GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q vs Quadro RTX 4000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
Quadro RTX 4000 Quadro RTX 5000 Quadro RTX 6000 Quadro RTX 6000 Passive Quadro RTX 8000 Quadro RTX 8000 Passive Quadro RTX 8100 Quadro RTX 8200
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
GTX 1050 Mobile GTX 1050 Ti Mobile GTX 1650 Mobile GTX 1650 Max-Q GTX 1650 Mobile Refresh GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q GTX 1650 Ti Mobile GTX 1660 Max-Q GTX 1660 Mobile GTX 1660 Ti Mobile GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q GTX 1660 Ti Mobile Refresh

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro RTX 4000 with GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q, including specs and performance data.

RTX 4000
2018
8 GB GDDR6, 160 Watt
39.72
+73.8%

RTX 4000 outperforms GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q by an impressive 74% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

RTX 4000 RTX 4000
GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking107243
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation36.2968.59
Power efficiency17.3026.55
ArchitectureTuring (2018−2022)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameTU104TU116
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date13 November 2018 (6 years ago)23 April 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$899 $229

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q has 89% better value for money than RTX 4000.

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 cores23041536
Core clock speed1005 MHz1140 MHz
Boost clock speed1545 MHz1335 MHz
Number of transistors13,600 million6,600 million
Manufacturing process technology12 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)160 Watt60 Watt
Texture fill rate222.5128.2
Floating-point processing power7.119 TFLOPS4.101 TFLOPS
ROPs6448
TMUs14496
Tensor Cores288no data
Ray Tracing Cores36no 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).

Laptop sizeno datamedium sized
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length241 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 8-pinNone

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 typeGDDR6GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount8 GB6 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit192 Bit
Memory clock speed1625 MHz1500 MHz
Memory bandwidth416.0 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 Connectors3x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-CNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 Ultimate (12_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.56.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.2.1311.2.131
CUDA7.57.5

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.

RTX 4000 39.72
+73.8%
GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 22.85

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.

RTX 4000 15323
+73.8%
GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 8814

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 HD130−140
+68.8%
77
−68.8%
4K55−60
+61.8%
34
−61.8%

Cost per frame, $

1080p6.922.97
4K16.356.74

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 56
+0%
56
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Battlefield 5 88
+0%
88
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 70
+0%
70
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Far Cry 5 92
+0%
92
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Hitman 3 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Metro Exodus 120
+0%
120
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 92
+0%
92
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Battlefield 5 84
+0%
84
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 66
+0%
66
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Far Cry 5 77
+0%
77
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Hitman 3 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Metro Exodus 95
+0%
95
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 74
+0%
74
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 42
+0%
42
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 50
+0%
50
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Far Cry 5 54
+0%
54
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Hitman 3 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 79
+0%
79
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 51
+0%
51
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 72
+0%
72
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Hitman 3 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 45−50
+0%
45−50
+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%
Watch Dogs: Legion 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 18−20
+0%
18−20
+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

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

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%

This is how RTX 4000 and GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q compete in popular games:

  • RTX 4000 is 69% faster in 1080p
  • RTX 4000 is 62% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 39.72 22.85
Recency 13 November 2018 23 April 2019
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 6 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 160 Watt 60 Watt

RTX 4000 has a 73.8% higher aggregate performance score, and a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount.

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 months, and 166.7% lower power consumption.

The Quadro RTX 4000 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro RTX 4000 is a workstation card while GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is a notebook 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 Quadro RTX 4000
Quadro RTX 4000
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q
Like
Like

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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

RTX 4000 Quadro RTX 4000
vs
Quadro P6000 Quadro P6000
GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q
vs
RX 5600M Radeon RX 5600M
RTX 4000 Quadro RTX 4000
vs
Pro W6800X Radeon Pro W6800X
RTX 4000 Quadro RTX 4000
vs
GTX 1660 Ti GeForce GTX 1660 Ti
RTX 4000 Quadro RTX 4000
vs
Pro 580X Radeon Pro 580X
RTX 4000 Quadro RTX 4000
vs
ATI M7 M7
RTX 4000 Quadro RTX 4000
vs
Pro Vega 64X Radeon Pro Vega 64X
RTX 4000 Quadro RTX 4000
vs
Tesla K80 Tesla K80
RTX 4000 Quadro RTX 4000
vs
Pro WX 3200 Radeon Pro WX 3200
RTX 4000 Quadro RTX 4000
vs
RX 640 Radeon RX 640
RTX 4000 Quadro RTX 4000
vs
RTX 5000 Mobile Quadro RTX 5000 Mobile
RTX 4000 Quadro RTX 4000
vs
RTX 4000 Mobile Quadro RTX 4000 Mobile
RTX 4000 Quadro RTX 4000
vs
RTX 3000 Mobile Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile

Community ratings

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

3.5 483 votes

Rate Quadro RTX 4000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.4 536 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.