GeForce GTX 1660 vs Radeon Pro WX 7100
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro WX 7100 with GeForce GTX 1660, including specs and performance data.
GTX 1660 outperforms Pro WX 7100 by a considerable 49% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 280 | 194 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 44 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 8.26 | 47.02 |
| Power efficiency | 10.73 | 17.34 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | Ellesmere | TU116 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 10 November 2016 (8 years ago) | 14 March 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $799 | $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 469% better value for money than Pro WX 7100.
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 | 2304 | 1408 |
| Core clock speed | 1188 MHz | 1530 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1243 MHz | 1785 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,700 million | 6,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 120 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 179.0 | 157.1 |
| Floating-point processing power | 5.728 TFLOPS | 5.027 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 48 |
| TMUs | 144 | 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 3.0 x16 | 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | 2001 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 224.0 GB/s | 192.1 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 Connectors | 4x DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 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.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
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
−56.4%
| 86
+56.4%
|
| 1440p | 30−35
−73.3%
| 52
+73.3%
|
| 4K | 18−20
−61.1%
| 29
+61.1%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 14.53
−470%
| 2.55
+470%
|
| 1440p | 26.63
−532%
| 4.21
+532%
|
| 4K | 44.39
−488%
| 7.55
+488%
|
- GTX 1660 has 470% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GTX 1660 has 532% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- GTX 1660 has 488% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 50−55
−118%
|
111
+118%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
−100%
|
72
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
−77.5%
|
71
+77.5%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 50−55
−62.7%
|
83
+62.7%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
−35.4%
|
100−110
+35.4%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
−55.6%
|
56
+55.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
−45%
|
58
+45%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
−53.8%
|
100
+53.8%
|
| Fortnite | 100−110
−31.7%
|
130−140
+31.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
−69.2%
|
132
+69.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
−62.3%
|
86
+62.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
−55.6%
|
110−120
+55.6%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
−114%
|
306
+114%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 50−55
+4.1%
|
49
−4.1%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
−35.4%
|
100−110
+35.4%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
−33.3%
|
48
+33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 230−240
−17.8%
|
270−280
+17.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
−17.5%
|
47
+17.5%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
−103%
|
219
+103%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
−41.5%
|
92
+41.5%
|
| Fortnite | 100−110
−31.7%
|
130−140
+31.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
−57.7%
|
123
+57.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
−18.9%
|
63
+18.9%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 70−75
−62%
|
115
+62%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40−45
−39%
|
57
+39%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
−55.6%
|
110−120
+55.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50−55
−88.9%
|
102
+88.9%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
−101%
|
287
+101%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
−35.4%
|
100−110
+35.4%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
−19.4%
|
43
+19.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+0%
|
40
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
−82.4%
|
197
+82.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
−32.3%
|
86
+32.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
−25.6%
|
98
+25.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
−11.3%
|
59
+11.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
−55.6%
|
110−120
+55.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50−55
−5.6%
|
57
+5.6%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+24.3%
|
115
−24.3%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 100−110
−31.7%
|
130−140
+31.7%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
−25%
|
24−27
+25%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 130−140
−42%
|
190−200
+42%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
−57.6%
|
52
+57.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
−32%
|
33
+32%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+32.6%
|
129
−32.6%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
−25.6%
|
226
+25.6%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
−42.6%
|
75−80
+42.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
−33.3%
|
24
+33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
−37.2%
|
59
+37.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
−58.3%
|
76
+58.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
−17.6%
|
40
+17.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
−58.1%
|
45−50
+58.1%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 40−45
−59.1%
|
70−75
+59.1%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 14−16
−53.3%
|
21−24
+53.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−44.4%
|
12−14
+44.4%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
−40%
|
49
+40%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
−33.3%
|
20
+33.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
−25%
|
35
+25%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
−15.7%
|
125
+15.7%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
−51.7%
|
40−45
+51.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+50%
|
6
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−25%
|
10
+25%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
−31.8%
|
87
+31.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
−42.9%
|
30
+42.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
−51.5%
|
50
+51.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
−29.4%
|
22
+29.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−68.4%
|
30−35
+68.4%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 18−20
−73.7%
|
30−35
+73.7%
|
This is how Pro WX 7100 and GTX 1660 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1660 is 56% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1660 is 73% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1660 is 61% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Pro WX 7100 is 50% faster.
- in Atomic Heart, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the GTX 1660 is 118% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Pro WX 7100 is ahead in 4 tests (6%)
- GTX 1660 is ahead in 62 tests (93%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (1%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 20.22 | 30.15 |
| Recency | 10 November 2016 | 14 March 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 120 Watt |
Pro WX 7100 has a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount.
GTX 1660, on the other hand, has a 49.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 16.7% more advanced lithography process, and 8.3% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 1660 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro WX 7100 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon Pro WX 7100 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.
