Radeon RX 6650M XT vs GeForce GTX 1660 Ti
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Radeon RX 6650M XT, including specs and performance data.
RX 6650M XT outperforms GTX 1660 Ti by a substantial 33% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 200 | 110 |
| Place by popularity | 32 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 34.93 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 19.44 | 25.88 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | TU116 | Navi 23 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 22 February 2019 (6 years ago) | 4 January 2022 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $279 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 cores | 1536 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 1500 MHz | 2068 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1770 MHz | 2416 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 6,600 million | 11,060 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 120 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 169.9 | 309.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 5.437 TFLOPS | 9.896 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 64 |
| TMUs | 96 | 128 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 32 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 512 KB |
| L1 Cache | 1.5 MB | 512 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1536 KB | 2 MB |
| L3 Cache | no data | 32 MB |
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 4.0 x8 |
| Length | 229 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | None |
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 | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 288.0 GB/s | 256.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 Connectors | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 7.5 | - |
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.
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.
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
−25%
| 130−140
+25%
|
| 1440p | 59
−27.1%
| 75−80
+27.1%
|
| 4K | 39
−28.2%
| 50−55
+28.2%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.68 | no data |
| 1440p | 4.73 | no data |
| 4K | 7.15 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 170−180
−28.6%
|
220−230
+28.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 78
−24.4%
|
95−100
+24.4%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 65−70
−44.1%
|
95−100
+44.1%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 129
−6.2%
|
130−140
+6.2%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 170−180
−28.6%
|
220−230
+28.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 71
−36.6%
|
95−100
+36.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 109
−20.2%
|
130−140
+20.2%
|
| Fortnite | 247
+39.5%
|
170−180
−39.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 131
−20.6%
|
150−160
+20.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 107
−20.6%
|
120−130
+20.6%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 65−70
−44.1%
|
95−100
+44.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 200
+25.8%
|
150−160
−25.8%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
−21%
|
230−240
+21%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 112
−22.3%
|
130−140
+22.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 170−180
−28.6%
|
220−230
+28.6%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
−0.7%
|
270−280
+0.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 57
−70.2%
|
95−100
+70.2%
|
| Dota 2 | 181
+24%
|
140−150
−24%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 99
−32.3%
|
130−140
+32.3%
|
| Fortnite | 143
−23.8%
|
170−180
+23.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 122
−29.5%
|
150−160
+29.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 94
−37.2%
|
120−130
+37.2%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 119
−11.8%
|
130−140
+11.8%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 65−70
−44.1%
|
95−100
+44.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 55
−80%
|
95−100
+80%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150
−6%
|
150−160
+6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 116
−28.4%
|
140−150
+28.4%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
−21%
|
230−240
+21%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 102
−34.3%
|
130−140
+34.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 46
−111%
|
95−100
+111%
|
| Dota 2 | 168
+15.1%
|
140−150
−15.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 94
−39.4%
|
130−140
+39.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 97
−62.9%
|
150−160
+62.9%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 65−70
−44.1%
|
95−100
+44.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 129
−23.3%
|
150−160
+23.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 62
−140%
|
140−150
+140%
|
| Valorant | 118
−100%
|
230−240
+100%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 117
−51.3%
|
170−180
+51.3%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
−47.2%
|
100−110
+47.2%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 210−220
−32.7%
|
280−290
+32.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 62
−37.1%
|
85−90
+37.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 33
−84.8%
|
60−65
+84.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 230−240
−15.6%
|
260−270
+15.6%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 76
−36.8%
|
100−110
+36.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27
−81.5%
|
45−50
+81.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 67
−49.3%
|
100−105
+49.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 77
−54.5%
|
110−120
+54.5%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 35−40
−40%
|
45−50
+40%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55−60
−45.5%
|
80−85
+45.5%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 75
−46.7%
|
110−120
+46.7%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
−45.5%
|
45−50
+45.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 56
−62.5%
|
90−95
+62.5%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 20−22
−30%
|
24−27
+30%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21
−81%
|
35−40
+81%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 43
−53.5%
|
65−70
+53.5%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
−33%
|
250−260
+33%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 43
−53.5%
|
65−70
+53.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
−45.5%
|
45−50
+45.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 11
−100%
|
21−24
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 94
−22.3%
|
110−120
+22.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35
−57.1%
|
55−60
+57.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 51
−56.9%
|
80−85
+56.9%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 20−22
−30%
|
24−27
+30%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 39
−48.7%
|
55−60
+48.7%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 25
−120%
|
55−60
+120%
|
This is how GTX 1660 Ti and RX 6650M XT compete in popular games:
- RX 6650M XT is 25% faster in 1080p
- RX 6650M XT is 27% faster in 1440p
- RX 6650M XT is 28% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 1660 Ti is 40% faster.
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RX 6650M XT is 140% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 1660 Ti performs better in 4 tests (6%)
- RX 6650M XT performs better in 61 tests (92%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 30.60 | 40.74 |
| Recency | 22 February 2019 | 4 January 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 7 nm |
RX 6650M XT has a 33.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 71.4% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 6650M XT 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 graphics card while Radeon RX 6650M XT is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
