Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 4.6 TFLOPS vs GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q and Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 4.6 TFLOPS, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q
2019
6 GB GDDR6, 60 Watt
22.87
+98.9%

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q outperforms Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 4.6 TFLOPS by an impressive 99% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking246416
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation68.96no data
Power efficiency26.1319.71
ArchitectureTuring (2018−2022)no data
GPU code nameTU116no data
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date23 April 2019 (5 years ago)no data
Launch price (MSRP)$229 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

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 cores15361536
Core clock speed1140 MHzno data
Boost clock speed1335 MHz1500 MHz
Number of transistors6,600 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology12 nm4 nm
Power consumption (TDP)60 Watt40 Watt
Texture fill rate128.2no data
Floating-point processing power4.101 TFLOPSno data
ROPs48no data
TMUs96no data

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 sizedno data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16no data
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 typeGDDR6LPDDR5x
Maximum RAM amount6 GBno data
Memory bus width192 Bitno data
Memory clock speed1500 MHz8448 MHz
Memory bandwidth288.0 GB/sno data
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 data

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12_1
Shader Model6.5no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL1.2no data
Vulkan1.2.131-
CUDA7.5-

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 22.87
+98.9%
Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 4.6 TFLOPS 11.50

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
+147%
Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 4.6 TFLOPS 7061

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
+32.4%
Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 4.6 TFLOPS 24058

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
+91.3%
Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 4.6 TFLOPS 6982

3DMark Time Spy Graphics

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 5085
+156%
Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 4.6 TFLOPS 1989

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 HD78
+111%
37
−111%
4K31
+121%
14−16
−121%

Cost per frame, $

1080p2.94no data
4K7.39no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+106%
18−20
−106%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 56
+107%
27−30
−107%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35−40
+117%
18−20
−117%
Battlefield 5 88
+120%
40−45
−120%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 70
+100%
35−40
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+106%
18−20
−106%
Far Cry 5 92
+104%
45−50
−104%
Far Cry New Dawn 60−65
+100%
30−33
−100%
Forza Horizon 4 130−140
+111%
65−70
−111%
Hitman 3 45−50
+114%
21−24
−114%
Horizon Zero Dawn 100−110
+114%
50−55
−114%
Metro Exodus 120
+100%
60−65
−100%
Red Dead Redemption 2 92
+104%
45−50
−104%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 75−80
+120%
35−40
−120%
Watch Dogs: Legion 95−100
+118%
45−50
−118%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 50−55
+108%
24−27
−108%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35−40
+117%
18−20
−117%
Battlefield 5 84
+110%
40−45
−110%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 66
+120%
30−33
−120%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+106%
18−20
−106%
Far Cry 5 77
+120%
35−40
−120%
Far Cry New Dawn 60−65
+100%
30−33
−100%
Forza Horizon 4 130−140
+111%
65−70
−111%
Hitman 3 45−50
+114%
21−24
−114%
Horizon Zero Dawn 100−110
+114%
50−55
−114%
Metro Exodus 95
+111%
45−50
−111%
Red Dead Redemption 2 74
+111%
35−40
−111%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 75−80
+120%
35−40
−120%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 50−55
+108%
24−27
−108%
Watch Dogs: Legion 95−100
+118%
45−50
−118%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 42
+100%
21−24
−100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35−40
+117%
18−20
−117%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 50
+108%
24−27
−108%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+106%
18−20
−106%
Far Cry 5 54
+100%
27−30
−100%
Forza Horizon 4 130−140
+111%
65−70
−111%
Hitman 3 45−50
+114%
21−24
−114%
Horizon Zero Dawn 79
+126%
35−40
−126%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 75−80
+120%
35−40
−120%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 51
+113%
24−27
−113%
Watch Dogs: Legion 95−100
+118%
45−50
−118%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 72
+106%
35−40
−106%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45
+105%
21−24
−105%
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40
+119%
16−18
−119%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
+100%
12−14
−100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
+120%
10−11
−120%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 24−27
+117%
12−14
−117%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+100%
7−8
−100%
Far Cry 5 24−27
+117%
12−14
−117%
Forza Horizon 4 130−140
+100%
65−70
−100%
Hitman 3 27−30
+125%
12−14
−125%
Horizon Zero Dawn 45−50
+124%
21−24
−124%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+105%
21−24
−105%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45−50
+104%
24−27
−104%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
+125%
12−14
−125%
Watch Dogs: Legion 130−140
+102%
65−70
−102%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+111%
18−20
−111%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
+120%
10−11
−120%
Far Cry New Dawn 18−20
+100%
9−10
−100%
Hitman 3 18−20
+100%
9−10
−100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 110−120
+115%
55−60
−115%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+108%
12−14
−108%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 31
+121%
14−16
−121%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 14−16
+100%
7−8
−100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+100%
6−7
−100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
+117%
6−7
−117%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+117%
6−7
−117%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+121%
14−16
−121%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30
+125%
12−14
−125%
Watch Dogs: Legion 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 20−22
+100%
10−11
−100%

This is how GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q and Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 4.6 TFLOPS compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is 111% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is 121% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 22.87 11.50
Chip lithography 12 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 60 Watt 40 Watt

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q has a 98.9% higher aggregate performance score.

Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 4.6 TFLOPS, on the other hand, has a 200% more advanced lithography process, and 50% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is our recommended choice as it beats the Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 4.6 TFLOPS in performance tests.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

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
Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 4.6 TFLOPS
SD X Adreno X1-85 4.6 TFLOPS

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


4.4 537 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
1.8 12 votes

Rate Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 4.6 TFLOPS on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.