Radeon Pro WX 8200 vs GeForce GTX 1660 Ti

Place in performance ranking	147	123
Place by popularity	34	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	25.86	10.15
Architecture	Turing (2018−2021)	GCN 5.0 (2017−2020)
GPU code name	Turing TU116	Vega 10
Market segment	Desktop	Workstation
Release date	22 February 2019 (5 years ago)	13 August 2018 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$279	$999
Current price	$284 (1x MSRP)	$2172 (2.2x MSRP)

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 1660 Ti has 155% better value for money than Pro WX 8200.

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	3584
Core clock speed	1500 MHz	1200 MHz
Boost clock speed	1770 MHz	1500 MHz
Number of transistors	6,600 million	12,500 million
Manufacturing process technology	12 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	120 Watt	230 Watt
Texture fill rate	169.9	336.0

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 3.0 x16
Length	229 mm	267 mm
Width	2-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1x 8-pin	1x 6-pin + 1x 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	HBM2
Maximum RAM amount	6 GB	8 GB
Memory bus width	192 Bit	2048 Bit
Memory clock speed	12000 MHz	2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	288.0 GB/s	512.0 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	4x mini-DisplayPort
HDMI	+	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	6.5	6.4
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	2.0
Vulkan	1.2.131	1.1.125
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 33.43

Pro WX 8200 36.03
+7.8%

Radeon Pro WX 8200 outperforms GeForce GTX 1660 Ti by 8% based on our aggregated 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 12927

Pro WX 8200 13931
+7.8%

Radeon Pro WX 8200 outperforms GeForce GTX 1660 Ti by 8% 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	103 −6.8%	110−120 +6.8%
1440p	56 −7.1%	60−65 +7.1%
4K	40 +0%	40−45 +0%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

−2.6%

80−85
+2.6%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	86 −4.7%	90−95 +4.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	74 −1.4%	75−80 +1.4%
Battlefield 5	130 −7.7%	140−150 +7.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	95 −5.3%	100−105 +5.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	71 −5.6%	75−80 +5.6%
Far Cry 5	104 −5.8%	110−120 +5.8%
Far Cry New Dawn	112 −7.1%	120−130 +7.1%
Forza Horizon 4	131 −6.9%	140−150 +6.9%
Hitman 3	80−85 −2.4%	85−90 +2.4%
Horizon Zero Dawn	180 −5.6%	190−200 +5.6%
Metro Exodus	134 −4.5%	140−150 +4.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2	119 −0.8%	120−130 +0.8%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	156 −2.6%	160−170 +2.6%
Watch Dogs: Legion	60−65 −4.8%	65−70 +4.8%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	72 −4.2%	75−80 +4.2%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	55 +0%	55−60 +0%
Battlefield 5	121 −7.4%	130−140 +7.4%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	97 −3.1%	100−105 +3.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	57 −5.3%	60−65 +5.3%
Far Cry 5	118 −1.7%	120−130 +1.7%
Far Cry New Dawn	85 −5.9%	90−95 +5.9%
Forza Horizon 4	122 −6.6%	130−140 +6.6%
Hitman 3	80−85 −2.4%	85−90 +2.4%
Horizon Zero Dawn	145 −3.4%	150−160 +3.4%
Metro Exodus	93 −7.5%	100−105 +7.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2	103 −6.8%	110−120 +6.8%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	102 +2%	100−105 −2%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	116 −3.4%	120−130 +3.4%
Watch Dogs: Legion	60−65 −4.8%	65−70 +4.8%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	53 −3.8%	55−60 +3.8%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	50 +0%	50−55 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	70 −7.1%	75−80 +7.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	46 +2.2%	45−50 −2.2%
Far Cry 5	61 −6.6%	65−70 +6.6%
Forza Horizon 4	97 −3.1%	100−105 +3.1%
Horizon Zero Dawn	102 +2%	100−105 −2%
Metro Exodus	84 −7.1%	90−95 +7.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	62 −4.8%	65−70 +4.8%
Watch Dogs: Legion	60−65 −4.8%	65−70 +4.8%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

97
−3.1%

100−105

+3.1%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	75 −6.7%	80−85 +6.7%
Far Cry New Dawn	82 −3.7%	85−90 +3.7%
Hitman 3	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	28 −7.1%	30−33 +7.1%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	41 +2.5%	40−45 −2.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	36 +2.9%	35−40 −2.9%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	55 +0%	55−60 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	27 +0%	27−30 +0%
Far Cry 5	67 −4.5%	70−75 +4.5%
Forza Horizon 4	77 −3.9%	80−85 +3.9%
Horizon Zero Dawn	75 −6.7%	80−85 +6.7%
Metro Exodus	65 −7.7%	70−75 +7.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	78 −2.6%	80−85 +2.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	27−30 −7.1%	30−33 +7.1%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry 5	100 +0%	100−105 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	46 +2.2%	45−50 −2.2%
Hitman 3	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	40−45 +2.5%	40−45 −2.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	26 −3.8%	27−30 +3.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	43 −4.7%	45−50 +4.7%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	25 +4.2%	24−27 −4.2%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	19 +5.6%	18−20 −5.6%
Battlefield 5	43 −4.7%	45−50 +4.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	34 −2.9%	35−40 +2.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	11 +10%	10−11 −10%
Forza Horizon 4	51 +2%	50−55 −2%
Horizon Zero Dawn	42 −7.1%	45−50 +7.1%
Metro Exodus	35 +0%	35−40 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

−2.3%

45−50
+2.3%

This is how GTX 1660 Ti and Pro WX 8200 compete in popular games:

Pro WX 8200 is 7% faster in 1080p
Pro WX 8200 is 7% faster in 1440p
Pro WX 8200 is 0% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	33.43	36.03
Recency	22 February 2019	13 August 2018
Cost	$279	$999
Maximum RAM amount	6 GB	8 GB
Chip lithography	12 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	120 Watt	230 Watt