GeForce GTX 1660 vs GeForce4 Ti 4200

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce4 Ti 4200 and GeForce GTX 1660, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GeForce4 Ti 4200
2002
64 MB DDR
0.01

GTX 1660 outperforms GeForce4 Ti 4200 by a whopping 282800% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking1508192
Place by popularitynot in top-10044
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data45.37
Power efficiencyno data17.38
ArchitectureKelvin (2001−2003)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameNV25 A2TU116
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date6 February 2002 (22 years ago)14 March 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$219

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

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 coresno data1408
Core clock speed250 MHz1530 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1785 MHz
Number of transistors63 million6,600 million
Manufacturing process technology150 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data120 Watt
Texture fill rate2.000157.1
Floating-point processing powerno data5.027 TFLOPS
ROPs448
TMUs888

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).

InterfaceAGP 4xPCIe 3.0 x16
Lengthno data229 mm
Width1-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1x 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 typeDDRGDDR5
Maximum RAM amount64 MB6 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit192 Bit
Memory clock speed250 MHz2001 MHz
Memory bandwidth4 GB/s192.1 GB/s
Shared memoryno 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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
HDMI-+

API and SDK compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX8.112 (12_1)
Shader Modelno data6.5
OpenGL1.34.6
OpenCLN/A1.2
VulkanN/A1.2.131
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. 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.

GeForce4 Ti 4200 0.01
GTX 1660 28.29
+282800%

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.

GeForce4 Ti 4200 5
GTX 1660 11660
+233100%

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-0−184
1440p-0−151
4K-0−127

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data2.61
1440pno data4.29
4Kno data8.11

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 72
+0%
72
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 71
+0%
71
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 56
+0%
56
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 55
+0%
55
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 132
+0%
132
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 86
+0%
86
+0%
Metro Exodus 95
+0%
95
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 112
+0%
112
+0%
Valorant 138
+0%
138
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 48
+0%
48
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 45
+0%
45
+0%
Dota 2 150
+0%
150
+0%
Far Cry 5 145
+0%
145
+0%
Fortnite 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 110
+0%
110
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 63
+0%
63
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 115
+0%
115
+0%
Metro Exodus 66
+0%
66
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 216
+0%
216
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 40
+0%
40
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Valorant 65
+0%
65
+0%
World of Tanks 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 43
+0%
43
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 38
+0%
38
+0%
Dota 2 197
+0%
197
+0%
Far Cry 5 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 95
+0%
95
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 59
+0%
59
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 115
+0%
115
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 52
+0%
52
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 52
+0%
52
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 129
+0%
129
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 25
+0%
25
+0%
World of Tanks 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 23
+0%
23
+0%
Far Cry 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 67
+0%
67
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 40
+0%
40
+0%
Metro Exodus 59
+0%
59
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Valorant 72
+0%
72
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Dota 2 49
+0%
49
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 49
+0%
49
+0%
Metro Exodus 20
+0%
20
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 81
+0%
81
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 49
+0%
49
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 6
+0%
6
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10
+0%
10
+0%
Dota 2 87
+0%
87
+0%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Fortnite 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 36
+0%
36
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 22
+0%
22
+0%
Valorant 38
+0%
38
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.01 28.29
Recency 6 February 2002 14 March 2019
Maximum RAM amount 64 MB 6 GB
Chip lithography 150 nm 12 nm

GTX 1660 has a 282800% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 17 years, a 9500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1150% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce GTX 1660 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce4 Ti 4200 in performance tests.


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

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4200
GeForce4 Ti 4200
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660
GeForce GTX 1660

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4 37 votes

Rate GeForce4 Ti 4200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 5525 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 1660 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.