RTX A1000 Mobile vs GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q

Place in the ranking	243	219
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	68.65	no data
Power efficiency	26.56	28.75
Architecture	Turing (2018−2022)	Ampere (2020−2024)
GPU code name	TU116	GA107
Market segment	Laptop	Mobile workstation
Release date	23 April 2019 (5 years ago)	30 March 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$229	no data

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	1536	2048
Core clock speed	1140 MHz	630 MHz
Boost clock speed	1335 MHz	1140 MHz
Number of transistors	6,600 million	no data
Manufacturing process technology	12 nm	8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	60 Watt	60 Watt
Texture fill rate	128.2	72.96
Floating-point processing power	4.101 TFLOPS	4.669 TFLOPS
ROPs	48	32
TMUs	96	64
Tensor Cores	no data	64
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	16

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	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x8
Supplementary power connectors	None	no data

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	GDDR6	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	6 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	192 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1500 MHz	1375 MHz
Memory bandwidth	288.0 GB/s	176.0 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

Portable Device Dependent

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	6.5	6.7
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	3.0
Vulkan	1.2.131	1.3
CUDA	7.5	8.6

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.

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 22.85

RTX A1000 Mobile 24.74
+8.3%

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 Ti Max-Q 8814

RTX A1000 Mobile 9545
+8.3%

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 17439
+15.2%

RTX A1000 Mobile 15135

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.

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 31845

RTX A1000 Mobile 58312
+83.1%

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.

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 13355
+18%

RTX A1000 Mobile 11321

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 63086

RTX A1000 Mobile 70880
+12.4%

3DMark Time Spy Graphics

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 5085
+19.5%

RTX A1000 Mobile 4256

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	77 +10%	70 −10%
1440p	24−27 −16.7%	28 +16.7%
4K	34 −2.9%	35−40 +2.9%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	2.97	no data
1440p	9.54	no data
4K	6.74	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

35−40

−64.9%

61
+64.9%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	56 +9.8%	50−55 −9.8%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	35−40 −28.2%	50 +28.2%
Battlefield 5	88 +17.3%	75−80 −17.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	70 +48.9%	45−50 −48.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 −35.1%	50 +35.1%
Far Cry 5	92 +73.6%	50−55 −73.6%
Far Cry New Dawn	60−65 −1.7%	60−65 +1.7%
Forza Horizon 4	130−140 +0%	130−140 +0%
Hitman 3	45−50 −2.2%	45−50 +2.2%
Horizon Zero Dawn	100−110 −0.9%	100−110 +0.9%
Metro Exodus	120 +51.9%	75−80 −51.9%
Red Dead Redemption 2	92 +50.8%	60−65 −50.8%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	95−100 −1%	95−100 +1%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	50−55 −2%	50−55 +2%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	35−40 +18.2%	33 −18.2%
Battlefield 5	84 +12%	75−80 −12%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	66 +40.4%	45−50 −40.4%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 +0%	37 +0%
Far Cry 5	77 +45.3%	50−55 −45.3%
Far Cry New Dawn	60−65 −1.7%	60−65 +1.7%
Forza Horizon 4	130−140 +0%	130−140 +0%
Hitman 3	45−50 −2.2%	45−50 +2.2%
Horizon Zero Dawn	100−110 −0.9%	100−110 +0.9%
Metro Exodus	95 +20.3%	75−80 −20.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2	74 +21.3%	60−65 −21.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	75−80 −13%	87 +13%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	95−100 −1%	95−100 +1%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	42 −21.4%	50−55 +21.4%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	35−40 +56%	25 −56%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	50 +6.4%	45−50 −6.4%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 +27.6%	29 −27.6%
Far Cry 5	54 +1.9%	50−55 −1.9%
Forza Horizon 4	130−140 +0%	130−140 +0%
Hitman 3	45−50 −2.2%	45−50 +2.2%
Horizon Zero Dawn	79 −36.7%	100−110 +36.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	75−80 +1.3%	76 −1.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	51 +18.6%	43 −18.6%
Watch Dogs: Legion	95−100 +277%	26 −277%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

72
+18%

60−65

−18%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	40−45 −2.3%	40−45 +2.3%
Far Cry New Dawn	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	21−24 +0%	22 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Far Cry 5	24−27 −3.8%	27−30 +3.8%
Forza Horizon 4	130−140 −0.8%	130−140 +0.8%
Hitman 3	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Metro Exodus	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 −3.7%	27−30 +3.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion	130−140 −0.8%	130−140 +0.8%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

35−40

+0%

35−40

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 −4.5%	21−24 +4.5%
Far Cry New Dawn	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Hitman 3	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	110−120 −0.8%	110−120 +0.8%
Metro Exodus	24−27 −4%	24−27 +4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	31 +29.2%	24−27 −29.2%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Far Cry 5	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

20−22

+0%

20−22

+0%

This is how GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q and RTX A1000 Mobile compete in popular games:

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is 10% faster in 1080p
RTX A1000 Mobile is 17% faster in 1440p
RTX A1000 Mobile is 3% faster in 4K

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

in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is 277% faster.
in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the RTX A1000 Mobile is 65% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is ahead in 21 test (29%)
RTX A1000 Mobile is ahead in 24 tests (33%)
there's a draw in 27 tests (38%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	22.85	24.74
Recency	23 April 2019	30 March 2022
Maximum RAM amount	6 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	12 nm	8 nm

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q has a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount.

RTX A1000 Mobile, on the other hand, has a 8.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 50% more advanced lithography process.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q and RTX A1000 Mobile.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is a notebook graphics card while RTX A1000 Mobile is a mobile workstation one.

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