GeForce GTX 285M vs GTX 1660 Ti Mobile

Place in the ranking	192	943
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	100.00	no data
Power efficiency	25.27	1.53
Architecture	Turing (2018−2022)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	TU116	G92
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	23 April 2019 (5 years ago)	1 February 2010 (14 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	128
Core clock speed	1455 MHz	600 MHz
Boost clock speed	1590 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	6,600 million	754 million
Manufacturing process technology	12 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	80 Watt	75 Watt
Texture fill rate	152.6	38.40
Floating-point processing power	4.884 TFLOPS	0.384 TFLOPS
Gigaflops	no data	576
ROPs	48	16
TMUs	96	64

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	large
Bus support	no data	PCI-E 2.0
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	MXM-B (3.0)
SLI options	-	2-way
MXM Type	no data	MXM 3.0 Type-B

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	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	6 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	192 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1500 MHz	Up to 1020 MHz
Memory bandwidth	288.0 GB/s	61 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	Single Link DVIVGALVDSHDMIDual Link DVIDisplayPort
HDMI	-	+
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	2048x1536
Audio input for HDMI	no data	S/PDIF

Supported technologies

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

Power management

no data

8.0

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	6.5	4.0
OpenGL	4.6	2.1
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	1.2.131	N/A
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.

GTX 1660 Ti Mobile 29.00
+1658%

GTX 285M 1.65

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 Mobile 49309
+659%

GTX 285M 6498

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:

900p	350−400 +1567%	21 −1567%
Full HD	87 +190%	30 −190%
1440p	58 +1833%	3−4 −1833%
4K	34 +3300%	1−2 −3300%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	2.63	no data
1440p	3.95	no data
4K	6.74	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

86
+2050%

4−5

−2050%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	80 +1233%	6−7 −1233%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	66 +2100%	3−4 −2100%
Battlefield 5	129 +1743%	7−8 −1743%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	82 +1540%	5−6 −1540%
Cyberpunk 2077	68 +1600%	4−5 −1600%
Far Cry 5	98 +4800%	2−3 −4800%
Far Cry New Dawn	102 +2450%	4−5 −2450%
Forza Horizon 4	304 +5980%	5−6 −5980%
Hitman 3	77 +1183%	6−7 −1183%
Horizon Zero Dawn	209 +1206%	16−18 −1206%
Metro Exodus	126 +1700%	7−8 −1700%
Red Dead Redemption 2	99 +3200%	3−4 −3200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	155 +1622%	9−10 −1622%
Watch Dogs: Legion	225 +562%	30−35 −562%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	125 +1983%	6−7 −1983%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	49 +2350%	2−3 −2350%
Battlefield 5	109 +1717%	6−7 −1717%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	73 +1360%	5−6 −1360%
Cyberpunk 2077	54 +1250%	4−5 −1250%
Far Cry 5	77 +3750%	2−3 −3750%
Far Cry New Dawn	70 +1650%	4−5 −1650%
Forza Horizon 4	256 +5020%	5−6 −5020%
Hitman 3	74 +1133%	6−7 −1133%
Horizon Zero Dawn	207 +1194%	16−18 −1194%
Metro Exodus	104 +1980%	5−6 −1980%
Red Dead Redemption 2	83 +2667%	3−4 −2667%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	118 +1211%	9−10 −1211%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	55−60 +367%	12−14 −367%
Watch Dogs: Legion	214 +529%	30−35 −529%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	53 +783%	6−7 −783%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	42 +2000%	2−3 −2000%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	53 +960%	5−6 −960%
Cyberpunk 2077	52 +1200%	4−5 −1200%
Far Cry 5	57 +2750%	2−3 −2750%
Forza Horizon 4	99 +1880%	5−6 −1880%
Hitman 3	63 +950%	6−7 −950%
Horizon Zero Dawn	90 +463%	16−18 −463%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	101 +1022%	9−10 −1022%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	55 +358%	12−14 −358%
Watch Dogs: Legion	33 −3%	30−35 +3%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

80
+2567%

3−4

−2567%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	66 +3200%	2−3 −3200%
Far Cry New Dawn	46 +2200%	2−3 −2200%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	36 +3500%	1−2 −3500%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	32 +3100%	1−2 −3100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	38 +3700%	1−2 −3700%
Cyberpunk 2077	25 +2400%	1−2 −2400%
Far Cry 5	36 +1700%	2−3 −1700%
Forza Horizon 4	182 +1720%	10−11 −1720%
Hitman 3	41 +486%	7−8 −486%
Horizon Zero Dawn	65 +1200%	5−6 −1200%
Metro Exodus	60 +1900%	3−4 −1900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	55−60 +1833%	3−4 −1833%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−35 +3200%	1−2 −3200%
Watch Dogs: Legion	203 +2156%	9−10 −2156%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

56
+1300%

4−5

−1300%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	31 +3000%	1−2 −3000%
Far Cry New Dawn	25 +2400%	1−2 −2400%
Hitman 3	25 +2400%	1−2 −2400%
Horizon Zero Dawn	76 +1800%	4−5 −1800%
Metro Exodus	41 +1950%	2−3 −1950%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	35 +3400%	1−2 −3400%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	22 +1000%	2−3 −1000%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	13 +1200%	1−2 −1200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	19	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	10	0−1
Far Cry 5	18 +1700%	1−2 −1700%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +1700%	2−3 −1700%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	30−35 +3200%	1−2 −3200%
Watch Dogs: Legion	13	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

27
+800%

3−4

−800%

This is how GTX 1660 Ti Mobile and GTX 285M compete in popular games:

GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is 1567% faster in 900p
GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is 190% faster in 1080p
GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is 1833% faster in 1440p
GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is 3300% faster in 4K

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

in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is 5980% faster.
in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 285M is 3% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is ahead in 50 tests (98%)
GTX 285M is ahead in 1 test (2%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	29.00	1.65
Recency	23 April 2019	1 February 2010
Maximum RAM amount	6 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	12 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	80 Watt	75 Watt

GTX 1660 Ti Mobile has a 1657.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 441.7% more advanced lithography process.

GTX 285M, on the other hand, has 6.7% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 285M in performance tests.

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