Radeon RX 6750 GRE vs GeForce GTX 1660 Super
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1660 Super and Radeon RX 6750 GRE, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RX 6750 GRE outperforms GTX 1660 Super by a substantial 30% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 170 | 91 |
| Place by popularity | 7 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 56.87 | 41.32 |
| Power efficiency | 18.14 | 11.78 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | TU116 | Navi 22 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 29 October 2019 (5 years ago) | 17 October 2023 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $229 | $549 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
GTX 1660 Super has 38% better value for money than RX 6750 GRE.
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 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 1530 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1785 MHz | 2581 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 6,600 million | 17,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 250 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 157.1 | 413.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 5.027 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 48 | 64 |
| TMUs | 88 | 160 |
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 4.0 x16 |
| Length | 229 mm | 267 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | 1x 6-pin + 1x 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 type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 12 GB |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | 18 GB/s |
| Memory bandwidth | 336.0 GB/s | 432.0 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 Connectors | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| 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.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.3 |
| 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.
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.
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 | 92
−19.6%
| 110−120
+19.6%
|
| 1440p | 57
−22.8%
| 70−75
+22.8%
|
| 4K | 31
−29%
| 40−45
+29%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.49
+101%
| 4.99
−101%
|
| 1440p | 4.02
+95.2%
| 7.84
−95.2%
|
| 4K | 7.39
+85.8%
| 13.73
−85.8%
|
- GTX 1660 Super has 101% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GTX 1660 Super has 95% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- GTX 1660 Super has 86% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 124
−29%
|
160−170
+29%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 90
−22.2%
|
110−120
+22.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 76
−25%
|
95−100
+25%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 91
−20.9%
|
110−120
+20.9%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 97
−23.7%
|
120−130
+23.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 62
−29%
|
80−85
+29%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 63
−27%
|
80−85
+27%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 112
−25%
|
140−150
+25%
|
| Fortnite | 140−150
−27.7%
|
180−190
+27.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 144
−25%
|
180−190
+25%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 96
−25%
|
120−130
+25%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120−130
−22%
|
150−160
+22%
|
| Valorant | 321
−24.6%
|
400−450
+24.6%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 52
−25%
|
65−70
+25%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 83
−20.5%
|
100−105
+20.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 52
−25%
|
65−70
+25%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
−27.3%
|
350−400
+27.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 52
−25%
|
65−70
+25%
|
| Dota 2 | 231
−29.9%
|
300−310
+29.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 103
−26.2%
|
130−140
+26.2%
|
| Fortnite | 140−150
−27.7%
|
180−190
+27.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 135
−25.9%
|
170−180
+25.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 67
−26.9%
|
85−90
+26.9%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 133
−27.8%
|
170−180
+27.8%
|
| Metro Exodus | 56
−25%
|
70−75
+25%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 139
−29.5%
|
180−190
+29.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 113
−23.9%
|
140−150
+23.9%
|
| Valorant | 290
−20.7%
|
350−400
+20.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 77
−29.9%
|
100−105
+29.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 48
−25%
|
60−65
+25%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 49
−22.4%
|
60−65
+22.4%
|
| Dota 2 | 211
−28%
|
270−280
+28%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 95
−26.3%
|
120−130
+26.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 107
−21.5%
|
130−140
+21.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 67
−26.9%
|
85−90
+26.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 104
−25%
|
130−140
+25%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 61
−23%
|
75−80
+23%
|
| Valorant | 122
−23%
|
150−160
+23%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 140−150
−27.7%
|
180−190
+27.7%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
−15.4%
|
30−33
+15.4%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 210−220
−26.8%
|
270−280
+26.8%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 62
−29%
|
80−85
+29%
|
| Metro Exodus | 36
−25%
|
45−50
+25%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 162
−29.6%
|
210−220
+29.6%
|
| Valorant | 262
−14.5%
|
300−310
+14.5%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 60
−25%
|
75−80
+25%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 26
−15.4%
|
30−33
+15.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65
−23.1%
|
80−85
+23.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 84
−19%
|
100−105
+19%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 39
−28.2%
|
50−55
+28.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50−55
−29.6%
|
70−75
+29.6%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 75−80
−29.9%
|
100−105
+29.9%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 24−27
−25%
|
30−33
+25%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−20%
|
18−20
+20%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 60
−25%
|
75−80
+25%
|
| Metro Exodus | 22
−22.7%
|
27−30
+22.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40
−25%
|
50−55
+25%
|
| Valorant | 132
−28.8%
|
170−180
+28.8%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 36
−25%
|
45−50
+25%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 11
−27.3%
|
14−16
+27.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 95
−26.3%
|
120−130
+26.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 33
−21.2%
|
40−45
+21.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 54
−29.6%
|
70−75
+29.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 22
−22.7%
|
27−30
+22.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 36
−25%
|
45−50
+25%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 35−40
−21.6%
|
45−50
+21.6%
|
This is how GTX 1660 Super and RX 6750 GRE compete in popular games:
- RX 6750 GRE is 20% faster in 1080p
- RX 6750 GRE is 23% faster in 1440p
- RX 6750 GRE is 29% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 32.69 | 42.46 |
| Recency | 29 October 2019 | 17 October 2023 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 12 GB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 250 Watt |
GTX 1660 Super has 100% lower power consumption.
RX 6750 GRE, on the other hand, has a 29.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 71.4% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 6750 GRE is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 1660 Super 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.
