GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q vs 9600M GT

Place in the ranking	1290	253
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	69.13
Power efficiency	1.09	26.36
Architecture	Tesla (2006−2010)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	G96C	TU116
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	4 June 2008 (16 years ago)	23 April 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$229

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

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	32	1536
Core clock speed	120 MHz	1140 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1335 MHz
Number of transistors	314 million	6,600 million
Manufacturing process technology	55 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	23 Watt	60 Watt
Texture fill rate	8.000	128.2
Floating-point processing power	0.08 TFLOPS	4.101 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	48
TMUs	16	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	medium sized	medium sized
Interface	MXM-II	PCIe 3.0 x16
Supplementary power connectors	None	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	GDDR3	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	512 MB	6 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	192 Bit
Memory clock speed	800 MHz	1500 MHz
Memory bandwidth	25.6 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

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_0)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	4.0	6.5
OpenGL	3.3	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	1.2
Vulkan	N/A	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.

9600M GT 0.36

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 22.72
+6211%

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.

9600M GT 139

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 8814
+6241%

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

9600M GT 1459

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 31845
+2083%

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	1−2 −7700%	78 +7700%
4K	0−1	34

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	2.94
4K	no data	6.74

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−12 −273%	40−45 +273%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −1433%	45−50 +1433%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−12 −273%	40−45 +273%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −1433%	45−50 +1433%
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 −1550%	95−100 +1550%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 −2200%	92 +2200%

Full HD
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−12 −273%	40−45 +273%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −1433%	45−50 +1433%
Far Cry 5	7−8 −786%	62 +786%
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 −1550%	95−100 +1550%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	7−8 −2357%	172 +2357%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 −850%	38 +850%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 −1360%	70−75 +1360%
World of Tanks	12−14 −1808%	240−250 +1808%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−12 −273%	40−45 +273%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −1433%	45−50 +1433%
Far Cry 5	7−8 −1571%	117 +1571%
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 −1550%	95−100 +1550%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	7−8 −2014%	140−150 +2014%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	3−4 −5900%	180−190 +5900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	2−3 −6000%	120−130 +6000%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −533%	18−20 +533%
Far Cry 5	4−5 −1525%	65−70 +1525%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 −725%	30−35 +725%
Valorant	5−6 −1120%	60−65 +1120%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	14−16 −160%	35−40 +160%
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 −160%	35−40 +160%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	1−2 −6900%	70−75 +6900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 −160%	35−40 +160%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	0−1	21−24
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −250%	7−8 +250%
Dota 2	14−16 −160%	35−40 +160%
Valorant	1−2 −2800%	27−30 +2800%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Metro Exodus	81 +0%	81 +0%
Valorant	102 +0%	102 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	85 +0%	85 +0%
Dota 2	89 +0%	89 +0%
Fortnite	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	87 +0%	87 +0%
Metro Exodus	57 +0%	57 +0%
Valorant	63 +0%	63 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%
Dota 2	86 +0%	86 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Valorant	93 +0%	93 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
World of Tanks	150−160 +0%	150−160 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Metro Exodus	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Metro Exodus	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Far Cry 5	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Fortnite	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%

This is how 9600M GT and GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q compete in popular games:

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is 7700% faster in 1080p

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

in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is 6900% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is ahead in 31 test (49%)
there's a draw in 32 tests (51%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.36	22.72
Recency	4 June 2008	23 April 2019
Maximum RAM amount	512 MB	6 GB
Chip lithography	55 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	23 Watt	60 Watt

9600M GT has 160.9% lower power consumption.

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q, on the other hand, has a 6211.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 1100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 358.3% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9600M GT in performance tests.

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