Radeon Vega 7 vs GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q and Radeon Vega 7, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q
2019
6 GB GDDR6, 60 Watt
22.92
+206%

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q outperforms Vega 7 by a whopping 206% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking247532
Place by popularitynot in top-10012
Cost-effectiveness evaluation69.08no data
Power efficiency26.3611.47
ArchitectureTuring (2018−2022)GCN 5.1 (2018−2022)
GPU code nameTU116Cezanne
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date23 April 2019 (5 years ago)13 April 2021 (3 years ago)
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 cores1536448
Core clock speed1140 MHz300 MHz
Boost clock speed1335 MHz1900 MHz
Number of transistors6,600 million9,800 million
Manufacturing process technology12 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)60 Watt45 Watt
Texture fill rate128.253.20
Floating-point processing power4.101 TFLOPS1.702 TFLOPS
ROPs488
TMUs9628

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 x16IGP
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeGDDR6System Shared
Maximum RAM amount6 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width192 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1500 MHzSystem Shared
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 outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.56.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.22.1
Vulkan1.2.1311.2
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 22.92
+206%
Vega 7 7.48

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
+232%
Vega 7 5249

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
+299%
Vega 7 3348

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
+155%
Vega 7 24726

3DMark Time Spy Graphics

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 5085
+393%
Vega 7 1032

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
+239%
23
−239%
1440p75−80
+200%
25
−200%
4K34
+127%
15
−127%

Cost per frame, $

1080p2.94no data
1440p3.05no data
4K6.74no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 40−45
+180%
14−16
−180%
Cyberpunk 2077 45−50
+229%
14−16
−229%
Elden Ring 70−75
+429%
14
−429%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 70−75
+196%
24−27
−196%
Counter-Strike 2 40−45
+180%
14−16
−180%
Cyberpunk 2077 45−50
+229%
14−16
−229%
Forza Horizon 4 95−100
+241%
29
−241%
Metro Exodus 81
+286%
21
−286%
Red Dead Redemption 2 92
+241%
27
−241%
Valorant 102
+252%
29
−252%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 85
+254%
24−27
−254%
Counter-Strike 2 40−45
+180%
14−16
−180%
Cyberpunk 2077 45−50
+229%
14−16
−229%
Dota 2 89
+424%
17
−424%
Elden Ring 70−75
+363%
16
−363%
Far Cry 5 62
+121%
28
−121%
Fortnite 110−120
+166%
40−45
−166%
Forza Horizon 4 95−100
+313%
24
−313%
Grand Theft Auto V 87
+222%
27−30
−222%
Metro Exodus 57
+280%
15
−280%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 172
+274%
46
−274%
Red Dead Redemption 2 38
+81%
21−24
−81%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 70−75
+217%
21−24
−217%
Valorant 63
+350%
14
−350%
World of Tanks 240−250
+328%
58
−328%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 70−75
+196%
24−27
−196%
Counter-Strike 2 40−45
+180%
14−16
−180%
Cyberpunk 2077 45−50
+229%
14−16
−229%
Dota 2 86
+219%
27−30
−219%
Far Cry 5 117
+255%
30−35
−255%
Forza Horizon 4 95−100
+371%
21
−371%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 140−150
+147%
60−65
−147%
Valorant 93
+272%
25
−272%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 35−40
+375%
8−9
−375%
Elden Ring 35−40
+290%
10−11
−290%
Grand Theft Auto V 35−40
+217%
12−14
−217%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+216%
55−60
−216%
Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
+250%
6−7
−250%
World of Tanks 150−160
+183%
50−55
−183%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
+254%
12−14
−254%
Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+90%
10−11
−90%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+217%
6−7
−217%
Far Cry 5 65−70
+306%
16−18
−306%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+329%
14−16
−329%
Metro Exodus 50−55
+333%
12−14
−333%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+230%
10−11
−230%
Valorant 60−65
+221%
18−20
−221%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 20−22
+1900%
1−2
−1900%
Dota 2 35−40
+117%
18−20
−117%
Elden Ring 18−20
+350%
4−5
−350%
Grand Theft Auto V 35−40
+225%
12−14
−225%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+467%
3−4
−467%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 65−70
+214%
21−24
−214%
Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+180%
5−6
−180%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
+117%
18−20
−117%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
+283%
6−7
−283%
Counter-Strike 2 20−22
+1900%
1−2
−1900%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Dota 2 35−40
+225%
12−14
−225%
Far Cry 5 30−33
+233%
9−10
−233%
Fortnite 27−30
+300%
7−8
−300%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+338%
8−9
−338%
Valorant 27−30
+314%
7−8
−314%

This is how GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q and Vega 7 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is 239% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is 200% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is 127% faster in 4K

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

  • in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is 1900% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q surpassed Vega 7 in all 50 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 22.92 7.48
Recency 23 April 2019 13 April 2021
Chip lithography 12 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 60 Watt 45 Watt

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q has a 206.4% higher aggregate performance score.

Vega 7, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 71.4% more advanced lithography process, and 33.3% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Vega 7 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
AMD Radeon Vega 7
Radeon Vega 7

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.


4.3 557 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 2276 votes

Rate Radeon Vega 7 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.