Radeon RX 6300M vs GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q and Radeon RX 6300M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q
2019
6 GB GDDR6, 60 Watt
22.85
+37.2%

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q outperforms RX 6300M by a substantial 37% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking243323
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation68.61no data
Power efficiency26.3232.88
ArchitectureTuring (2018−2022)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code nameTU116Navi 24
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date23 April 2019 (5 years ago)4 January 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 cores1536768
Core clock speed1140 MHz2000 MHz
Boost clock speed1335 MHz2400 MHz
Number of transistors6,600 million5,400 million
Manufacturing process technology12 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)60 Watt35 Watt
Texture fill rate128.2115.2
Floating-point processing power4.101 TFLOPS3.686 TFLOPS
ROPs4832
TMUs9648
Ray Tracing Coresno data12

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 sizemedium sizedno data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x4
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 GB2 GB
Memory bus width192 Bit32 Bit
Memory clock speed1500 MHz2250 MHz
Memory bandwidth288.0 GB/s72 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.56.6
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.22.2
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. 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
+37.2%
RX 6300M 16.65

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
+37.2%
RX 6300M 6422

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 HD77
+40%
55−60
−40%
4K34
+41.7%
24−27
−41.7%

Cost per frame, $

1080p2.97no data
4K6.74no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+1750%
2−3
−1750%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 56
+1767%
3−4
−1767%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35−40
+44.4%
27−30
−44.4%
Battlefield 5 88
+46.7%
60−65
−46.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 70
+3400%
2−3
−3400%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+1750%
2−3
−1750%
Far Cry 5 92
+41.5%
65−70
−41.5%
Far Cry New Dawn 60−65
+50%
40−45
−50%
Forza Horizon 4 130−140
+44.2%
95−100
−44.2%
Hitman 3 45−50
+1025%
4−5
−1025%
Horizon Zero Dawn 100−110
+1238%
8−9
−1238%
Metro Exodus 120
+41.2%
85−90
−41.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2 92
+41.5%
65−70
−41.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 75−80
+1825%
4−5
−1825%
Watch Dogs: Legion 95−100
+250%
27−30
−250%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 50−55
+1567%
3−4
−1567%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35−40
+44.4%
27−30
−44.4%
Battlefield 5 84
+40%
60−65
−40%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 66
+3200%
2−3
−3200%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+1750%
2−3
−1750%
Far Cry 5 77
+40%
55−60
−40%
Far Cry New Dawn 60−65
+50%
40−45
−50%
Forza Horizon 4 130−140
+44.2%
95−100
−44.2%
Hitman 3 45−50
+1025%
4−5
−1025%
Horizon Zero Dawn 100−110
+1238%
8−9
−1238%
Metro Exodus 95
+46.2%
65−70
−46.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2 74
+48%
50−55
−48%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 75−80
+1825%
4−5
−1825%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 50−55
+456%
9−10
−456%
Watch Dogs: Legion 95−100
+250%
27−30
−250%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 42
+1300%
3−4
−1300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35−40
+44.4%
27−30
−44.4%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 50
+2400%
2−3
−2400%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+1750%
2−3
−1750%
Far Cry 5 54
+54.3%
35−40
−54.3%
Forza Horizon 4 130−140
+44.2%
95−100
−44.2%
Hitman 3 45−50
+1025%
4−5
−1025%
Horizon Zero Dawn 79
+888%
8−9
−888%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 75−80
+1825%
4−5
−1825%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 51
+467%
9−10
−467%
Watch Dogs: Legion 95−100
+250%
27−30
−250%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 72
+44%
50−55
−44%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45
+43.3%
30−33
−43.3%
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40
+45.8%
24−27
−45.8%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
+50%
16−18
−50%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
+37.5%
16−18
−37.5%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 24−27
+44.4%
18−20
−44.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16 0−1
Far Cry 5 24−27
+44.4%
18−20
−44.4%
Forza Horizon 4 130−140
+44.4%
90−95
−44.4%
Hitman 3 27−30
+350%
6−7
−350%
Horizon Zero Dawn 45−50
+2250%
2−3
−2250%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+43.3%
30−33
−43.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45−50
+40%
35−40
−40%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
+50%
18−20
−50%
Watch Dogs: Legion 130−140
+37.9%
95−100
−37.9%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+1800%
2−3
−1800%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
+37.5%
16−18
−37.5%
Far Cry New Dawn 18−20
+50%
12−14
−50%
Hitman 3 18−20
+50%
12−14
−50%
Horizon Zero Dawn 110−120
+38.8%
85−90
−38.8%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+38.9%
18−20
−38.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 31
+47.6%
21−24
−47.6%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 14−16
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
+44.4%
9−10
−44.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+44.4%
9−10
−44.4%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+47.6%
21−24
−47.6%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30
+50%
18−20
−50%
Watch Dogs: Legion 10−11
+42.9%
7−8
−42.9%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 20−22
+900%
2−3
−900%

This is how GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q and RX 6300M compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is 40% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is 42% faster in 4K

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

  • in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is 3400% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q surpassed RX 6300M in all 29 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 22.85 16.65
Recency 23 April 2019 4 January 2022
Maximum RAM amount 6 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 12 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 60 Watt 35 Watt

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q has a 37.2% higher aggregate performance score, and a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount.

RX 6300M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 71.4% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX 6300M in performance tests.


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

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 Ti Max-Q
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q
AMD Radeon RX 6300M
Radeon RX 6300M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


4.4 536 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 11 votes

Rate Radeon RX 6300M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.