Radeon HD 6850M vs GeForce GTX 1660 Ti

Place in the ranking	162	887
Place by popularity	24	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	43.23	no data
Power efficiency	19.30	2.82
Architecture	Turing (2018−2022)	TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)
GPU code name	TU116	Granville
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Release date	22 February 2019 (5 years ago)	4 January 2011 (14 years 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 cores	1536	800
Core clock speed	1500 MHz	675 MHz
Boost clock speed	1770 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	6,600 million	1,040 million
Manufacturing process technology	12 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	120 Watt	50 Watt
Texture fill rate	169.9	27.00
Floating-point processing power	5.437 TFLOPS	1.08 TFLOPS
ROPs	48	16
TMUs	96	40

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	no data	large
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	229 mm	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	1x 8-pin	no 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 type	GDDR6	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	6 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	192 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1500 MHz	800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	288.0 GB/s	25.6 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	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort	No outputs
HDMI	+	-

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	11.2 (11_0)
Shader Model	6.5	5.0
OpenGL	4.6	4.4
OpenCL	1.2	1.2
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. 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 33.57
+1546%

HD 6850M 2.04

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 22892
+1458%

HD 6850M 1470

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.

GTX 1660 Ti 61217
+880%

HD 6850M 6246

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:

900p	300−350 +1400%	20 −1400%
Full HD	103 +329%	24 −329%
1440p	60 +1900%	3−4 −1900%
4K	39 +1850%	2−3 −1850%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	2.71	no data
1440p	4.65	no data
4K	7.15	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	65−70 +570%	10−11 −570%
Cyberpunk 2077	78 +1460%	5−6 −1460%
Elden Ring	84 +2700%	3−4 −2700%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	90 +2150%	4−5 −2150%
Counter-Strike 2	65−70 +570%	10−11 −570%
Cyberpunk 2077	36 +620%	5−6 −620%
Forza Horizon 4	156 +1318%	10−12 −1318%
Metro Exodus	98 +4800%	2−3 −4800%
Red Dead Redemption 2	119 +1388%	8−9 −1388%
Valorant	161 +1689%	9−10 −1689%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	123 +2975%	4−5 −2975%
Counter-Strike 2	65−70 +570%	10−11 −570%
Cyberpunk 2077	28 +460%	5−6 −460%
Dota 2	140 +3400%	4−5 −3400%
Elden Ring	116 +3767%	3−4 −3767%
Far Cry 5	118 +808%	12−14 −808%
Fortnite	134 +1240%	10−11 −1240%
Forza Horizon 4	127 +1055%	10−12 −1055%
Grand Theft Auto V	119 +2875%	4−5 −2875%
Metro Exodus	68 +3300%	2−3 −3300%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	180−190 +835%	20−22 −835%
Red Dead Redemption 2	45 +463%	8−9 −463%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	110−120 +1178%	9−10 −1178%
Valorant	82 +1950%	4−5 −1950%
World of Tanks	270−280 +613%	35−40 −613%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	78 +1850%	4−5 −1850%
Counter-Strike 2	65−70 +570%	10−11 −570%
Cyberpunk 2077	23 +360%	5−6 −360%
Dota 2	168 +4100%	4−5 −4100%
Far Cry 5	90−95 +592%	12−14 −592%
Forza Horizon 4	110 +900%	10−12 −900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	98 +390%	20−22 −390%
Valorant	118 +1586%	7−8 −1586%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	62 +1967%	3−4 −1967%
Elden Ring	62 +6100%	1−2 −6100%
Grand Theft Auto V	62 +1967%	3−4 −1967%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +1150%	14−16 −1150%
Red Dead Redemption 2	28 +2700%	1−2 −2700%
World of Tanks	210−220 +1554%	12−14 −1554%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	63	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +244%	9−10 −244%
Cyberpunk 2077	13 +333%	3−4 −333%
Far Cry 5	100−110 +1667%	6−7 −1667%
Forza Horizon 4	78 +1850%	4−5 −1850%
Metro Exodus	65 +2067%	3−4 −2067%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	55−60 +1733%	3−4 −1733%
Valorant	82 +925%	8−9 −925%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +1550%	2−3 −1550%
Dota 2	56 +250%	16−18 −250%
Elden Ring	25 +2400%	1−2 −2400%
Grand Theft Auto V	56 +273%	14−16 −273%
Metro Exodus	21 +2000%	1−2 −2000%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 +1667%	6−7 −1667%
Red Dead Redemption 2	19 +1800%	1−2 −1800%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	56 +273%	14−16 −273%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	31 +1450%	2−3 −1450%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +1550%	2−3 −1550%
Cyberpunk 2077	6 +500%	1−2 −500%
Dota 2	94 +488%	16−18 −488%
Far Cry 5	45−50 +2250%	2−3 −2250%
Fortnite	45−50	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	43 +2050%	2−3 −2050%
Valorant	41 +1950%	2−3 −1950%

This is how GTX 1660 Ti and HD 6850M compete in popular games:

GTX 1660 Ti is 1400% faster in 900p
GTX 1660 Ti is 329% faster in 1080p
GTX 1660 Ti is 1900% faster in 1440p
GTX 1660 Ti is 1850% faster in 4K

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

in Elden Ring, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 1660 Ti is 6100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Without exception, GTX 1660 Ti surpassed HD 6850M in all 50 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	33.57	2.04
Recency	22 February 2019	4 January 2011
Maximum RAM amount	6 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	12 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	120 Watt	50 Watt

GTX 1660 Ti has a 1545.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 233.3% more advanced lithography process.

HD 6850M, on the other hand, has 140% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6850M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is a desktop card while Radeon HD 6850M is a notebook one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.