GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q vs ATI Radeon X800 PRO

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon X800 PRO with GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q, including specs and performance data.

ATI X800 PRO
2004
256 MB GDDR3, 48 Watt
0.15

1660 Ti Max-Q outperforms X800 PRO by a whopping 13940% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking1480298
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data22.30
Power efficiency0.2426.94
ArchitectureR400 (2004−2008)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameR423TU116
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date1 May 2004 (21 years ago)23 April 2019 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$229

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

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 coresno data1536
Core clock speed475 MHz1140 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1335 MHz
Number of transistors160 million6,600 million
Manufacturing process technology130 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)48 Watt60 Watt
Texture fill rate5.700128.2
Floating-point processing powerno data4.101 TFLOPS
ROPs1248
TMUs1296
L1 Cacheno data1.5 MB
L2 Cacheno data1536 KB

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 sizeno datamedium sized
InterfacePCIe 1.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x MolexNone

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 typeGDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount256 MB6 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit192 Bit
Memory clock speed450 MHz1500 MHz
Memory bandwidth28.8 GB/s288.0 GB/s
Shared memory--

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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-VideoNo outputs

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX9.0b (9_2)12 (12_1)
Shader Modelno data6.5
OpenGL2.04.6
OpenCLN/A1.2
VulkanN/A1.2.131
CUDA-7.5

Synthetic benchmarks

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.

ATI X800 PRO 0.15
GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 21.06
+13940%

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.

ATI X800 PRO 64
Samples: 8
GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 8814
+13672%
Samples: 1453

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 HD0−179
4K-0−133

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data2.90
4Kno data6.94

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 83
+0%
83
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 98
+0%
98
+0%
Far Cry 5 69
+0%
69
+0%
Fortnite 92
+0%
92
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Valorant 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 78
+0%
78
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 240−250
+0%
240−250
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Dota 2 94
+0%
94
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 91
+0%
91
+0%
Far Cry 5 66
+0%
66
+0%
Fortnite 90
+0%
90
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 87
+0%
87
+0%
Metro Exodus 48
+0%
48
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 92
+0%
92
+0%
Valorant 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 73
+0%
73
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Dota 2 86
+0%
86
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 88
+0%
88
+0%
Far Cry 5 62
+0%
62
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 51
+0%
51
+0%
Valorant 93
+0%
93
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 79
+0%
79
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 31
+0%
31
+0%
Valorant 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 38
+0%
38
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Dota 2 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry 5 30
+0%
30
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.15 21.06
Recency 1 May 2004 23 April 2019
Maximum RAM amount 256 MB 6 GB
Chip lithography 130 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 48 Watt 60 Watt

ATI X800 PRO has 25% lower power consumption.

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q, on the other hand, has a 13940% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 14 years, a 2300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 983.3% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon X800 PRO in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon X800 PRO is a desktop graphics card while GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is a notebook one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


ATI Radeon X800 PRO
Radeon X800 PRO
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.5 2 votes

Rate Radeon X800 PRO on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.3 594 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon X800 PRO or GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.