UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs vs GeForce GTX 1660
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1660 with UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs, including specs and performance data.
GTX 1660 outperforms UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs by a whopping 603% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 202 | 696 |
| Place by popularity | 49 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 42.36 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 17.25 | no data |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | Gen. 12 (2021−2023) |
| GPU code name | TU116 | Tiger Lake Xe |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 14 March 2019 (6 years ago) | 30 March 2021 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $219 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 32 |
| Core clock speed | 1530 MHz | 350 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1785 MHz | 1450 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 6,600 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 157.1 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 5.027 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 48 | no data |
| TMUs | 88 | no data |
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 | no data |
| 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 | GDDR5 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 2001 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 192.1 GB/s | no data |
| 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 data |
| HDMI | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Quick Sync | no data | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | DirectX 12_1 |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | no data |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | - |
| 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.
- Other tests
- 3DMark 11 Performance GPU
- 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
- 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
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.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
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 | 83
+419%
| 16
−419%
|
| 1440p | 50
+614%
| 7−8
−614%
|
| 4K | 27
+800%
| 3−4
−800%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.64 | no data |
| 1440p | 4.38 | no data |
| 4K | 8.11 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
- Full HD
Low Preset - Full HD
Medium Preset - Full HD
High Preset - Full HD
Ultra Preset - Full HD
Epic Preset - 1440p
High Preset - 1440p
Ultra Preset - 1440p
Epic Preset - 4K
High Preset - 4K
Ultra Preset - 4K
Epic Preset
| Atomic Heart | 111
+693%
|
14−16
−693%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 271
+674%
|
35−40
−674%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 71
+610%
|
10−11
−610%
|
| Atomic Heart | 83
+730%
|
10−11
−730%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+494%
|
18
−494%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 223
+643%
|
30−33
−643%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 58
+625%
|
8−9
−625%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 100
+614%
|
14
−614%
|
| Fortnite | 130−140
+478%
|
21−24
−478%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 132
+595%
|
18−20
−595%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 100
+614%
|
14−16
−614%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+559%
|
16−18
−559%
|
| Valorant | 306
+467%
|
50−55
−467%
|
| Atomic Heart | 49
+717%
|
6−7
−717%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+569%
|
16
−569%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 107
+664%
|
14−16
−664%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+280%
|
70−75
−280%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 47
+683%
|
6−7
−683%
|
| Dota 2 | 219
+544%
|
34
−544%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 92
+608%
|
13
−608%
|
| Fortnite | 130−140
+478%
|
21−24
−478%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 123
+547%
|
18−20
−547%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 88
+633%
|
12−14
−633%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 115
+785%
|
13
−785%
|
| Metro Exodus | 57
+850%
|
6
−850%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+559%
|
16−18
−559%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 102
+827%
|
10−12
−827%
|
| Valorant | 287
+431%
|
50−55
−431%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+613%
|
15
−613%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40
+700%
|
5−6
−700%
|
| Dota 2 | 197
+535%
|
31
−535%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 86
+617%
|
12
−617%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 98
+416%
|
18−20
−416%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+559%
|
16−18
−559%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 57
+418%
|
10−12
−418%
|
| Valorant | 115
+619%
|
16−18
−619%
|
| Fortnite | 130−140
+478%
|
21−24
−478%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 62
+675%
|
8−9
−675%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 190−200
+557%
|
30−33
−557%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 52
+1200%
|
4−5
−1200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 33
+1550%
|
2−3
−1550%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 129
+617%
|
18−20
−617%
|
| Valorant | 226
+426%
|
40−45
−426%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+7600%
|
1−2
−7600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24
+700%
|
3−4
−700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 59
+743%
|
7−8
−743%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 76
+660%
|
10−11
−660%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45−50
+717%
|
6−7
−717%
|
| Fortnite | 70−75
+775%
|
8−9
−775%
|
| Atomic Heart | 21−24
+633%
|
3−4
−633%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 49
+206%
|
16−18
−206%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20
+900%
|
2−3
−900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35
+775%
|
4−5
−775%
|
| Valorant | 125
+525%
|
20−22
−525%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+633%
|
6−7
−633%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−33
+650%
|
4−5
−650%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Dota 2 | 87
+569%
|
12−14
−569%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30
+650%
|
4−5
−650%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50
+900%
|
5−6
−900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+700%
|
4−5
−700%
|
| Fortnite | 30−35
+725%
|
4−5
−725%
|
This is how GTX 1660 and UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs compete in popular games:
- GTX 1660 is 419% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1660 is 614% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1660 is 800% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 1660 is 7600% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 1660 surpassed UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs in all 39 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 26.09 | 3.71 |
| Recency | 14 March 2019 | 30 March 2021 |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 14 nm |
GTX 1660 has a 603.2% higher aggregate performance score, and a 16.7% more advanced lithography process.
UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years.
The GeForce GTX 1660 is our recommended choice as it beats the UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 1660 is a desktop card while UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs 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.
