ATI Radeon 9200 SE vs GeForce GTX 1660 Super

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1701540
Place by popularity8not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation52.18no data
Power efficiency18.11no data
ArchitectureTuring (2018−2022)Rage 7 (2001−2006)
GPU code nameTU116RV280
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date29 October 2019 (5 years ago)1 March 2003 (22 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$229 no data

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 cores1408no data
Core clock speed1530 MHz200 MHz
Boost clock speed1785 MHzno data
Number of transistors6,600 million36 million
Manufacturing process technology12 nm150 nm
Power consumption (TDP)125 Watt28 Watt
Texture fill rate157.10.8
Floating-point processing power5.027 TFLOPSno data
ROPs484
TMUs884

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 x16AGP 8x
Length229 mmno data
Width2-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 8-pinNone

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 typeGDDR6DDR
Maximum RAM amount6 GB64 MB
Memory bus width192 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1750 MHz166 MHz
Memory bandwidth336.0 GB/s2.656 GB/s
Shared memory-no data

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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video
HDMI+-
HDCP+-
G-SYNC support+-

Supported technologies

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

NVENC+-
Ansel+-

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)8.1
Shader Model6.5no data
OpenGL4.61.4
OpenCL1.2N/A
Vulkan1.2.131N/A
CUDA7.5-

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.



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.

GTX 1660 Super 12715
+635650%
ATI 9200 SE 2

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 HD90no data
1440p57no data
4K31no data

Cost per frame, $

1080p2.54no data
1440p4.02no data
4K7.39no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 124 no data
Counter-Strike 2 285 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 76 no data

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 91 no data
Battlefield 5 97 no data
Counter-Strike 2 243 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 63 no data
Far Cry 5 112 no data
Fortnite 140−150 no data
Forza Horizon 4 144 no data
Forza Horizon 5 108 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 120−130 no data
Valorant 321 no data

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 52 no data
Battlefield 5 83 no data
Counter-Strike 2 119 no data
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 52 no data
Dota 2 231 no data
Far Cry 5 103 no data
Fortnite 140−150 no data
Forza Horizon 4 135 no data
Forza Horizon 5 94 no data
Grand Theft Auto V 133 no data
Metro Exodus 56 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 139 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 113 no data
Valorant 290 no data

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 77 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 49 no data
Dota 2 211 no data
Far Cry 5 95 no data
Forza Horizon 4 107 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 104 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 61 no data
Valorant 122 no data

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 140−150 no data

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 67 no data
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 210−220 no data
Grand Theft Auto V 62 no data
Metro Exodus 36 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 162 no data
Valorant 262 no data

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 60 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 26 no data
Far Cry 5 65 no data
Forza Horizon 4 84 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 50−55 no data

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 75−80 no data

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 24−27 no data
Counter-Strike 2 16 no data
Grand Theft Auto V 60 no data
Metro Exodus 22 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40 no data
Valorant 132 no data

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 36 no data
Counter-Strike 2 30−35 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 11 no data
Dota 2 95 no data
Far Cry 5 33 no data
Forza Horizon 4 54 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 36 no data

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 35−40 no data

Pros & cons summary


Recency 29 October 2019 1 March 2003
Maximum RAM amount 6 GB 64 MB
Chip lithography 12 nm 150 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 125 Watt 28 Watt

GTX 1660 Super has an age advantage of 16 years, a 9500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1150% more advanced lithography process.

ATI 9200 SE, on the other hand, has 346.4% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between GeForce GTX 1660 Super and Radeon 9200 SE. We've got no test results to judge.

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 GTX 1660 Super
GeForce GTX 1660 Super
ATI Radeon 9200 SE
Radeon 9200 SE

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.


4.3 21549 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 69 votes

Rate Radeon 9200 SE on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GTX 1660 Super or Radeon 9200 SE, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.