GeForce GTX 1660 vs 410M

#ad 
Buy
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce 410M with GeForce GTX 1660, including specs and performance data.

GeForce 410M
2011
Up to 512 MB DDR3, 12 Watt
0.59

GTX 1660 outperforms 410M by a whopping 4320% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1194202
Place by popularitynot in top-10049
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data42.36
Power efficiency3.9017.25
ArchitectureFermi 2.0 (2010−2014)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameGF119TU116
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date5 January 2011 (14 years ago)14 March 2019 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$219

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 cores481408
Core clock speed575 MHz1530 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1785 MHz
Number of transistors292 million6,600 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)12 Watt120 Watt
Texture fill rate4.600157.1
Floating-point processing power0.1104 TFLOPS5.027 TFLOPS
Gigaflops73no data
ROPs448
TMUs888

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 supportPCI-E 2.0no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Lengthno data229 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 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 typeDDR3GDDR5
Maximum RAM amountUp to 512 MB6 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit192 Bit
Memory clock speedUp to 800 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz2001 MHz
Memory bandwidth12.8 GB/s192.1 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 ConnectorsDisplayPortHDMIVGADual Link DVISingle Link DVI1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
Multi monitor support+no data
HDMI++
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Power management8.0no data

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.5
OpenGL+4.6
OpenCL1.11.2
VulkanN/A1.2.131
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.

GeForce 410M 0.59
GTX 1660 26.08
+4320%

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.

GeForce 410M 264
GTX 1660 11655
+4315%

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

GeForce 410M 415
GTX 1660 21064
+4976%

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.

GeForce 410M 1923
GTX 1660 71229
+3605%

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.

GeForce 410M 1003
GTX 1660 57946
+5677%

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 HD8
−938%
83
+938%
1440p1−2
−4900%
50
+4900%
4K0−127

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data2.64
1440pno data4.38
4Kno data8.11

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3
−5450%
111
+5450%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−3450%
71
+3450%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3
−4050%
83
+4050%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−2800%
58
+2800%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−3200%
132
+3200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
−1300%
110−120
+1300%
Valorant 27−30
−955%
306
+955%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3
−2350%
49
+2350%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 18−20
−1321%
270−280
+1321%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−2250%
47
+2250%
Dota 2 12−14
−1725%
219
+1725%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−2975%
123
+2975%
Metro Exodus 0−1 57
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
−1300%
110−120
+1300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
−2450%
102
+2450%
Valorant 27−30
−890%
287
+890%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−1900%
40
+1900%
Dota 2 12−14
−1542%
197
+1542%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−2350%
98
+2350%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
−1300%
110−120
+1300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
−1325%
57
+1325%
Valorant 27−30
−297%
115
+297%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 2−3
−9750%
190−200
+9750%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 6−7
−2050%
129
+2050%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 24
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−3700%
76
+3700%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
−4800%
45−50
+4800%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 1−2
−6900%
70−75
+6900%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 0−1 21−24
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−227%
49
+227%
Valorant 4−5
−3025%
125
+3025%

4K
Ultra Preset

Far Cry 5 1−2
−2900%
30
+2900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
−1500%
30−35
+1500%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3
−1550%
30−35
+1550%

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 271
+0%
271
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 223
+0%
223
+0%
Far Cry 5 100
+0%
100
+0%
Fortnite 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 100
+0%
100
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 107
+0%
107
+0%
Far Cry 5 92
+0%
92
+0%
Fortnite 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 88
+0%
88
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 115
+0%
115
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Far Cry 5 86
+0%
86
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 62
+0%
62
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 52
+0%
52
+0%
Metro Exodus 33
+0%
33
+0%
Valorant 226
+0%
226
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Far Cry 5 59
+0%
59
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 16
+0%
16
+0%
Metro Exodus 20
+0%
20
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35
+0%
35
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10
+0%
10
+0%
Dota 2 87
+0%
87
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 50
+0%
50
+0%

This is how GeForce 410M and GTX 1660 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1660 is 938% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1660 is 4900% faster in 1440p

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

  • in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 1660 is 9750% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GTX 1660 is ahead in 31 test (52%)
  • there's a draw in 29 tests (48%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.59 26.08
Recency 5 January 2011 14 March 2019
Chip lithography 40 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 12 Watt 120 Watt

GeForce 410M has 900% lower power consumption.

GTX 1660, on the other hand, has a 4320.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, and a 233.3% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce GTX 1660 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 410M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce 410M is a notebook card while GeForce GTX 1660 is a desktop one.

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.


NVIDIA GeForce 410M
GeForce 410M
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660
GeForce GTX 1660

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.


3 278 votes

Rate GeForce 410M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 5708 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 GeForce 410M or GeForce GTX 1660, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.