GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q vs GTX 285M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 285M and GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GTX 285M
2010
1 GB GDDR3, 75 Watt
1.65

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q outperforms GTX 285M by a whopping 1284% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking940241
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data68.60
Power efficiency1.5226.36
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameG92TU116
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date1 February 2010 (14 years ago)23 April 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$229

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 cores1281536
Core clock speed600 MHz1140 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1335 MHz
Number of transistors754 million6,600 million
Manufacturing process technology65 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt60 Watt
Texture fill rate38.40128.2
Floating-point processing power0.384 TFLOPS4.101 TFLOPS
Gigaflops576no data
ROPs1648
TMUs6496

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 sizelargemedium sized
Bus supportPCI-E 2.0no data
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)PCIe 3.0 x16
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone
SLI options2-way-
MXM TypeMXM 3.0 Type-Bno data

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 typeGDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount1 GB6 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit192 Bit
Memory clock speedUp to 1020 MHz1500 MHz
Memory bandwidth61 GB/s288.0 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 ConnectorsSingle Link DVIVGALVDSHDMIDual Link DVIDisplayPortNo outputs
HDMI+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIS/PDIFno data

Supported technologies

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

Power management8.0no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model4.06.5
OpenGL2.14.6
OpenCL1.11.2
VulkanN/A1.2.131
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 285M 1.65
GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 22.84
+1284%

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 285M 636
GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 8814
+1286%

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 285M 6498
GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 31845
+390%

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:

900p21
−1281%
290−300
+1281%
Full HD29
−162%
76
+162%
4K2−3
−1600%
34
+1600%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data3.01
4Kno data6.74

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−825%
35−40
+825%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−833%
56
+833%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
−1300%
70
+1300%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−825%
35−40
+825%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−4500%
92
+4500%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
−1400%
60−65
+1400%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
−2640%
130−140
+2640%
Hitman 3 6−7
−650%
45−50
+650%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
−569%
100−110
+569%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−2967%
92
+2967%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
−756%
75−80
+756%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−188%
95−100
+188%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−733%
50−55
+733%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
−1220%
66
+1220%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−825%
35−40
+825%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−3750%
77
+3750%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
−1400%
60−65
+1400%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
−2640%
130−140
+2640%
Hitman 3 6−7
−650%
45−50
+650%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
−569%
100−110
+569%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−2367%
74
+2367%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
−756%
75−80
+756%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
−317%
50−55
+317%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−188%
95−100
+188%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−600%
42
+600%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
−900%
50
+900%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−825%
35−40
+825%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−2600%
54
+2600%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
−2640%
130−140
+2640%
Hitman 3 6−7
−650%
45−50
+650%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
−394%
79
+394%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
−756%
75−80
+756%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
−325%
51
+325%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−188%
95−100
+188%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−2300%
72
+2300%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
−2050%
40−45
+2050%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
−1650%
35−40
+1650%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−2300%
24−27
+2300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
−2500%
24−27
+2500%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−1300%
14−16
+1300%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−1200%
24−27
+1200%
Hitman 3 7−8
−286%
27−30
+286%
Horizon Zero Dawn 5−6
−840%
45−50
+840%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
−2600%
27−30
+2600%
Watch Dogs: Legion 9−10
−1356%
130−140
+1356%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−850%
35−40
+850%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−1700%
18−20
+1700%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
−600%
14−16
+600%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−1100%
12−14
+1100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 12−14
Far Cry 5 1−2
−1200%
12−14
+1200%
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 10−11

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−567%
20−22
+567%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Battlefield 5 88
+0%
88
+0%
Metro Exodus 120
+0%
120
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Battlefield 5 84
+0%
84
+0%
Metro Exodus 95
+0%
95
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Hitman 3 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 31
+0%
31
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

This is how GTX 285M and GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is 1281% faster in 900p
  • GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is 162% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is 1600% faster in 4K

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

  • in Far Cry 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is 4500% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is ahead in 51 test (73%)
  • there's a draw in 19 tests (27%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.65 22.84
Recency 1 February 2010 23 April 2019
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 6 GB
Chip lithography 65 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 60 Watt

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q has a 1284.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 441.7% more advanced lithography process, and 25% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 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.

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 285M
GeForce GTX 285M
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q

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.


3.8 4 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 285M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.4 527 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 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.