Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile vs GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q

#ad 
Buy
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q with Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile, including specs and performance data.

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q
2019
6 GB GDDR6, 60 Watt
22.05

RTX 3000 Mobile outperforms GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q by a moderate 15% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking263227
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation68.98no data
Power efficiency25.9922.37
ArchitectureTuring (2018−2022)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameTU116TU106
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date23 April 2019 (5 years ago)27 May 2019 (5 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 cores15362304
Core clock speed1140 MHz945 MHz
Boost clock speed1335 MHz1380 MHz
Number of transistors6,600 million10,800 million
Manufacturing process technology12 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)60 Watt80 Watt
Texture fill rate128.2198.7
Floating-point processing power4.101 TFLOPS6.359 TFLOPS
ROPs4864
TMUs96144
Tensor Coresno data288
Ray Tracing Coresno data36

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 sizemedium sizedlarge
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data

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 typeGDDR6GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount6 GB6 GB
Memory bus width192 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1500 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth288.0 GB/s448.0 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 outputsNo outputs
G-SYNC support-+

Supported technologies

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

VR Readyno data+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 Ultimate (12_1)
Shader Model6.56.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.2.1311.2.131
CUDA7.57.5
DLSS-+

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.

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 22.05
RTX 3000 Mobile 25.30
+14.7%

  • Other tests
    • Passmark
    • 3DMark 11 Performance GPU
    • 3DMark Vantage Performance
    • 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
    • 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
    • 3DMark Time Spy Graphics

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 Ti Max-Q 8814
RTX 3000 Mobile 10116
+14.8%

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.

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 17439
RTX 3000 Mobile 19879
+14%

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.

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 31845
RTX 3000 Mobile 50309
+58%

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.

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 13355
RTX 3000 Mobile 14842
+11.1%

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 63086
RTX 3000 Mobile 91394
+44.9%

3DMark Time Spy Graphics

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 5085
RTX 3000 Mobile 5589
+9.9%

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 HD79
−20.3%
95
+20.3%
4K33
−167%
88
+167%

Cost per frame, $

1080p2.90no data
4K6.94no data

FPS performance in popular games

  • Full HD
    Low Preset
  • Full HD
    Medium Preset
  • Full HD
    High Preset
  • Full HD
    Ultra Preset
  • Full HD
    Epic Preset
  • 1440p
    High Preset
  • 1440p
    Ultra Preset
  • 1440p
    Epic Preset
  • 4K
    High Preset
  • 4K
    Ultra Preset
  • 4K
    Epic Preset
Counter-Strike 2 120−130
−14.5%
140−150
+14.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 45−50
−17.4%
50−55
+17.4%
Hogwarts Legacy 40−45
−18.6%
50−55
+18.6%
Battlefield 5 83
−16.9%
95−100
+16.9%
Counter-Strike 2 120−130
−14.5%
140−150
+14.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 45−50
−17.4%
50−55
+17.4%
Far Cry 5 69
−17.4%
80−85
+17.4%
Fortnite 92
−31.5%
120−130
+31.5%
Forza Horizon 4 85−90
−12.6%
95−100
+12.6%
Forza Horizon 5 65−70
−14.7%
75−80
+14.7%
Hogwarts Legacy 40−45
−18.6%
50−55
+18.6%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 80−85
−15.7%
95−100
+15.7%
Valorant 150−160
−9.1%
160−170
+9.1%
Battlefield 5 78
−24.4%
95−100
+24.4%
Counter-Strike 2 120−130
−14.5%
140−150
+14.5%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 240−250
−5.7%
250−260
+5.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 45−50
−17.4%
50−55
+17.4%
Dota 2 94
−40.4%
132
+40.4%
Far Cry 5 66
−22.7%
80−85
+22.7%
Fortnite 90
−34.4%
120−130
+34.4%
Forza Horizon 4 85−90
−12.6%
95−100
+12.6%
Forza Horizon 5 65−70
−14.7%
75−80
+14.7%
Grand Theft Auto V 87
−3.4%
90−95
+3.4%
Hogwarts Legacy 40−45
−18.6%
50−55
+18.6%
Metro Exodus 48
−14.6%
55−60
+14.6%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 80−85
−15.7%
95−100
+15.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 92
−18.5%
109
+18.5%
Valorant 150−160
−9.1%
160−170
+9.1%
Battlefield 5 73
−32.9%
95−100
+32.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 45−50
−17.4%
50−55
+17.4%
Dota 2 86
−40.7%
121
+40.7%
Far Cry 5 62
−30.6%
80−85
+30.6%
Forza Horizon 4 85−90
−12.6%
95−100
+12.6%
Hogwarts Legacy 40−45
−18.6%
50−55
+18.6%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 80−85
−15.7%
95−100
+15.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 51
−9.8%
56
+9.8%
Valorant 93
−80.6%
160−170
+80.6%
Fortnite 79
−53.2%
120−130
+53.2%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
−19.6%
55−60
+19.6%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 150−160
−13.7%
170−180
+13.7%
Grand Theft Auto V 35−40
−18.4%
45−50
+18.4%
Metro Exodus 27−30
−17.9%
30−35
+17.9%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
−0.6%
170−180
+0.6%
Valorant 190−200
−7.3%
200−210
+7.3%
Battlefield 5 60−65
−13.3%
65−70
+13.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
−19%
24−27
+19%
Far Cry 5 45−50
−16.7%
55−60
+16.7%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
−16.4%
60−65
+16.4%
Hogwarts Legacy 24−27
−12.5%
27−30
+12.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
−20.6%
40−45
+20.6%
Fortnite 50−55
−18%
55−60
+18%
Counter-Strike 2 20−22
−25%
24−27
+25%
Grand Theft Auto V 35−40
−17.9%
45−50
+17.9%
Hogwarts Legacy 14−16
−14.3%
16−18
+14.3%
Metro Exodus 18−20
−16.7%
21−24
+16.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 31
−19.4%
35−40
+19.4%
Valorant 120−130
−16.1%
140−150
+16.1%
Battlefield 5 38
+0%
35−40
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 20−22
−25%
24−27
+25%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
−22.2%
10−12
+22.2%
Dota 2 70−75
−22.2%
88
+22.2%
Far Cry 5 30
+7.1%
27−30
−7.1%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
−15.8%
40−45
+15.8%
Hogwarts Legacy 14−16
−14.3%
16−18
+14.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
−18.2%
24−27
+18.2%
Fortnite 21−24
−17.4%
27−30
+17.4%

This is how GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q and RTX 3000 Mobile compete in popular games:

  • RTX 3000 Mobile is 20% faster in 1080p
  • RTX 3000 Mobile is 167% faster in 4K

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

  • in Far Cry 5, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is 7% faster.
  • in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RTX 3000 Mobile is 81% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is ahead in 1 test (2%)
  • RTX 3000 Mobile is ahead in 64 tests (97%)
  • there's a draw in 1 test (2%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 22.05 25.30
Recency 23 April 2019 27 May 2019
Power consumption (TDP) 60 Watt 80 Watt

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q has 33.3% lower power consumption.

RTX 3000 Mobile, on the other hand, has a 14.7% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 1 month.

The Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is a notebook graphics card while Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile is a mobile workstation 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 GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile
Quadro RTX 3000

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
569 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4
332 votes

Rate Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q or Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.