Radeon Pro W6600M vs GeForce GTX 1660 Super

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 1660 Super with Radeon Pro W6600M, including specs and performance data.

GTX 1660 Super
2019
6 GB GDDR6, 125 Watt
33.09
+10.4%

GTX 1660 Super outperforms Pro W6600M by a moderate 10% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking170201
Place by popularity7not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation57.27no data
Power efficiency18.1522.84
ArchitectureTuring (2018−2022)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code nameTU116Navi 23
Market segmentDesktopMobile workstation
Release date29 October 2019 (5 years ago)8 June 2021 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$229 no data

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 cores14081792
Core clock speed1530 MHz1224 MHz
Boost clock speed1785 MHz2034 MHz
Number of transistors6,600 million11,060 million
Manufacturing process technology12 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)125 Watt90 Watt
Texture fill rate157.1227.8
Floating-point processing power5.027 TFLOPS7.29 TFLOPS
ROPs4864
TMUs88112
Ray Tracing Coresno data28

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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Length229 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 8-pinNone

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 typeGDDR6GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount6 GB8 GB
Memory bus width192 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1750 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth336.0 GB/s224.0 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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortPortable Device Dependent
HDMI+-
HDCP+-
G-SYNC support+-

Supported technologies

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

NVENC+-
Ansel+-

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.56.7
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.22.1
Vulkan1.2.1311.3
CUDA7.5-

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.

GTX 1660 Super 33.09
+10.4%
Pro W6600M 29.98

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.

GTX 1660 Super 12720
+10.4%
Pro W6600M 11524

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 HD92
+15%
80−85
−15%
1440p57
+14%
50−55
−14%
4K31
+14.8%
27−30
−14.8%

Cost per frame, $

1080p2.49no data
1440p4.02no data
4K7.39no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 124
+63.2%
75−80
−63.2%
Counter-Strike 2 90
+63.6%
55−60
−63.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 76
+26.7%
60−65
−26.7%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 91
+19.7%
75−80
−19.7%
Battlefield 5 97
−7.2%
100−110
+7.2%
Counter-Strike 2 62
+12.7%
55−60
−12.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 63
+5%
60−65
−5%
Far Cry 5 112
+25.8%
85−90
−25.8%
Fortnite 140−150
+9.3%
120−130
−9.3%
Forza Horizon 4 144
+34.6%
100−110
−34.6%
Forza Horizon 5 96
+23.1%
75−80
−23.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 120−130
+15%
100−110
−15%
Valorant 321
+80.3%
170−180
−80.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 52
−46.2%
75−80
+46.2%
Battlefield 5 83
−25.3%
100−110
+25.3%
Counter-Strike 2 52
−5.8%
55−60
+5.8%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+3%
260−270
−3%
Cyberpunk 2077 52
−15.4%
60−65
+15.4%
Dota 2 231
+79.1%
120−130
−79.1%
Far Cry 5 103
+15.7%
85−90
−15.7%
Fortnite 140−150
+9.3%
120−130
−9.3%
Forza Horizon 4 135
+26.2%
100−110
−26.2%
Forza Horizon 5 67
−16.4%
75−80
+16.4%
Grand Theft Auto V 133
+37.1%
95−100
−37.1%
Metro Exodus 56
−8.9%
60−65
+8.9%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 139
+29.9%
100−110
−29.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 113
+34.5%
80−85
−34.5%
Valorant 290
+62.9%
170−180
−62.9%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 77
−35.1%
100−110
+35.1%
Counter-Strike 2 48
−14.6%
55−60
+14.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 49
−22.4%
60−65
+22.4%
Dota 2 211
+63.6%
120−130
−63.6%
Far Cry 5 95
+6.7%
85−90
−6.7%
Forza Horizon 4 107
+0%
100−110
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 67
−16.4%
75−80
+16.4%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 104
−2.9%
100−110
+2.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 61
−37.7%
80−85
+37.7%
Valorant 122
−45.9%
170−180
+45.9%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 140−150
+9.3%
120−130
−9.3%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+8.3%
24−27
−8.3%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 210−220
+12.7%
180−190
−12.7%
Grand Theft Auto V 62
+21.6%
50−55
−21.6%
Metro Exodus 36
−2.8%
35−40
+2.8%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 162
−8%
170−180
+8%
Valorant 262
+20.7%
210−220
−20.7%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 60
−23.3%
70−75
+23.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 26
−7.7%
27−30
+7.7%
Far Cry 5 65
+3.2%
60−65
−3.2%
Forza Horizon 4 84
+18.3%
70−75
−18.3%
Forza Horizon 5 39
−23.1%
45−50
+23.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 50−55
+17.4%
45−50
−17.4%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 75−80
+16.7%
65−70
−16.7%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 24−27
+14.3%
21−24
−14.3%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+15.4%
12−14
−15.4%
Grand Theft Auto V 60
+15.4%
50−55
−15.4%
Metro Exodus 22
−4.5%
21−24
+4.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40
−2.5%
40−45
+2.5%
Valorant 132
−21.2%
160−170
+21.2%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 36
−16.7%
40−45
+16.7%
Counter-Strike 2 6
−117%
12−14
+117%
Cyberpunk 2077 11
−9.1%
12−14
+9.1%
Dota 2 95
+10.5%
85−90
−10.5%
Far Cry 5 33
+3.1%
30−35
−3.1%
Forza Horizon 4 54
+12.5%
45−50
−12.5%
Forza Horizon 5 22
−22.7%
27−30
+22.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 36
+20%
30−33
−20%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 35−40
+19.4%
30−35
−19.4%

This is how GTX 1660 Super and Pro W6600M compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1660 Super is 15% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1660 Super is 14% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 1660 Super is 15% faster in 4K

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

  • in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 1660 Super is 80% faster.
  • in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Pro W6600M is 117% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GTX 1660 Super is ahead in 40 tests (60%)
  • Pro W6600M is ahead in 26 tests (39%)
  • there's a draw in 1 test (1%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 33.09 29.98
Recency 29 October 2019 8 June 2021
Maximum RAM amount 6 GB 8 GB
Chip lithography 12 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 125 Watt 90 Watt

GTX 1660 Super has a 10.4% higher aggregate performance score.

Pro W6600M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 71.4% more advanced lithography process, and 38.9% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1660 Super is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro W6600M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 1660 Super is a desktop card while Radeon Pro W6600M is a mobile workstation 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.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Super
GeForce GTX 1660 Super
AMD Radeon Pro W6600M
Radeon Pro W6600M

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.


4.3 21437 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 1660 Super on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 4 votes

Rate Radeon Pro W6600M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GTX 1660 Super or Radeon Pro W6600M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.