1140 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1335 MHz
Number of transistorsno data6,600 million
Manufacturing process technology5 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data60 Watt
Texture fill rateno data128.2
Floating-point processing powerno data4.101 TFLOPS
ROPsno data48
TMUsno data96

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
Interfaceno dataPCIe 3.0 x16
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 typeno dataGDDR6
Maximum RAM amountno data6 GB
Memory bus widthno data192 Bit
Memory clock speedno data1500 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data288.0 GB/s
Shared memory+-

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectorsno dataNo outputs

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectXno data12 (12_1)
Shader Modelno data6.5
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data1.2
Vulkan-1.2.131
CUDA-7.5

Synthetic benchmark performance

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.

Apple M1 8-Core GPU 13.74
GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 22.93
+66.9%

3DMark Ice Storm GPU

Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.

Apple M1 8-Core GPU 280200
GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 306910
+9.5%

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 HD28
−182%
79
+182%
4K18−20
−83.3%
33
+83.3%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data2.90
4Kno data6.94

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 30−35
−81.3%
55−60
+81.3%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
−78.3%
40−45
+78.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
−70.4%
45−50
+70.4%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 30−35
−81.3%
55−60
+81.3%
Battlefield 5 55−60
−48.2%
83
+48.2%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
−78.3%
40−45
+78.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
−70.4%
45−50
+70.4%
Far Cry 5 40−45
−56.8%
69
+56.8%
Fortnite 70−75
−24.3%
92
+24.3%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
−59.3%
85−90
+59.3%
Forza Horizon 5 30−35
−79.4%
60−65
+79.4%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
−80.4%
80−85
+80.4%
Valorant 110−120
−38.7%
150−160
+38.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 30−35
−81.3%
55−60
+81.3%
Battlefield 5 55−60
−39.3%
78
+39.3%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
−78.3%
40−45
+78.3%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 180−190
−36.1%
240−250
+36.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
−70.4%
45−50
+70.4%
Dota 2 85−90
−10.6%
94
+10.6%
Far Cry 5 40−45
−50%
66
+50%
Fortnite 70−75
−21.6%
90
+21.6%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
−59.3%
85−90
+59.3%
Forza Horizon 5 30−35
−79.4%
60−65
+79.4%
Grand Theft Auto V 45−50
−77.6%
87
+77.6%
Metro Exodus 24−27
−84.6%
48
+84.6%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
−80.4%
80−85
+80.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
−171%
92
+171%
Valorant 110−120
−38.7%
150−160
+38.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 55−60
−30.4%
73
+30.4%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
−78.3%
40−45
+78.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
−70.4%
45−50
+70.4%
Dota 2 85−90
−1.2%
86
+1.2%
Far Cry 5 40−45
−40.9%
62
+40.9%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
−59.3%
85−90
+59.3%
Forza Horizon 5 30−35
−79.4%
60−65
+79.4%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
−80.4%
80−85
+80.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
−50%
51
+50%
Valorant 110−120
+19.4%
93
−19.4%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 70−75
−6.8%
79
+6.8%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 95−100
−57.7%
150−160
+57.7%
Grand Theft Auto V 20−22
−90%
35−40
+90%
Metro Exodus 14−16
−86.7%
27−30
+86.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 100−110
−64.2%
170−180
+64.2%
Valorant 130−140
−40.9%
190−200
+40.9%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40
−74.3%
60−65
+74.3%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
−40%
21−24
+40%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
−90.9%
21−24
+90.9%
Far Cry 5 27−30
−75%
45−50
+75%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
−77.4%
55−60
+77.4%
Forza Horizon 5 21−24
−69.6%
35−40
+69.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 20−22
−75%
35−40
+75%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 27−30
−78.6%
50−55
+78.6%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 10−11
−70%
16−18
+70%
Counter-Strike 2 5−6
−100%
10−11
+100%
Grand Theft Auto V 24−27
−62.5%
35−40
+62.5%
Metro Exodus 9−10
−100%
18−20
+100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
−82.4%
31
+82.4%
Valorant 65−70
−79.7%
120−130
+79.7%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20
−111%
38
+111%
Counter-Strike 2 5−6
−100%
10−11
+100%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−80%
9−10
+80%
Dota 2 45−50
−56.5%
70−75
+56.5%
Far Cry 5 12−14
−131%
30
+131%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
−72.7%
35−40
+72.7%
Forza Horizon 5 10−11
−100%
20−22
+100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
−83.3%
21−24
+83.3%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 12−14
−91.7%
21−24
+91.7%

This is how Apple M1 8-Core GPU and GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is 182% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is 83% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Apple M1 8-Core GPU is 19% faster.
  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is 171% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Apple M1 8-Core GPU is ahead in 1 test (1%)
  • GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is ahead in 66 tests (99%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 13.74 22.93
Recency 10 November 2020 23 April 2019
Chip lithography 5 nm 12 nm

Apple M1 8-Core GPU has an age advantage of 1 year, and a 140% more advanced lithography process.

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q, on the other hand, has a 66.9% higher aggregate performance score.

The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is our recommended choice as it beats the M1 8-Core GPU in performance tests.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.

Apple M1 8-Core GPU
M1 8-Core GPU
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q
Like
Like

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Apple M1 8-Core GPU M1 8 Core GPU
vs
RX Vega M GL / 870 Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870
GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q
vs
RX 5600M Radeon RX 5600M
Apple M1 8-Core GPU M1 8 Core GPU
vs
GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q
Pro 575X AMD Pro 575X
vs
Apple M1 8-Core GPU Core GPU
Pro 580X AMD Pro 580X
vs
Apple M1 8-Core GPU Core GPU
Pro Vega 64X AMD Pro Vega 64X
vs
Apple M1 8-Core GPU Core GPU
Tesla K80 Tesla K80
vs
Apple M1 8-Core GPU Core GPU
GTX 1650 Mobile NVIDIA GTX 1650 Mobile
vs
Apple M1 8-Core GPU Core GPU
Pro WX 3200 AMD Pro WX 3200
vs
Apple M1 8-Core GPU Core GPU
T1000 Mobile Quadro T1000 Mobile
vs
Apple M1 8-Core GPU Core GPU
Quadro P520 Quadro P520
vs
Apple M1 8-Core GPU Core GPU
Qualcomm Adreno 680 Adreno 680
vs
Apple M1 8-Core GPU Core GPU
Iris Plus Graphics G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU) Intel Plus Graphics G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU)
vs
Apple M1 8-Core GPU Core GPU

Community ratings

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

4 928 votes

Rate M1 8-Core GPU on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.3 565 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about M1 8-Core GPU or GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.