GeForce 610M vs GTX 1660 Ti Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile and GeForce 610M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTX 1660 Ti Mobile outperforms 610M by a whopping 3726% 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 | 209 | 1173 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 100.00 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 24.59 | 4.29 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | TU116 | GF119 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 23 April 2019 (5 years ago) | 1 December 2011 (13 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.
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 | 1536 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 1455 MHz | 738 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1590 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 6,600 million | 292 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 12 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 152.6 | 5.904 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.884 TFLOPS | 0.1417 TFLOPS |
| Video decoders | no data | H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p |
| ROPs | 48 | 4 |
| TMUs | 96 | 8 |
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 size | medium sized | no data |
| Bus support | no data | PCI Express 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
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 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 64bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 288.0 GB/s | Up to 14.4 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 | No outputs | No outputs |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | Up to 2048x1536 |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 API |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| 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.
- Other tests
- 3DMark 11 Performance GPU
- 3DMark Vantage Performance
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.
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.
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
+4300%
| 2−3
−4300%
|
| 1440p | 58
+5700%
| 1−2
−5700%
|
| 4K | 35 | 0−1 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.60 | no data |
| 1440p | 3.95 | no data |
| 4K | 6.54 | no 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 | 147
+4800%
|
3−4
−4800%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 86
+4200%
|
2−3
−4200%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 74
+1750%
|
4−5
−1750%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 111
+5450%
|
2−3
−5450%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 133
+4333%
|
3−4
−4333%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 68
+3300%
|
2−3
−3300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 93
+4550%
|
2−3
−4550%
|
| Fortnite | 120−130
+4200%
|
3−4
−4200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 134
+3250%
|
4−5
−3250%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 100
+4900%
|
2−3
−4900%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 62
+1450%
|
4−5
−1450%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−110
+1238%
|
8−9
−1238%
|
| Valorant | 209
+621%
|
27−30
−621%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 103
+5050%
|
2−3
−5050%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 101
+4950%
|
2−3
−4950%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 260−270
+1235%
|
20−22
−1235%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 54
+2600%
|
2−3
−2600%
|
| Dota 2 | 121
+831%
|
12−14
−831%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 89
+4350%
|
2−3
−4350%
|
| Fortnite | 120−130
+4200%
|
3−4
−4200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 125
+3025%
|
4−5
−3025%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 90
+4400%
|
2−3
−4400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 105
+5150%
|
2−3
−5150%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 48
+1100%
|
4−5
−1100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 54
+5300%
|
1−2
−5300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−110
+1238%
|
8−9
−1238%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 103
+1617%
|
6−7
−1617%
|
| Valorant | 207
+614%
|
27−30
−614%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 94
+4600%
|
2−3
−4600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 52
+2500%
|
2−3
−2500%
|
| Dota 2 | 116
+792%
|
12−14
−792%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 83
+4050%
|
2−3
−4050%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 99
+2375%
|
4−5
−2375%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 35
+775%
|
4−5
−775%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 109
+1263%
|
8−9
−1263%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55
+817%
|
6−7
−817%
|
| Valorant | 125
+331%
|
27−30
−331%
|
| Fortnite | 107
+5250%
|
2−3
−5250%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
+6100%
|
1−2
−6100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 180−190
+6200%
|
3−4
−6200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 50−55
+4900%
|
1−2
−4900%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+2400%
|
7−8
−2400%
|
| Valorant | 197
+3840%
|
5−6
−3840%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 69
+6800%
|
1−2
−6800%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 25 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 60
+1400%
|
4−5
−1400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+3450%
|
2−3
−3450%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 30−33
+2900%
|
1−2
−2900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45−50
+2200%
|
2−3
−2200%
|
| Fortnite | 69
+6800%
|
1−2
−6800%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 50−55
+247%
|
14−16
−247%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 19 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 152
+3700%
|
4−5
−3700%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 38 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 85
+4150%
|
2−3
−4150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 31
+933%
|
3−4
−933%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+4700%
|
1−2
−4700%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
+1400%
|
2−3
−1400%
|
| Fortnite | 30−35
+1450%
|
2−3
−1450%
|
This is how GTX 1660 Ti Mobile and GeForce 610M compete in popular games:
- GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is 4300% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is 5700% faster in 1440p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Fortnite, with 1440p resolution and the Epic Preset, the GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is 6800% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 1660 Ti Mobile surpassed GeForce 610M in all 35 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 24.87 | 0.65 |
| Recency | 23 April 2019 | 1 December 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 12 Watt |
GTX 1660 Ti Mobile has a 3726.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 233.3% more advanced lithography process.
GeForce 610M, on the other hand, has 566.7% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 610M 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.
