Radeon HD 6930 vs GeForce GTX 1660 Super
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1660 Super and Radeon HD 6930, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
1660 Super outperforms HD 6930 by a whopping 349% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 203 | 604 |
| Place by popularity | 8 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 43.45 | 1.90 |
| Power efficiency | 18.68 | 2.79 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | TeraScale 3 (2010−2013) |
| GPU code name | TU116 | Cayman |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 29 October 2019 (6 years ago) | 1 December 2011 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $229 | $180 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
GTX 1660 Super has 2187% better value for money than HD 6930.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 cores | 1408 | 1280 |
| Core clock speed | 1530 MHz | 750 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1785 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 6,600 million | 2,640 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 186 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 157.1 | 60.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 5.027 TFLOPS | 1.92 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 32 |
| TMUs | 88 | 80 |
| L1 Cache | 1.4 MB | 320 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1536 KB | 512 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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 229 mm | 220 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | 2x 6-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 type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | 1200 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 336.0 GB/s | 153.6 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 Connectors | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort |
| 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 support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| 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.
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.
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 HD | 88
+389%
| 18−20
−389%
|
| 1440p | 55
+358%
| 12−14
−358%
|
| 4K | 30
+400%
| 6−7
−400%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.60
+284%
| 10.00
−284%
|
| 1440p | 4.16
+260%
| 15.00
−260%
|
| 4K | 7.63
+293%
| 30.00
−293%
|
- GTX 1660 Super has 284% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GTX 1660 Super has 260% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- GTX 1660 Super has 293% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 285
+375%
|
60−65
−375%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 76
+375%
|
16−18
−375%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 86
+378%
|
18−20
−378%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 97
+362%
|
21−24
−362%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 243
+386%
|
50−55
−386%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 63
+350%
|
14−16
−350%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 112
+367%
|
24−27
−367%
|
| Fortnite | 140−150
+370%
|
30−33
−370%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 144
+380%
|
30−33
−380%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 108
+350%
|
24−27
−350%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120−130
+356%
|
27−30
−356%
|
| Valorant | 321
+359%
|
70−75
−359%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 83
+361%
|
18−20
−361%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 119
+396%
|
24−27
−396%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+360%
|
60−65
−360%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 52
+420%
|
10−11
−420%
|
| Dota 2 | 231
+362%
|
50−55
−362%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 103
+390%
|
21−24
−390%
|
| Fortnite | 140−150
+370%
|
30−33
−370%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 135
+350%
|
30−33
−350%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 94
+422%
|
18−20
−422%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 133
+393%
|
27−30
−393%
|
| Metro Exodus | 56
+367%
|
12−14
−367%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 139
+363%
|
30−33
−363%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 113
+371%
|
24−27
−371%
|
| Valorant | 290
+383%
|
60−65
−383%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 77
+381%
|
16−18
−381%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 49
+390%
|
10−11
−390%
|
| Dota 2 | 211
+369%
|
45−50
−369%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 95
+352%
|
21−24
−352%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 107
+410%
|
21−24
−410%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 104
+395%
|
21−24
−395%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 61
+408%
|
12−14
−408%
|
| Valorant | 122
+352%
|
27−30
−352%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 140−150
+370%
|
30−33
−370%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 67
+379%
|
14−16
−379%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 210−220
+380%
|
45−50
−380%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 62
+417%
|
12−14
−417%
|
| Metro Exodus | 36
+350%
|
8−9
−350%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 162
+363%
|
35−40
−363%
|
| Valorant | 262
+376%
|
55−60
−376%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 60
+400%
|
12−14
−400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 26
+420%
|
5−6
−420%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65
+364%
|
14−16
−364%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 84
+367%
|
18−20
−367%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50−55
+430%
|
10−11
−430%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 75−80
+388%
|
16−18
−388%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16
+433%
|
3−4
−433%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 60
+400%
|
12−14
−400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 22
+450%
|
4−5
−450%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40
+400%
|
8−9
−400%
|
| Valorant | 132
+389%
|
27−30
−389%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 36
+350%
|
8−9
−350%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+371%
|
7−8
−371%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 11
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
| Dota 2 | 95
+352%
|
21−24
−352%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 33
+371%
|
7−8
−371%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 54
+350%
|
12−14
−350%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 36
+350%
|
8−9
−350%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 35−40
+363%
|
8−9
−363%
|
This is how GTX 1660 Super and HD 6930 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1660 Super is 389% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1660 Super is 358% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1660 Super is 400% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 30.33 | 6.75 |
| Recency | 29 October 2019 | 1 December 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 186 Watt |
GTX 1660 Super has a 349.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 233.3% more advanced lithography process, and 48.8% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 1660 Super is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6930 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
