Radeon PRO W7800 vs GeForce GTX 1660

Place in the ranking	186	16
Place by popularity	39	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	48.17	29.90
Power efficiency	17.30	19.46
Architecture	Turing (2018−2022)	RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024)
GPU code name	TU116	Navi 31
Market segment	Desktop	Workstation
Release date	14 March 2019 (5 years ago)	13 April 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$219	$2,499

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 1660 has 61% better value for money than PRO W7800.

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	1408	4480
Core clock speed	1530 MHz	1855 MHz
Boost clock speed	1785 MHz	2499 MHz
Number of transistors	6,600 million	57,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	12 nm	5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	120 Watt	260 Watt
Texture fill rate	157.1	699.7
Floating-point processing power	5.027 TFLOPS	44.78 TFLOPS
ROPs	48	128
TMUs	88	280
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	70

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 x16
Length	229 mm	280 mm
Width	2-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1x 8-pin	2x 8-pin

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	GDDR5	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	6 GB	32 GB
Memory bus width	192 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	2001 MHz	2250 MHz
Memory bandwidth	192.1 GB/s	576.0 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	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort	3x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1
HDMI	+	-

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	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. 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 30.28

PRO W7800 73.80
+144%

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 11669

PRO W7800 28439
+144%

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	83 −141%	200−210 +141%
1440p	49 −124%	110−120 +124%
4K	26 −131%	60−65 +131%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	2.64	12.50
1440p	4.47	22.72
4K	8.42	41.65

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

71
−139%

170−180

+139%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	65−70 −131%	150−160 +131%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	59 −137%	140−150 +137%
Battlefield 5	95−100 −142%	240−250 +142%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	73 −133%	170−180 +133%
Cyberpunk 2077	58 −141%	140−150 +141%
Far Cry 5	65−70 −135%	160−170 +135%
Far Cry New Dawn	75−80 −134%	180−190 +134%
Forza Horizon 4	160−170 −142%	400−450 +142%
Hitman 3	69 −132%	160−170 +132%
Horizon Zero Dawn	306 −129%	700−750 +129%
Metro Exodus	144 −143%	350−400 +143%
Red Dead Redemption 2	112 −141%	270−280 +141%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	100−110 −138%	250−260 +138%
Watch Dogs: Legion	227 −142%	550−600 +142%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	123 −136%	290−300 +136%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	42 −138%	100−105 +138%
Battlefield 5	95−100 −142%	240−250 +142%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	67 −139%	160−170 +139%
Cyberpunk 2077	47 −134%	110−120 +134%
Far Cry 5	65−70 −135%	160−170 +135%
Far Cry New Dawn	75−80 −134%	180−190 +134%
Forza Horizon 4	160−170 −142%	400−450 +142%
Hitman 3	67 −139%	160−170 +139%
Horizon Zero Dawn	287 −126%	650−700 +126%
Metro Exodus	113 −139%	270−280 +139%
Red Dead Redemption 2	79 −141%	190−200 +141%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	110 −136%	260−270 +136%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	60−65 −134%	150−160 +134%
Watch Dogs: Legion	214 −134%	500−550 +134%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	65−70 −131%	150−160 +131%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	37 −143%	90−95 +143%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	49 −124%	110−120 +124%
Cyberpunk 2077	40 −138%	95−100 +138%
Far Cry 5	65−70 −135%	160−170 +135%
Forza Horizon 4	98 −135%	230−240 +135%
Hitman 3	59 −137%	140−150 +137%
Horizon Zero Dawn	93 −137%	220−230 +137%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	95 −142%	230−240 +142%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	57 −128%	130−140 +128%
Watch Dogs: Legion	29 −141%	70−75 +141%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

81
−135%

190−200

+135%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	55−60 −128%	130−140 +128%
Far Cry New Dawn	45−50 −139%	110−120 +139%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	30−35 −134%	75−80 +134%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	27 −141%	65−70 +141%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	34 −135%	80−85 +135%
Cyberpunk 2077	24 −129%	55−60 +129%
Far Cry 5	35−40 −143%	85−90 +143%
Forza Horizon 4	170−180 −130%	400−450 +130%
Hitman 3	39 −144%	95−100 +144%
Horizon Zero Dawn	67 −139%	160−170 +139%
Metro Exodus	59 −137%	140−150 +137%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	67 −139%	160−170 +139%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	40−45 −138%	95−100 +138%
Watch Dogs: Legion	187 −141%	450−500 +141%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

53
−126%

120−130

+126%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	30−33 −133%	70−75 +133%
Far Cry New Dawn	24−27 −129%	55−60 +129%
Hitman 3	21 −138%	50−55 +138%
Horizon Zero Dawn	63 −138%	150−160 +138%
Metro Exodus	44 −127%	100−105 +127%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	35 −143%	85−90 +143%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	18−20 −137%	45−50 +137%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	15 −133%	35−40 +133%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	17 −135%	40−45 +135%
Cyberpunk 2077	10 −140%	24−27 +140%
Far Cry 5	16−18 −135%	40−45 +135%
Forza Horizon 4	50 −140%	120−130 +140%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	36 −136%	85−90 +136%
Watch Dogs: Legion	12 −125%	27−30 +125%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

−131%

60−65
+131%

This is how GTX 1660 and PRO W7800 compete in popular games:

PRO W7800 is 141% faster in 1080p
PRO W7800 is 124% faster in 1440p
PRO W7800 is 131% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	30.28	73.80
Recency	14 March 2019	13 April 2023
Maximum RAM amount	6 GB	32 GB
Chip lithography	12 nm	5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	120 Watt	260 Watt

GTX 1660 has 116.7% lower power consumption.

PRO W7800, on the other hand, has a 143.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 433.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 140% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon PRO W7800 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 1660 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 1660 is a desktop card while Radeon PRO W7800 is a workstation one.

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