GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile vs Radeon Pro WX 8200
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro WX 8200 with GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile, including specs and performance data.
Pro WX 8200 outperforms GTX 1660 Ti Mobile by a moderate 19% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 158 | 205 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 25.22 | 100.00 |
| Power efficiency | 10.12 | 24.55 |
| Architecture | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | Vega 10 | TU116 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 13 August 2018 (6 years ago) | 23 April 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $999 | $229 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
GTX 1660 Ti Mobile has 297% better value for money than Pro WX 8200.
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 | 3584 | 1536 |
| Core clock speed | 1200 MHz | 1455 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1500 MHz | 1590 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 12,500 million | 6,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 230 Watt | 80 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 336.0 | 152.6 |
| Floating-point processing power | 10.75 TFLOPS | 4.884 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 48 |
| TMUs | 224 | 96 |
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 size | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | no data |
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 | HBM2 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 2048 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 512.0 GB/s | 288.0 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 Connectors | 4x mini-DisplayPort | No outputs |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.125 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | - | 7.5 |
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 | 100−110
+13.6%
| 88
−13.6%
|
| 1440p | 65−70
+12.1%
| 58
−12.1%
|
| 4K | 40−45
+14.3%
| 35
−14.3%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 9.99
−284%
| 2.60
+284%
|
| 1440p | 15.37
−289%
| 3.95
+289%
|
| 4K | 24.98
−282%
| 6.54
+282%
|
- GTX 1660 Ti Mobile has 284% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GTX 1660 Ti Mobile has 289% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- GTX 1660 Ti Mobile has 282% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 109
+0%
|
109
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 147
+0%
|
147
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 86
+0%
|
86
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 81
+0%
|
81
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 111
+0%
|
111
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 133
+0%
|
133
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 68
+0%
|
68
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 93
+0%
|
93
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 134
+0%
|
134
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 100
+0%
|
100
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Valorant | 209
+0%
|
209
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 50
+0%
|
50
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 103
+0%
|
103
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 101
+0%
|
101
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 260−270
+0%
|
260−270
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 54
+0%
|
54
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 121
+0%
|
121
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 89
+0%
|
89
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 125
+0%
|
125
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 90
+0%
|
90
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 105
+0%
|
105
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 54
+0%
|
54
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 103
+0%
|
103
+0%
|
| Valorant | 207
+0%
|
207
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 94
+0%
|
94
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 52
+0%
|
52
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 116
+0%
|
116
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 83
+0%
|
83
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 99
+0%
|
99
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 109
+0%
|
109
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55
+0%
|
55
+0%
|
| Valorant | 125
+0%
|
125
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 107
+0%
|
107
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30
+0%
|
30
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 197
+0%
|
197
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 69
+0%
|
69
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 25
+0%
|
25
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60
+0%
|
60
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 69
+0%
|
69
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 19
+0%
|
19
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35
+0%
|
35
+0%
|
| Valorant | 152
+0%
|
152
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 38
+0%
|
38
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10
+0%
|
10
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 85
+0%
|
85
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 31
+0%
|
31
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
This is how Pro WX 8200 and GTX 1660 Ti Mobile compete in popular games:
- Pro WX 8200 is 14% faster in 1080p
- Pro WX 8200 is 12% faster in 1440p
- Pro WX 8200 is 14% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 29.47 | 24.86 |
| Recency | 13 August 2018 | 23 April 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 230 Watt | 80 Watt |
Pro WX 8200 has a 18.5% higher aggregate performance score, and a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount.
GTX 1660 Ti Mobile, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 8 months, a 16.7% more advanced lithography process, and 187.5% lower power consumption.
The Radeon Pro WX 8200 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon Pro WX 8200 is a workstation card while GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
