GeForce GTX 1660 Super vs Radeon PRO W7600
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon PRO W7600 with GeForce GTX 1660 Super, including specs and performance data.
PRO W7600 outperforms GTX 1660 Super by a significant 24% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 108 | 178 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 7 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 91.93 | 53.25 |
| Power efficiency | 21.41 | 17.91 |
| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2025) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | Navi 33 | TU116 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 3 August 2023 (1 year ago) | 29 October 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $599 | $229 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
PRO W7600 has 73% better value for money than GTX 1660 Super.
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 | 2048 | 1408 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 1530 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2440 MHz | 1785 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 13,300 million | 6,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 6 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 125 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 312.3 | 157.1 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 5.027 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 48 |
| TMUs | 128 | 88 |
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 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 241 mm | 229 mm |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | 1x 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 type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 18 GB/s | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 288.0 GB/s | 336.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | + | - |
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 | 4x DisplayPort 2.1 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | - | + |
| HDCP | - | + |
| G-SYNC support | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| NVENC | - | + |
| Ansel | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.7 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 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.
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.
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 | 110−120
+23.6%
| 89
−23.6%
|
| 1440p | 65−70
+18.2%
| 55
−18.2%
|
| 4K | 35−40
+16.7%
| 30
−16.7%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 5.45
−112%
| 2.57
+112%
|
| 1440p | 9.22
−121%
| 4.16
+121%
|
| 4K | 17.11
−124%
| 7.63
+124%
|
- GTX 1660 Super has 112% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GTX 1660 Super has 121% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- GTX 1660 Super has 124% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 285
+0%
|
285
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 76
+0%
|
76
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 88
+0%
|
88
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 97
+0%
|
97
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 243
+0%
|
243
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 63
+0%
|
63
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 112
+0%
|
112
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 144
+0%
|
144
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 108
+0%
|
108
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 65
+0%
|
65
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Valorant | 321
+0%
|
321
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 83
+0%
|
83
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 119
+0%
|
119
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 52
+0%
|
52
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 231
+0%
|
231
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 103
+0%
|
103
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 135
+0%
|
135
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 94
+0%
|
94
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 133
+0%
|
133
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 51
+0%
|
51
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 56
+0%
|
56
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 139
+0%
|
139
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 113
+0%
|
113
+0%
|
| Valorant | 290
+0%
|
290
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 77
+0%
|
77
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 49
+0%
|
49
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 211
+0%
|
211
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 95
+0%
|
95
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 107
+0%
|
107
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 27
+0%
|
27
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 104
+0%
|
104
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 61
+0%
|
61
+0%
|
| Valorant | 122
+0%
|
122
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 67
+0%
|
67
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 62
+0%
|
62
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 36
+0%
|
36
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 162
+0%
|
162
+0%
|
| Valorant | 262
+0%
|
262
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 60
+0%
|
60
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65
+0%
|
65
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 84
+0%
|
84
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 60
+0%
|
60
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 22
+0%
|
22
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40
+0%
|
40
+0%
|
| Valorant | 132
+0%
|
132
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 36
+0%
|
36
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 11
+0%
|
11
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 95
+0%
|
95
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 54
+0%
|
54
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 15
+0%
|
15
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 36
+0%
|
36
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
This is how PRO W7600 and GTX 1660 Super compete in popular games:
- PRO W7600 is 24% faster in 1080p
- PRO W7600 is 18% faster in 1440p
- PRO W7600 is 17% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 66 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 37.50 | 30.16 |
| Recency | 3 August 2023 | 29 October 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 6 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 125 Watt |
PRO W7600 has a 24.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
GTX 1660 Super, on the other hand, has 4% lower power consumption.
The Radeon PRO W7600 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 1660 Super in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon PRO W7600 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce GTX 1660 Super is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
