RTX A4000 vs GeForce GTX 1660

Place in the ranking	190	60
Place by popularity	40	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	46.31	no data
Power efficiency	17.40	24.87
Architecture	Turing (2018−2022)	Ampere (2020−2024)
GPU code name	TU116	GA104
Market segment	Desktop	Workstation
Release date	14 March 2019 (5 years ago)	12 April 2021 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$219	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	1408	6144
Core clock speed	1530 MHz	735 MHz
Boost clock speed	1785 MHz	1560 MHz
Number of transistors	6,600 million	17,400 million
Manufacturing process technology	12 nm	8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	120 Watt	140 Watt
Texture fill rate	157.1	299.5
Floating-point processing power	5.027 TFLOPS	19.17 TFLOPS
ROPs	48	96
TMUs	88	192
Tensor Cores	no data	192
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	48

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	241 mm
Width	2-slot	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1x 8-pin	1x 6-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	GDDR5	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	6 GB	16 GB
Memory bus width	192 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	2001 MHz	1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth	192.1 GB/s	448.0 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 Connectors	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort	4x DisplayPort 1.4a
HDMI	+	-

API 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	6.7
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	3.0
Vulkan	1.2.131	1.3
CUDA	7.5	8.6

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 29.18

RTX A4000 48.66
+66.8%

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 11660

RTX A4000 19444
+66.8%

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 57928

RTX A4000 121350
+109%

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

GTX 1660 56067

RTX A4000 111390
+98.7%

GeekBench 5 CUDA

GTX 1660 60172

RTX A4000 124547
+107%

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	84 −66.7%	140−150 +66.7%
1440p	51 −66.7%	85−90 +66.7%
4K	27 −66.7%	45−50 +66.7%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	2.61	no data
1440p	4.29	no data
4K	8.11	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	72 −66.7%	120−130 +66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	71 −54.9%	110−120 +54.9%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	85−90 −57.3%	140−150 +57.3%
Counter-Strike 2	56 −60.7%	90−95 +60.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	55 −63.6%	90−95 +63.6%
Forza Horizon 4	132 −66.7%	220−230 +66.7%
Forza Horizon 5	86 −62.8%	140−150 +62.8%
Metro Exodus	95 −57.9%	150−160 +57.9%
Red Dead Redemption 2	112 −60.7%	180−190 +60.7%
Valorant	138 −66.7%	230−240 +66.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	85−90 −57.3%	140−150 +57.3%
Counter-Strike 2	48 −66.7%	80−85 +66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	45 −66.7%	75−80 +66.7%
Dota 2	150 −66.7%	250−260 +66.7%
Far Cry 5	145 −65.5%	240−250 +65.5%
Fortnite	140−150 −66.7%	240−250 +66.7%
Forza Horizon 4	110 −63.6%	180−190 +63.6%
Forza Horizon 5	63 −58.7%	100−105 +58.7%
Grand Theft Auto V	115 −65.2%	190−200 +65.2%
Metro Exodus	66 −66.7%	110−120 +66.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	216 −62%	350−400 +62%
Red Dead Redemption 2	40 −62.5%	65−70 +62.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	100−110 −66.7%	170−180 +66.7%
Valorant	65 −53.8%	100−105 +53.8%
World of Tanks	270−280 −64.2%	450−500 +64.2%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	85−90 −57.3%	140−150 +57.3%
Counter-Strike 2	43 −62.8%	70−75 +62.8%
Cyberpunk 2077	38 −57.9%	60−65 +57.9%
Dota 2	197 −52.3%	300−310 +52.3%
Far Cry 5	85−90 −62.8%	140−150 +62.8%
Forza Horizon 4	95 −57.9%	150−160 +57.9%
Forza Horizon 5	59 −61%	95−100 +61%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 −63.8%	290−300 +63.8%
Valorant	115 −65.2%	190−200 +65.2%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	52 −63.5%	85−90 +63.5%
Grand Theft Auto V	52 −63.5%	85−90 +63.5%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	129 −62.8%	210−220 +62.8%
Red Dead Redemption 2	25 −60%	40−45 +60%
World of Tanks	190−200 −53.1%	300−310 +53.1%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	60−65 −66.7%	100−105 +66.7%
Counter-Strike 2	26 −53.8%	40−45 +53.8%
Cyberpunk 2077	23 −52.2%	35−40 +52.2%
Far Cry 5	90−95 −59.6%	150−160 +59.6%
Forza Horizon 4	67 −64.2%	110−120 +64.2%
Forza Horizon 5	40 −62.5%	65−70 +62.5%
Metro Exodus	59 −61%	95−100 +61%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	45−50 −66.7%	80−85 +66.7%
Valorant	72 −66.7%	120−130 +66.7%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	16 −50%	24−27 +50%
Dota 2	49 −63.3%	80−85 +63.3%
Grand Theft Auto V	49 −63.3%	80−85 +63.3%
Metro Exodus	20 −50%	30−33 +50%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	81 −60.5%	130−140 +60.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2	18−20 −57.9%	30−33 +57.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	49 −63.3%	80−85 +63.3%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	30−35 −66.7%	55−60 +66.7%
Counter-Strike 2	21−24 −66.7%	35−40 +66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	10 −60%	16−18 +60%
Dota 2	87 −60.9%	140−150 +60.9%
Far Cry 5	40−45 −66.7%	70−75 +66.7%
Fortnite	40−45 −62.5%	65−70 +62.5%
Forza Horizon 4	36 −66.7%	60−65 +66.7%
Forza Horizon 5	22 −59.1%	35−40 +59.1%
Valorant	38 −57.9%	60−65 +57.9%

This is how GTX 1660 and RTX A4000 compete in popular games:

RTX A4000 is 67% faster in 1080p
RTX A4000 is 67% faster in 1440p
RTX A4000 is 67% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	29.18	48.66
Recency	14 March 2019	12 April 2021
Maximum RAM amount	6 GB	16 GB
Chip lithography	12 nm	8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	120 Watt	140 Watt

GTX 1660 has 16.7% lower power consumption.

RTX A4000, on the other hand, has a 66.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 166.7% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 50% more advanced lithography process.

The RTX A4000 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 1660 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 1660 is a desktop card while RTX A4000 is a workstation one.

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