Radeon 540 vs GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile with Radeon 540, including specs and performance data.
GTX 1660 Ti Mobile outperforms 540 by a whopping 665% 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 | 240 | 760 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 33.73 | 0.10 |
| Power efficiency | 24.93 | 5.21 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | TU116 | Lexa |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 23 April 2019 (6 years ago) | 20 April 2017 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $229 | $79 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
GTX 1660 Ti Mobile has 33630% better value for money than Radeon 540.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 1455 MHz | 1183 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1590 MHz | 1124 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 6,600 million | 2,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 152.6 | 28.39 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.884 TFLOPS | 0.9085 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 16 |
| TMUs | 96 | 24 |
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 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Length | no data | 145 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 32 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 288.0 GB/s | 24 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 2x DisplayPort 1.4a |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_0) |
| 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 | - |
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
+780%
| 10−12
−780%
|
| 1440p | 58
+729%
| 7−8
−729%
|
| 4K | 35
+775%
| 4−5
−775%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.60
+204%
| 7.90
−204%
|
| 1440p | 3.95
+186%
| 11.29
−186%
|
| 4K | 6.54
+202%
| 19.75
−202%
|
- GTX 1660 Ti Mobile has 204% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GTX 1660 Ti Mobile has 186% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- GTX 1660 Ti Mobile has 202% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 147
+717%
|
18−20
−717%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 86
+760%
|
10−11
−760%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 74
+722%
|
9−10
−722%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 111
+693%
|
14−16
−693%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 133
+731%
|
16−18
−731%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 68
+750%
|
8−9
−750%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 93
+675%
|
12−14
−675%
|
| Fortnite | 120−130
+694%
|
16−18
−694%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 134
+738%
|
16−18
−738%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 100
+733%
|
12−14
−733%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 62
+675%
|
8−9
−675%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−110
+783%
|
12−14
−783%
|
| Valorant | 209
+674%
|
27−30
−674%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 103
+758%
|
12−14
−758%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 101
+742%
|
12−14
−742%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 260−270
+790%
|
30−33
−790%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 54
+671%
|
7−8
−671%
|
| Dota 2 | 121
+764%
|
14−16
−764%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 89
+790%
|
10−11
−790%
|
| Fortnite | 120−130
+694%
|
16−18
−694%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 125
+681%
|
16−18
−681%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 90
+800%
|
10−11
−800%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 105
+775%
|
12−14
−775%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 48
+700%
|
6−7
−700%
|
| Metro Exodus | 54
+671%
|
7−8
−671%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−110
+783%
|
12−14
−783%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 103
+758%
|
12−14
−758%
|
| Valorant | 207
+667%
|
27−30
−667%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 94
+683%
|
12−14
−683%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 52
+767%
|
6−7
−767%
|
| Dota 2 | 116
+729%
|
14−16
−729%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 83
+730%
|
10−11
−730%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 99
+725%
|
12−14
−725%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 35
+775%
|
4−5
−775%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 109
+679%
|
14−16
−679%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55
+686%
|
7−8
−686%
|
| Valorant | 125
+681%
|
16−18
−681%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 107
+792%
|
12−14
−792%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+743%
|
7−8
−743%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 180−190
+683%
|
24−27
−683%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 50−55
+733%
|
6−7
−733%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30
+900%
|
3−4
−900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+733%
|
21−24
−733%
|
| Valorant | 197
+721%
|
24−27
−721%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 69
+667%
|
9−10
−667%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 25
+733%
|
3−4
−733%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60
+757%
|
7−8
−757%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+678%
|
9−10
−678%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 30−33
+900%
|
3−4
−900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45−50
+800%
|
5−6
−800%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 69
+667%
|
9−10
−667%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+800%
|
3−4
−800%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 50−55
+750%
|
6−7
−750%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 16−18
+750%
|
2−3
−750%
|
| Metro Exodus | 19
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35
+775%
|
4−5
−775%
|
| Valorant | 152
+744%
|
18−20
−744%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 38
+850%
|
4−5
−850%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+800%
|
3−4
−800%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Dota 2 | 85
+750%
|
10−11
−750%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 31
+675%
|
4−5
−675%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+683%
|
6−7
−683%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 16−18
+750%
|
2−3
−750%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+867%
|
3−4
−867%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 30−33
+900%
|
3−4
−900%
|
This is how GTX 1660 Ti Mobile and Radeon 540 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is 780% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is 729% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is 775% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 26.18 | 3.42 |
| Recency | 23 April 2019 | 20 April 2017 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 50 Watt |
GTX 1660 Ti Mobile has a 665.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 16.7% more advanced lithography process.
Radeon 540, on the other hand, has 60% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 540 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is a notebook graphics card while Radeon 540 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
