GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q vs NVS 4200M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared NVS 4200M with GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q, including specs and performance data.

NVS 4200M
2011
1 GB DDR3, 25 Watt
0.72

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q outperforms NVS 4200M by a whopping 3074% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1172243
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data64.77
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameGF119N18E-G0
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date22 February 2011 (13 years ago)23 April 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$229

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 cores481536
Core clock speed810 MHz1140 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1335 MHz
Number of transistors292 million6,600 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)25 Watt60 Watt
Texture fill rate6.480128.2
Floating-point processing power0.1555 gflops4.101 gflops
ROPs448
TMUs896

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 sizemedium sizedmedium sized
InterfaceMXMPCIe 3.0 x16
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount1 GB6 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit192 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHz12000 MHz
Memory bandwidth12.8 GB/s288.0 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.11.2
VulkanN/A1.2.131
CUDA2.17.5

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.

NVS 4200M 0.72
GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 22.85
+3074%

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.

NVS 4200M 278
GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 8814
+3071%

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

NVS 4200M 2298
GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 31845
+1286%

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.

NVS 4200M 507
GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 17439
+3340%

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 HD13
−523%
81
+523%
1440p0−130
4K1−2
−3500%
36
+3500%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−1133%
35−40
+1133%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−1300%
56
+1300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−2233%
70
+2233%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−1133%
35−40
+1133%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−5900%
60−65
+5900%
Hitman 3 5−6
−800%
45−50
+800%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
−873%
100−110
+873%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 92
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−1183%
75−80
+1183%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−216%
95−100
+216%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−1150%
50−55
+1150%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−2100%
66
+2100%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−1133%
35−40
+1133%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−5900%
60−65
+5900%
Hitman 3 5−6
−800%
45−50
+800%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
−873%
100−110
+873%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 74
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−1183%
75−80
+1183%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−400%
50−55
+400%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−216%
95−100
+216%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−950%
42
+950%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−1567%
50
+1567%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−1133%
35−40
+1133%
Hitman 3 5−6
−800%
45−50
+800%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
−618%
79
+618%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−1183%
75−80
+1183%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−410%
51
+410%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−216%
95−100
+216%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 72

1440p
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−3400%
35−40
+3400%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 24−27
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−1300%
14−16
+1300%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−2500%
24−27
+2500%
Hitman 3 6−7
−350%
27−30
+350%
Horizon Zero Dawn 3−4
−1467%
45−50
+1467%
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3
−6450%
130−140
+6450%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−1167%
35−40
+1167%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 18−20

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−1300%
14−16
+1300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 12−14

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−900%
20−22
+900%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Battlefield 5 88
+0%
88
+0%
Far Cry 5 92
+0%
92
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Metro Exodus 120
+0%
120
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Battlefield 5 84
+0%
84
+0%
Far Cry 5 77
+0%
77
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Metro Exodus 95
+0%
95
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Far Cry 5 54
+0%
54
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Hitman 3 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 31
+0%
31
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%

This is how NVS 4200M and GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is 523% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is 3500% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is 6450% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is ahead in 35 tests (53%)
  • there's a draw in 31 test (47%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.72 22.85
Recency 22 February 2011 23 April 2019
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 6 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 25 Watt 60 Watt

NVS 4200M has 140% lower power consumption.

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q, on the other hand, has a 3073.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 233.3% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 4200M in performance tests.

Be aware that NVS 4200M is a mobile workstation card while GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is a mobile workstation one.


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 NVS 4200M
NVS 4200M
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.1 127 votes

Rate NVS 4200M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.4 516 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 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.