Radeon Pro W6400 vs GeForce GTX 1660 Ti
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Radeon Pro W6400, including specs and performance data.
GTX 1660 Ti outperforms Pro W6400 by an impressive 60% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 171 | 278 |
| Place by popularity | 31 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 38.96 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 19.14 | 28.70 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | TU116 | Navi 24 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 22 February 2019 (6 years ago) | 19 January 2022 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $279 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 1500 MHz | 2331 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1770 MHz | 2331 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 6,600 million | 5,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 169.9 | 111.9 |
| Floating-point processing power | 5.437 TFLOPS | 3.58 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 32 |
| TMUs | 96 | 48 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 12 |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x4 |
| Length | 229 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | None |
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 | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 288.0 GB/s | 112.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | 2x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| HDMI | + | - |
API and SDK 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 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.3 |
| 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.
- Passmark
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.
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 | 104
+73.3%
| 60−65
−73.3%
|
| 1440p | 59
+68.6%
| 35−40
−68.6%
|
| 4K | 39
+62.5%
| 24−27
−62.5%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.68 | no data |
| 1440p | 4.73 | no data |
| 4K | 7.15 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
- Full HD
Low Preset - Full HD
Medium Preset - Full HD
High Preset - Full HD
Ultra Preset - Full HD
Epic Preset - 1440p
High Preset - 1440p
Ultra Preset - 1440p
Epic Preset - 4K
High Preset - 4K
Ultra Preset - 4K
Epic Preset
| Atomic Heart | 90−95
+63.6%
|
55−60
−63.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 180−190
+63.6%
|
110−120
−63.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 78
+73.3%
|
45−50
−73.3%
|
| Atomic Heart | 90−95
+63.6%
|
55−60
−63.6%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 129
+61.3%
|
80−85
−61.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 180−190
+63.6%
|
110−120
−63.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 71
+77.5%
|
40−45
−77.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 109
+67.7%
|
65−70
−67.7%
|
| Fortnite | 247
+64.7%
|
150−160
−64.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 131
+63.8%
|
80−85
−63.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 107
+64.6%
|
65−70
−64.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 200
+66.7%
|
120−130
−66.7%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+62.5%
|
120−130
−62.5%
|
| Atomic Heart | 90−95
+63.6%
|
55−60
−63.6%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 112
+72.3%
|
65−70
−72.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 180−190
+63.6%
|
110−120
−63.6%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+61.8%
|
170−180
−61.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 57
+62.9%
|
35−40
−62.9%
|
| Dota 2 | 181
+64.5%
|
110−120
−64.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 99
+65%
|
60−65
−65%
|
| Fortnite | 143
+68.2%
|
85−90
−68.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 122
+62.7%
|
75−80
−62.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 94
+70.9%
|
55−60
−70.9%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 119
+70%
|
70−75
−70%
|
| Metro Exodus | 55
+83.3%
|
30−33
−83.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150
+66.7%
|
90−95
−66.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 116
+65.7%
|
70−75
−65.7%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+62.5%
|
120−130
−62.5%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 102
+70%
|
60−65
−70%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 46
+70.4%
|
27−30
−70.4%
|
| Dota 2 | 168
+68%
|
100−105
−68%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 94
+70.9%
|
55−60
−70.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 97
+61.7%
|
60−65
−61.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 129
+61.3%
|
80−85
−61.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 62
+77.1%
|
35−40
−77.1%
|
| Valorant | 118
+68.6%
|
70−75
−68.6%
|
| Fortnite | 117
+67.1%
|
70−75
−67.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+66.7%
|
45−50
−66.7%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 210−220
+66.2%
|
130−140
−66.2%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 62
+77.1%
|
35−40
−77.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 33
+83.3%
|
18−20
−83.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+75%
|
100−105
−75%
|
| Valorant | 230−240
+65.7%
|
140−150
−65.7%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 76
+68.9%
|
45−50
−68.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27
+68.8%
|
16−18
−68.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 67
+67.5%
|
40−45
−67.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 77
+71.1%
|
45−50
−71.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55−60
+86.7%
|
30−33
−86.7%
|
| Fortnite | 75
+66.7%
|
45−50
−66.7%
|
| Atomic Heart | 24−27
+78.6%
|
14−16
−78.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+66.7%
|
21−24
−66.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 56
+86.7%
|
30−33
−86.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21
+75%
|
12−14
−75%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 43
+79.2%
|
24−27
−79.2%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+70.9%
|
110−120
−70.9%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 43
+79.2%
|
24−27
−79.2%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+66.7%
|
21−24
−66.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 11
+83.3%
|
6−7
−83.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 94
+70.9%
|
55−60
−70.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35
+66.7%
|
21−24
−66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 51
+70%
|
30−33
−70%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 39
+62.5%
|
24−27
−62.5%
|
| Fortnite | 25
+78.6%
|
14−16
−78.6%
|
This is how GTX 1660 Ti and Pro W6400 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1660 Ti is 73% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1660 Ti is 69% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1660 Ti is 63% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 28.89 | 18.05 |
| Recency | 22 February 2019 | 19 January 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 50 Watt |
GTX 1660 Ti has a 60.1% higher aggregate performance score, and a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount.
Pro W6400, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 140% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro W6400 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is a desktop card while Radeon Pro W6400 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
