Radeon Pro W6600M vs GeForce GTX 1660

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 1660 with Radeon Pro W6600M, including specs and performance data.

GTX 1660
2019
6 GB GDDR5, 120 Watt
30.29
+22.5%

GTX 1660 outperforms Pro W6600M by a significant 23% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking186223
Place by popularity39not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation48.17no data
Power efficiency17.3218.85
ArchitectureTuring (2018−2022)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code nameTU116Navi 23
Market segmentDesktopMobile workstation
Release date14 March 2019 (5 years ago)8 June 2021 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$219 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 cores14081792
Core clock speed1530 MHz1224 MHz
Boost clock speed1785 MHz2034 MHz
Number of transistors6,600 million11,060 million
Manufacturing process technology12 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)120 Watt90 Watt
Texture fill rate157.1227.8
Floating-point processing power5.027 TFLOPS7.29 TFLOPS
ROPs4864
TMUs88112
Ray Tracing Coresno data28

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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Length229 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 8-pinNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount6 GB8 GB
Memory bus width192 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed2001 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth192.1 GB/s224.0 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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortPortable Device Dependent
HDMI+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.56.7
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.22.1
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 30.29
+22.5%
Pro W6600M 24.72

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 11668
+22.6%
Pro W6600M 9521

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 HD83
+27.7%
65−70
−27.7%
1440p49
+40%
35−40
−40%
4K26
+23.8%
21−24
−23.8%

Cost per frame, $

1080p2.64no data
1440p4.47no data
4K8.42no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 71
+18.3%
60−65
−18.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 65−70
−15.4%
75−80
+15.4%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 59
−1.7%
60−65
+1.7%
Battlefield 5 95−100
−15.2%
110−120
+15.2%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 73
+2.8%
70−75
−2.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 58
−3.4%
60−65
+3.4%
Far Cry 5 65−70
−14.7%
75−80
+14.7%
Far Cry New Dawn 75−80
−14.3%
85−90
+14.3%
Forza Horizon 4 160−170
−9.7%
180−190
+9.7%
Hitman 3 69
−7.2%
70−75
+7.2%
Horizon Zero Dawn 306
+104%
150−160
−104%
Metro Exodus 144
+24.1%
110−120
−24.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2 112
+31.8%
85−90
−31.8%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 100−110
−20%
120−130
+20%
Watch Dogs: Legion 227
+86.1%
120−130
−86.1%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 123
+64%
75−80
−64%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 42
−42.9%
60−65
+42.9%
Battlefield 5 95−100
−15.2%
110−120
+15.2%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 67
−6%
70−75
+6%
Cyberpunk 2077 47
−27.7%
60−65
+27.7%
Far Cry 5 65−70
−14.7%
75−80
+14.7%
Far Cry New Dawn 75−80
−14.3%
85−90
+14.3%
Forza Horizon 4 160−170
−9.7%
180−190
+9.7%
Hitman 3 67
−10.4%
70−75
+10.4%
Horizon Zero Dawn 287
+91.3%
150−160
−91.3%
Metro Exodus 113
−2.7%
110−120
+2.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2 79
−7.6%
85−90
+7.6%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 110
−14.5%
120−130
+14.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 60−65
−14.1%
70−75
+14.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 214
+75.4%
120−130
−75.4%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 65−70
−15.4%
75−80
+15.4%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 37
−62.2%
60−65
+62.2%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 49
−44.9%
70−75
+44.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 40
−50%
60−65
+50%
Far Cry 5 65−70
−14.7%
75−80
+14.7%
Forza Horizon 4 98
−84.7%
180−190
+84.7%
Hitman 3 59
−25.4%
70−75
+25.4%
Horizon Zero Dawn 93
−61.3%
150−160
+61.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 95
−32.6%
120−130
+32.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 57
−28.1%
70−75
+28.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 29
−321%
120−130
+321%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 81
−4.9%
85−90
+4.9%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 55−60
−17.5%
65−70
+17.5%
Far Cry New Dawn 45−50
−17.4%
50−55
+17.4%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
−18.8%
35−40
+18.8%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 27
−40.7%
35−40
+40.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 34
−20.6%
40−45
+20.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 24
−8.3%
24−27
+8.3%
Far Cry 5 35−40
−17.1%
40−45
+17.1%
Forza Horizon 4 170−180
−14.9%
200−210
+14.9%
Hitman 3 39
−12.8%
40−45
+12.8%
Horizon Zero Dawn 67
−11.9%
75−80
+11.9%
Metro Exodus 59
−11.9%
65−70
+11.9%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 67
−23.9%
80−85
+23.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40−45
−22.5%
45−50
+22.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 187
+4.5%
170−180
−4.5%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 53
−13.2%
60−65
+13.2%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 30−33
−16.7%
35−40
+16.7%
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
−20.8%
27−30
+20.8%
Hitman 3 21
−33.3%
27−30
+33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 63
−168%
160−170
+168%
Metro Exodus 44
+2.3%
40−45
−2.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35
−17.1%
40−45
+17.1%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 18−20
−21.1%
21−24
+21.1%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 15
−40%
21−24
+40%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 17
−29.4%
21−24
+29.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 10
−10%
10−12
+10%
Far Cry 5 16−18
−17.6%
20−22
+17.6%
Forza Horizon 4 50
+4.2%
45−50
−4.2%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 36
−30.6%
45−50
+30.6%
Watch Dogs: Legion 12
−41.7%
16−18
+41.7%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 26
−19.2%
30−35
+19.2%

This is how GTX 1660 and Pro W6600M compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1660 is 28% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1660 is 40% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 1660 is 24% faster in 4K

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

  • in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 1660 is 104% faster.
  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Pro W6600M is 321% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GTX 1660 is ahead in 12 tests (17%)
  • Pro W6600M is ahead in 60 tests (83%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 30.29 24.72
Recency 14 March 2019 8 June 2021
Maximum RAM amount 6 GB 8 GB
Chip lithography 12 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 120 Watt 90 Watt

GTX 1660 has a 22.5% higher aggregate performance score.

Pro W6600M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 71.4% more advanced lithography process, and 33.3% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1660 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro W6600M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 1660 is a desktop card while Radeon Pro W6600M 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.

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
GeForce GTX 1660
AMD Radeon Pro W6600M
Radeon Pro W6600M

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.


4.1 5340 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 1660 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 3 votes

Rate Radeon Pro W6600M 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.