GeForce GTX 1660 vs Radeon Pro Duo
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro Duo with GeForce GTX 1660, including specs and performance data.
GTX 1660 outperforms Pro Duo by a considerable 40% 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 | 298 | 227 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 39 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.93 | 37.77 |
| Power efficiency | 4.31 | 17.65 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | Capsaicin | TU116 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 26 April 2016 (9 years ago) | 14 March 2019 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,499 | $219 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
GTX 1660 has 1857% better value for money than Pro Duo.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 4096 ×2 | 1408 |
| Compute units | 128 | no data |
| Core clock speed | no data | 1530 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1000 MHz | 1785 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 8,900 million | 6,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 350 Watt | 120 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 256.0 ×2 | 157.1 |
| Floating-point processing power | 8.192 TFLOPS ×2 | 5.027 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 ×2 | 48 |
| TMUs | 256 ×2 | 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).
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 277 mm | 229 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 3x 8-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 | High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB ×2 | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 4096 Bit ×2 | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 500 MHz | 2001 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 512 GB/s ×2 | 192.1 GB/s |
| Shared memory | no data | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| Number of Eyefinity displays | 6 | no data |
| HDMI | + | + |
| DisplayPort support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | + | - |
| CrossFire | + | - |
| Enduro | + | - |
| FRTC | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| LiquidVR | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| TressFX | + | - |
| TrueAudio | + | - |
| ZeroCore | + | - |
| UVD | + | - |
| VCE | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.0 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.2.131 |
| Mantle | + | - |
| 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.
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.
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 | 55−60
−50.9%
| 83
+50.9%
|
| 1440p | 35−40
−42.9%
| 50
+42.9%
|
| 4K | 18−20
−50%
| 27
+50%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 27.25
−933%
| 2.64
+933%
|
| 1440p | 42.83
−878%
| 4.38
+878%
|
| 4K | 83.28
−927%
| 8.11
+927%
|
- GTX 1660 has 933% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GTX 1660 has 878% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- GTX 1660 has 927% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 271
+0%
|
271
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 71
+0%
|
71
+0%
|
| God of War | 84
+0%
|
84
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 223
+0%
|
223
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 58
+0%
|
58
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 100
+0%
|
100
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 132
+0%
|
132
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 100
+0%
|
100
+0%
|
| God of War | 70
+0%
|
70
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Valorant | 306
+0%
|
306
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 107
+0%
|
107
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 47
+0%
|
47
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 219
+0%
|
219
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 92
+0%
|
92
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 123
+0%
|
123
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 88
+0%
|
88
+0%
|
| God of War | 54
+0%
|
54
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 115
+0%
|
115
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 57
+0%
|
57
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 102
+0%
|
102
+0%
|
| Valorant | 287
+0%
|
287
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40
+0%
|
40
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 197
+0%
|
197
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 86
+0%
|
86
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 98
+0%
|
98
+0%
|
| God of War | 36
+0%
|
36
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 57
+0%
|
57
+0%
|
| Valorant | 115
+0%
|
115
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 62
+0%
|
62
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 52
+0%
|
52
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 129
+0%
|
129
+0%
|
| Valorant | 226
+0%
|
226
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24
+0%
|
24
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 59
+0%
|
59
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 76
+0%
|
76
+0%
|
| God of War | 29
+0%
|
29
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 49
+0%
|
49
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35
+0%
|
35
+0%
|
| Valorant | 125
+0%
|
125
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10
+0%
|
10
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 87
+0%
|
87
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30
+0%
|
30
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50
+0%
|
50
+0%
|
| God of War | 19
+0%
|
19
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
This is how Pro Duo and GTX 1660 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1660 is 51% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1660 is 43% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1660 is 50% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 65 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 19.80 | 27.79 |
| Recency | 26 April 2016 | 14 March 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 350 Watt | 120 Watt |
Pro Duo has a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount.
GTX 1660, on the other hand, has a 40.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 191.7% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 1660 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro Duo in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon Pro Duo is a workstation graphics card while GeForce GTX 1660 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.
