RTX 4000 Ada Generation vs GeForce GTX 1660 Ti

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with RTX 4000 Ada Generation, including specs and performance data.

GTX 1660 Ti
2019
6 GB GDDR6, 120 Watt
33.50

RTX 4000 Ada Generation outperforms GTX 1660 Ti by an impressive 90% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking16029
Place by popularity30not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation44.28no data
Power efficiency19.1233.60
ArchitectureTuring (2018−2022)Ada Lovelace (2022−2024)
GPU code nameTU116AD104
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release date22 February 2019 (5 years ago)9 August 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$279 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 cores15366144
Core clock speed1500 MHz1500 MHz
Boost clock speed1770 MHz2175 MHz
Number of transistors6,600 million35,800 million
Manufacturing process technology12 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)120 Watt130 Watt
Texture fill rate169.9417.6
Floating-point processing power5.437 TFLOPS26.73 TFLOPS
ROPs4880
TMUs96192
Tensor Coresno data192
Ray Tracing Coresno data48

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 4.0 x16
Length229 mm245 mm
Width2-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 8-pin1x 16-pin

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 typeGDDR6GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount6 GB20 GB
Memory bus width192 Bit160 Bit
Memory clock speed1500 MHz2250 MHz
Memory bandwidth288.0 GB/s360.0 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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort4x DisplayPort 1.4a
HDMI+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.56.8
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan1.2.1311.3
CUDA7.58.9

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 33.50
RTX 4000 Ada Generation 63.78
+90.4%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

GTX 1660 Ti 12907
RTX 4000 Ada Generation 24572
+90.4%

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 60773
RTX 4000 Ada Generation 148137
+144%

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 58262
RTX 4000 Ada Generation 119008
+104%

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 HD103
−84.5%
190−200
+84.5%
1440p59
−86.4%
110−120
+86.4%
4K37
−89.2%
70−75
+89.2%

Cost per frame, $

1080p2.71no data
1440p4.73no data
4K7.54no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 78
−79.5%
140−150
+79.5%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 86
−86%
160−170
+86%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 74
−89.2%
140−150
+89.2%
Battlefield 5 130
−84.6%
240−250
+84.6%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 95
−89.5%
180−190
+89.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 71
−83.1%
130−140
+83.1%
Far Cry 5 104
−82.7%
190−200
+82.7%
Far Cry New Dawn 112
−87.5%
210−220
+87.5%
Forza Horizon 4 231
−73.2%
400−450
+73.2%
Hitman 3 70−75
−85.7%
130−140
+85.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 140−150
−86.2%
270−280
+86.2%
Metro Exodus 134
−86.6%
250−260
+86.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2 119
−84.9%
220−230
+84.9%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 171
−75.4%
300−310
+75.4%
Watch Dogs: Legion 120−130
−83.3%
220−230
+83.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 122
−88.5%
230−240
+88.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 55
−81.8%
100−105
+81.8%
Battlefield 5 121
−90.1%
230−240
+90.1%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 85
−88.2%
160−170
+88.2%
Cyberpunk 2077 57
−75.4%
100−105
+75.4%
Far Cry 5 82
−82.9%
150−160
+82.9%
Far Cry New Dawn 79
−89.9%
150−160
+89.9%
Forza Horizon 4 218
−83.5%
400−450
+83.5%
Hitman 3 70−75
−85.7%
130−140
+85.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 140−150
−86.2%
270−280
+86.2%
Metro Exodus 114
−84.2%
210−220
+84.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2 89
−79.8%
160−170
+79.8%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 127
−89%
240−250
+89%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 70−75
−85.7%
130−140
+85.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 120−130
−83.3%
220−230
+83.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 53
−88.7%
100−105
+88.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 50
−90%
95−100
+90%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 70
−85.7%
130−140
+85.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 46
−84.8%
85−90
+84.8%
Far Cry 5 61
−80.3%
110−120
+80.3%
Forza Horizon 4 97
−85.6%
180−190
+85.6%
Hitman 3 70−75
−85.7%
130−140
+85.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 102
−86.3%
190−200
+86.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 110
−81.8%
200−210
+81.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 62
−77.4%
110−120
+77.4%
Watch Dogs: Legion 120−130
−83.3%
220−230
+83.3%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 97
−85.6%
180−190
+85.6%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 75
−86.7%
140−150
+86.7%
Far Cry New Dawn 54
−85.2%
100−105
+85.2%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 41
−82.9%
75−80
+82.9%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 36
−80.6%
65−70
+80.6%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 52
−82.7%
95−100
+82.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 27
−85.2%
50−55
+85.2%
Far Cry 5 41
−82.9%
75−80
+82.9%
Forza Horizon 4 202
−73.3%
350−400
+73.3%
Hitman 3 40−45
−78.6%
75−80
+78.6%
Horizon Zero Dawn 75
−86.7%
140−150
+86.7%
Metro Exodus 65
−84.6%
120−130
+84.6%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 78
−79.5%
140−150
+79.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 45−50
−84.8%
85−90
+84.8%
Watch Dogs: Legion 170−180
−72.4%
300−310
+72.4%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 65
−84.6%
120−130
+84.6%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 36
−80.6%
65−70
+80.6%
Far Cry New Dawn 29
−89.7%
55−60
+89.7%
Hitman 3 27−30
−85.2%
50−55
+85.2%
Horizon Zero Dawn 160−170
−84%
300−310
+84%
Metro Exodus 46
−84.8%
85−90
+84.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 43
−86%
80−85
+86%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 25
−80%
45−50
+80%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 19
−84.2%
35−40
+84.2%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 25
−80%
45−50
+80%
Cyberpunk 2077 11
−63.6%
18−20
+63.6%
Far Cry 5 20
−75%
35−40
+75%
Forza Horizon 4 51
−86.3%
95−100
+86.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 43
−86%
80−85
+86%
Watch Dogs: Legion 16−18
−87.5%
30−33
+87.5%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 44
−81.8%
80−85
+81.8%

This is how GTX 1660 Ti and RTX 4000 Ada Generation compete in popular games:

  • RTX 4000 Ada Generation is 84% faster in 1080p
  • RTX 4000 Ada Generation is 86% faster in 1440p
  • RTX 4000 Ada Generation is 89% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 33.50 63.78
Recency 22 February 2019 9 August 2023
Maximum RAM amount 6 GB 20 GB
Chip lithography 12 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 120 Watt 130 Watt

GTX 1660 Ti has 8.3% lower power consumption.

RTX 4000 Ada Generation, on the other hand, has a 90.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 233.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 140% more advanced lithography process.

The RTX 4000 Ada Generation is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 1660 Ti in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is a desktop card while RTX 4000 Ada Generation is a workstation one.


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
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti
NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation
RTX 4000 Ada Generation

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.


4.2 7810 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 42 votes

Rate RTX 4000 Ada Generation 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.