GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q vs Radeon RX 470 Mobile

Place in the ranking	306	248
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	10.18	69.08
Power efficiency	14.79	26.36
Architecture	GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	Ellesmere	TU116
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	4 August 2016 (8 years ago)	23 April 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$549.99	$229

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q has 579% better value for money than RX 470 Mobile.

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	1536
Core clock speed	926 MHz	1140 MHz
Boost clock speed	1074 MHz	1335 MHz
Number of transistors	5,700 million	6,600 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	85 Watt	60 Watt
Texture fill rate	137.5	128.2
Floating-point processing power	4.399 TFLOPS	4.101 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	48
TMUs	128	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	large	medium sized
Interface	MXM-B (3.0)	PCIe 3.0 x16
Supplementary power connectors	no data	None

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	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	6 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	192 Bit
Memory clock speed	1750 MHz	1500 MHz
Memory bandwidth	224.0 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

No outputs

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

FreeSync

API 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. 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.

RX 470 Mobile 18.23

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 22.93
+25.8%

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.

RX 470 Mobile 10715

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 13355
+24.6%

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	60−65 −30%	78 +30%
4K	27−30 −25.9%	34 +25.9%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	9.17 −212%	2.94 +212%
4K	20.37 −202%	6.74 +202%

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q has 212% lower cost per frame in 1080p
GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q has 202% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	30−35 −31.3%	40−45 +31.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 −27.8%	45−50 +27.8%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	55−60 −22.4%	70−75 +22.4%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 −31.3%	40−45 +31.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 −27.8%	45−50 +27.8%
Forza Horizon 4	75−80 −30.3%	95−100 +30.3%
Forza Horizon 5	45−50 −24.5%	60−65 +24.5%
Metro Exodus	50−55 −62%	81 +62%
Red Dead Redemption 2	40−45 −114%	92 +114%
Valorant	70−75 −37.8%	102 +37.8%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	55−60 −46.6%	85 +46.6%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 −31.3%	40−45 +31.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 −27.8%	45−50 +27.8%
Dota 2	65−70 −36.9%	89 +36.9%
Far Cry 5	60−65 +1.6%	62 −1.6%
Fortnite	95−100 −19.4%	110−120 +19.4%
Forza Horizon 4	75−80 −30.3%	95−100 +30.3%
Forza Horizon 5	45−50 −24.5%	60−65 +24.5%
Grand Theft Auto V	65−70 −33.8%	87 +33.8%
Metro Exodus	50−55 −14%	57 +14%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	120−130 −37.6%	172 +37.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2	40−45 +13.2%	38 −13.2%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	55−60 −28.1%	70−75 +28.1%
Valorant	70−75 +17.5%	63 −17.5%
World of Tanks	220−230 −12.7%	240−250 +12.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	55−60 −22.4%	70−75 +22.4%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 −31.3%	40−45 +31.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 −27.8%	45−50 +27.8%
Dota 2	65−70 −32.3%	86 +32.3%
Far Cry 5	60−65 −85.7%	117 +85.7%
Forza Horizon 4	75−80 −30.3%	95−100 +30.3%
Forza Horizon 5	45−50 −24.5%	60−65 +24.5%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	120−130 −18.4%	140−150 +18.4%
Valorant	70−75 −25.7%	93 +25.7%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	27−30 −35.7%	35−40 +35.7%
Grand Theft Auto V	27−30 −31%	35−40 +31%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	160−170 −5.5%	170−180 +5.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 −31.3%	21−24 +31.3%
World of Tanks	120−130 −22.4%	150−160 +22.4%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40 −24.3%	45−50 +24.3%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 −35.7%	18−20 +35.7%
Far Cry 5	45−50 −35.4%	65−70 +35.4%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 −30.4%	60−65 +30.4%
Forza Horizon 5	27−30 −27.6%	35−40 +27.6%
Metro Exodus	40−45 −26.8%	50−55 +26.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 −32%	30−35 +32%
Valorant	45−50 −32.6%	60−65 +32.6%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −42.9%	20−22 +42.9%
Dota 2	30−35 −25.8%	35−40 +25.8%
Grand Theft Auto V	30−35 −25.8%	35−40 +25.8%
Metro Exodus	12−14 −30.8%	16−18 +30.8%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	50−55 −27.8%	65−70 +27.8%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 −16.7%	14−16 +16.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−35 −25.8%	35−40 +25.8%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	18−20 −27.8%	21−24 +27.8%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −42.9%	20−22 +42.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −40%	7−8 +40%
Dota 2	30−35 −25.8%	35−40 +25.8%
Far Cry 5	21−24 −30.4%	30−33 +30.4%
Fortnite	21−24 −33.3%	27−30 +33.3%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 −29.6%	35−40 +29.6%
Forza Horizon 5	14−16 −26.7%	18−20 +26.7%
Valorant	21−24 −38.1%	27−30 +38.1%

This is how RX 470 Mobile and GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q compete in popular games:

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is 30% faster in 1080p
GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is 26% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the RX 470 Mobile is 17% faster.
in Red Dead Redemption 2, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is 114% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

RX 470 Mobile is ahead in 3 tests (5%)
GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is ahead in 60 tests (94%)
there's a draw in 1 test (2%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	18.23	22.93
Recency	4 August 2016	23 April 2019
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	6 GB
Chip lithography	14 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	85 Watt	60 Watt

RX 470 Mobile has a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount.

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q, on the other hand, has a 25.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 16.7% more advanced lithography process, and 41.7% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX 470 Mobile in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.