GeForce GTX 1660 vs Go 6800
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce Go 6800 with GeForce GTX 1660, including specs and performance data.
GTX 1660 outperforms Go 6800 by a whopping 11000% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1357 | 196 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 44 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 46.71 |
| Power efficiency | 0.42 | 17.34 |
| Architecture | Curie (2003−2013) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | NV41 | TU116 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 8 November 2004 (20 years ago) | 14 March 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $219 |
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 | 17 | 1408 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 1530 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 300 MHz | 1785 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 190 million | 6,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 130 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 120 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 3.600 | 157.1 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 5.027 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 48 |
| TMUs | 12 | 88 |
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 | large | no data |
| Interface | MXM-III | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 229 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 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 | GDDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 256 MB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 550 MHz | 2001 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 35.2 GB/s | 192.1 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 | Portable Device Dependent | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 9.0c (9_3) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 3.0 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 2.0 (full) 2.1 (partial) | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | N/A | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| 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.
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 | 0−1 | 86 |
| 1440p | -0−1 | 52 |
| 4K | -0−1 | 29 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 2.55 |
| 1440p | no data | 4.21 |
| 4K | no data | 7.55 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−11000%
|
111
+11000%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−929%
|
72
+929%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−7000%
|
71
+7000%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−8200%
|
83
+8200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−700%
|
56
+700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−5700%
|
58
+5700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−4300%
|
132
+4300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−1500%
|
110−120
+1500%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−1077%
|
306
+1077%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−4800%
|
49
+4800%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−586%
|
48
+586%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
−1985%
|
270−280
+1985%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−4600%
|
47
+4600%
|
| Dota 2 | 9−10
−2333%
|
219
+2333%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−4000%
|
123
+4000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−1500%
|
110−120
+1500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−2450%
|
102
+2450%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−1004%
|
287
+1004%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−514%
|
43
+514%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−3900%
|
40
+3900%
|
| Dota 2 | 9−10
−2089%
|
197
+2089%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−3167%
|
98
+3167%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−1500%
|
110−120
+1500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−1325%
|
57
+1325%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−342%
|
115
+342%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−6350%
|
129
+6350%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 24 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−7500%
|
76
+7500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−4800%
|
45−50
+4800%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 70−75 |
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−227%
|
49
+227%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−6150%
|
125
+6150%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−2900%
|
30
+2900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−1500%
|
30−35
+1500%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−1550%
|
30−35
+1550%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 100
+0%
|
100
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 86
+0%
|
86
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 92
+0%
|
92
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 63
+0%
|
63
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 115
+0%
|
115
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 57
+0%
|
57
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 86
+0%
|
86
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 59
+0%
|
59
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 52
+0%
|
52
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| Valorant | 226
+0%
|
226
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 59
+0%
|
59
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40
+0%
|
40
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35
+0%
|
35
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6
+0%
|
6
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10
+0%
|
10
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 87
+0%
|
87
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50
+0%
|
50
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 22
+0%
|
22
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Atomic Heart, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the GTX 1660 is 11000% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 1660 is ahead in 33 tests (51%)
- there's a draw in 32 tests (49%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.27 | 29.97 |
| Recency | 8 November 2004 | 14 March 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 256 MB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 120 Watt |
Go 6800 has 166.7% lower power consumption.
GTX 1660, on the other hand, has a 11000% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 14 years, a 2300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 983.3% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce GTX 1660 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce Go 6800 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce Go 6800 is a notebook card while GeForce GTX 1660 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
