GeForce GTX 1660 vs 9700M GT

Place in the ranking	1227	188
Place by popularity	not in top-100	40
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	46.94
Power efficiency	0.83	17.40
Architecture	Tesla (2006−2010)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	G96	TU116
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	29 July 2008 (16 years ago)	14 March 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$219

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

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	1408
Core clock speed	625 MHz	1530 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1785 MHz
Number of transistors	314 million	6,600 million
Manufacturing process technology	65 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	45 Watt	120 Watt
Texture fill rate	10.00	157.1
Floating-point processing power	0.0992 TFLOPS	5.027 TFLOPS
Gigaflops	148	no data
ROPs	8	48
TMUs	16	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).

Laptop size	medium sized	no data
Interface	MXM-II	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	no data	229 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	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	GDDR3	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	512 MB	6 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	192 Bit
Memory clock speed	800 MHz	2001 MHz
Memory bandwidth	25.6 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	No outputs	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
HDMI	-	+

API 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.

9700M GT 0.54

GTX 1660 30.33
+5517%

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.

9700M GT 208

GTX 1660 11661
+5506%

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.

9700M GT 1750

GTX 1660 71229
+3971%

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 −8300%	84 +8300%
1440p	0−1	51
4K	-0−1	27

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	2.61
1440p	no data	4.29
4K	no data	8.11

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	8−9 −800%	72 +800%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −3450%	71 +3450%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Counter-Strike 2	8−9 −600%	56 +600%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −2650%	55 +2650%
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 −2100%	132 +2100%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 −2140%	112 +2140%

Full HD
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	8−9 −500%	48 +500%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −2150%	45 +2150%
Far Cry 5	7−8 −1971%	145 +1971%
Fortnite	0−1	140−150
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 −1733%	110 +1733%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	8−9 −2600%	216 +2600%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 −700%	40 +700%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 −1940%	100−110 +1940%
World of Tanks	16−18 −1613%	270−280 +1613%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	8−9 −438%	43 +438%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −1800%	38 +1800%
Far Cry 5	7−8 −1114%	85−90 +1114%
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 −1483%	95 +1483%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	8−9 −2113%	170−180 +2113%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	3−4 −4200%	129 +4200%
World of Tanks	1−2 −19500%	190−200 +19500%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −189%	26 +189%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −1050%	23 +1050%
Far Cry 5	4−5 −2250%	90−95 +2250%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 −2300%	45−50 +2300%
Valorant	5−6 −1340%	72 +1340%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	14−16 −227%	49 +227%
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 −227%	49 +227%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	1−2 −8000%	81 +8000%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 −227%	49 +227%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	0−1	30−35
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −900%	10 +900%
Dota 2	14−16 −480%	87 +480%
Valorant	1−2 −3700%	38 +3700%

Full HD
Low Preset

Elden Ring

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Metro Exodus	95 +0%	95 +0%
Valorant	138 +0%	138 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Dota 2	150 +0%	150 +0%
Elden Ring	90 +0%	90 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	115 +0%	115 +0%
Metro Exodus	66 +0%	66 +0%
Valorant	65 +0%	65 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Dota 2	197 +0%	197 +0%
Valorant	115 +0%	115 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	52 +0%	52 +0%
Elden Ring	47 +0%	47 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	52 +0%	52 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	25 +0%	25 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	67 +0%	67 +0%
Metro Exodus	59 +0%	59 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	16 +0%	16 +0%
Elden Ring	21 +0%	21 +0%
Metro Exodus	20 +0%	20 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Far Cry 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Fortnite	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	36 +0%	36 +0%

This is how 9700M GT and GTX 1660 compete in popular games:

GTX 1660 is 8300% faster in 1080p

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

in World of Tanks, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 1660 is 19500% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GTX 1660 is ahead in 33 tests (54%)
there's a draw in 28 tests (46%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.54	30.33
Recency	29 July 2008	14 March 2019
Maximum RAM amount	512 MB	6 GB
Chip lithography	65 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	45 Watt	120 Watt

9700M GT has 166.7% lower power consumption.

GTX 1660, on the other hand, has a 5516.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 1100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 441.7% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce GTX 1660 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9700M GT in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce 9700M GT is a notebook card while GeForce GTX 1660 is a desktop one.

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