Radeon PRO W7900 vs GeForce GTX 1660 Ti

Place in performance ranking	147	10
Place by popularity	35	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	25.84	7.78
Architecture	Turing (2018−2021)	RDNA 3.0 (2022)
GPU code name	Turing TU116	Navi 31
Market segment	Desktop	Workstation
Release date	22 February 2019 (5 years ago)	13 April 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$279	$3,999
Current price	$284 (1x MSRP)	$4649 (1.2x MSRP)

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 1660 Ti has 232% better value for money than PRO W7900.

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	1536	6144
Core clock speed	1500 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	1770 MHz	2495 MHz
Number of transistors	6,600 million	57,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	12 nm	5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	120 Watt	295 Watt
Texture fill rate	169.9	958.1

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).

Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x16
Length	229 mm	280 mm
Width	2-slot	3-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1x 8-pin	2x 8-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 type	GDDR6	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	6 GB	48 GB
Memory bus width	192 Bit	384 Bit
Memory clock speed	12000 MHz	18 GB/s
Memory bandwidth	288.0 GB/s	864.0 GB/s
Shared memory	-	no data

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	3x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1
HDMI	+	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	6.5	6.7
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	2.2
Vulkan	1.2.131	1.3
CUDA	7.5	no data

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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 33.47

PRO W7900 75.59
+126%

Radeon PRO W7900 outperforms GeForce GTX 1660 Ti by 126% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

GTX 1660 Ti 12926

PRO W7900 29191
+126%

Radeon PRO W7900 outperforms GeForce GTX 1660 Ti by 126% in Passmark.

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	104 −121%	230−240 +121%
1440p	57 −111%	120−130 +111%
4K	38 −124%	85−90 +124%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

30−33

−160%

78
+160%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	35−40 −146%	86 +146%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	30−33 −147%	74 +147%
Battlefield 5	55−60 −136%	130 +136%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	40−45 −138%	95 +138%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−33 −137%	71 +137%
Far Cry 5	45−50 −131%	104 +131%
Far Cry New Dawn	45−50 −149%	112 +149%
Forza Horizon 4	55−60 −138%	131 +138%
Hitman 3	30−33 −130%	65−70 +130%
Horizon Zero Dawn	75−80 −140%	180 +140%
Metro Exodus	55−60 −144%	134 +144%
Red Dead Redemption 2	50−55 −138%	119 +138%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	65−70 −140%	156 +140%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −149%	85−90 +149%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	30−33 −140%	72 +140%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	24−27 −129%	55 +129%
Battlefield 5	50−55 −142%	121 +142%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	35−40 −143%	85 +143%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 −138%	57 +138%
Far Cry 5	35−40 −134%	82 +134%
Far Cry New Dawn	30−33 −163%	79 +163%
Forza Horizon 4	95−100 −129%	218 +129%
Hitman 3	30−33 −130%	65−70 +130%
Horizon Zero Dawn	55−60 −144%	130−140 +144%
Metro Exodus	45−50 −129%	103 +129%
Red Dead Redemption 2	45−50 −129%	103 +129%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	55−60 −131%	127 +131%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	50−55 −132%	116 +132%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −149%	85−90 +149%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	21−24 −152%	53 +152%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	21−24 −138%	50 +138%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	30−33 −133%	70 +133%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 −156%	46 +156%
Far Cry 5	27−30 −126%	61 +126%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 −143%	97 +143%
Horizon Zero Dawn	45−50 −127%	102 +127%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	45−50 −144%	110 +144%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 −130%	62 +130%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −149%	85−90 +149%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

40−45

−143%

97
+143%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	30−33 −150%	75 +150%
Far Cry New Dawn	35−40 −134%	82 +134%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	18−20 −128%	41 +128%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	14−16 −157%	36 +157%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	24−27 −129%	55 +129%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 −170%	27 +170%
Far Cry 5	27−30 −148%	67 +148%
Forza Horizon 4	30−33 −157%	77 +157%
Hitman 3	18−20 −133%	40−45 +133%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−33 −150%	75 +150%
Metro Exodus	27−30 −141%	65 +141%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	30−33 −160%	78 +160%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 −156%	45−50 +156%
Watch Dogs: Legion	12−14 −133%	27−30 +133%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

27−30

−141%

65
+141%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 −157%	36 +157%
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 −142%	29 +142%
Hitman 3	10−11 −170%	27−30 +170%
Horizon Zero Dawn	18−20 −128%	40−45 +128%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−11 −160%	26 +160%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 −139%	43 +139%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 −150%	25 +150%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	8−9 −138%	19 +138%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 −150%	25 +150%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −175%	11 +175%
Far Cry 5	8−9 −150%	20 +150%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 −143%	51 +143%
Horizon Zero Dawn	18−20 −133%	42 +133%
Metro Exodus	14−16 −150%	35 +150%
Watch Dogs: Legion	7−8 −129%	16−18 +129%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

18−20

−144%

44
+144%

This is how GTX 1660 Ti and PRO W7900 compete in popular games:

PRO W7900 is 121% faster in 1080p
PRO W7900 is 111% faster in 1440p
PRO W7900 is 124% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	33.47	75.59
Recency	22 February 2019	13 April 2023
Cost	$279	$3999
Maximum RAM amount	6 GB	48 GB
Chip lithography	12 nm	5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	120 Watt	295 Watt