FirePro D300 vs GeForce GTX 1660 Ti

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with FirePro D300, including specs and performance data.


GTX 1660 Ti
2019, $279
6 GB GDDR6, 120 Watt
30.32
+227%

1660 Ti outperforms D300 by a whopping 227% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking204514
Place by popularity22not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation31.20no data
Power efficiency19.464.76
ArchitectureTuring (2018−2022)GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)
GPU code nameTU116Pitcairn
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release date22 February 2019 (7 years ago)18 January 2014 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$279 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

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 cores15361280
Core clock speed1500 MHz850 MHz
Boost clock speed1770 MHzno data
Number of transistors6,600 million2,800 million
Manufacturing process technology12 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)120 Watt150 Watt
Texture fill rate169.968.00
Floating-point processing power5.437 TFLOPS2.176 TFLOPS
ROPs4832
TMUs9680
L1 Cache1.5 MB320 KB
L2 Cache1536 KB512 KB

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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length229 mm242 mm
Width2-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 8-pinno 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 typeGDDR6GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount6 GB2 GB
Memory bus width192 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1500 MHz1270 MHz
Memory bandwidth288.0 GB/s162.6 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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort4x DisplayPort
HDMI+-

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (11_1)
Shader Model6.55.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.2.1311.2.131
CUDA7.5-

Synthetic benchmarks

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 30.32
+227%
FirePro D300 9.27

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

GTX 1660 Ti 60910
+216%
FirePro D300 19273

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.

GTX 1660 Ti 58130
+218%
FirePro D300 18308

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 HD104
+247%
30−35
−247%
1440p59
+228%
18−20
−228%
4K39
+290%
10−12
−290%

Cost per frame, $

1080p2.68no data
1440p4.73no data
4K7.15no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 170−180
+248%
50−55
−248%
Cyberpunk 2077 78
+271%
21−24
−271%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 75−80
+271%
21−24
−271%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 129
+269%
35−40
−269%
Counter-Strike 2 170−180
+248%
50−55
−248%
Cyberpunk 2077 71
+238%
21−24
−238%
Far Cry 5 109
+263%
30−33
−263%
Fortnite 247
+229%
75−80
−229%
Forza Horizon 4 131
+228%
40−45
−228%
Forza Horizon 5 107
+257%
30−33
−257%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 200
+233%
60−65
−233%
Valorant 190−200
+253%
55−60
−253%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 112
+273%
30−33
−273%
Counter-Strike 2 170−180
+248%
50−55
−248%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+245%
80−85
−245%
Cyberpunk 2077 57
+256%
16−18
−256%
Dota 2 181
+229%
55−60
−229%
Far Cry 5 99
+230%
30−33
−230%
Fortnite 143
+258%
40−45
−258%
Forza Horizon 4 122
+249%
35−40
−249%
Forza Horizon 5 94
+248%
27−30
−248%
Grand Theft Auto V 119
+240%
35−40
−240%
Metro Exodus 55
+244%
16−18
−244%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 150
+233%
45−50
−233%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 116
+231%
35−40
−231%
Valorant 190−200
+253%
55−60
−253%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 102
+240%
30−33
−240%
Cyberpunk 2077 46
+229%
14−16
−229%
Dota 2 168
+236%
50−55
−236%
Far Cry 5 94
+248%
27−30
−248%
Forza Horizon 4 97
+259%
27−30
−259%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 129
+269%
35−40
−269%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 62
+244%
18−20
−244%
Valorant 118
+237%
35−40
−237%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 117
+234%
35−40
−234%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 70−75
+238%
21−24
−238%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 210−220
+232%
65−70
−232%
Grand Theft Auto V 62
+244%
18−20
−244%
Metro Exodus 33
+230%
10−11
−230%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+250%
50−55
−250%
Valorant 230−240
+229%
70−75
−229%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 76
+262%
21−24
−262%
Cyberpunk 2077 27
+238%
8−9
−238%
Far Cry 5 67
+272%
18−20
−272%
Forza Horizon 4 77
+267%
21−24
−267%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 50−55
+231%
16−18
−231%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 75
+257%
21−24
−257%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+230%
10−11
−230%
Grand Theft Auto V 56
+250%
16−18
−250%
Metro Exodus 21
+250%
6−7
−250%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 43
+258%
12−14
−258%
Valorant 180−190
+238%
55−60
−238%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 43
+258%
12−14
−258%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+230%
10−11
−230%
Cyberpunk 2077 11
+267%
3−4
−267%
Dota 2 94
+248%
27−30
−248%
Far Cry 5 35
+250%
10−11
−250%
Forza Horizon 4 51
+264%
14−16
−264%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 39
+290%
10−11
−290%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 25
+257%
7−8
−257%

This is how GTX 1660 Ti and FirePro D300 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1660 Ti is 247% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1660 Ti is 228% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 1660 Ti is 290% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 30.32 9.27
Recency 22 February 2019 18 January 2014
Maximum RAM amount 6 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 12 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 120 Watt 150 Watt

GTX 1660 Ti has a 227% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 133% more advanced lithography process, and 25% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro D300 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is a desktop graphics card while FirePro D300 is a workstation one.

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.


4.2 9659 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 37 votes

Rate FirePro D300 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 or FirePro D300, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.