GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q vs Radeon E6760 MXM

Primary details

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

Place in the rankingnot rated243
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data68.60
Power efficiencyno data26.36
ArchitectureTeraScale 2 (2009−2015)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameTurksTU116
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date2 May 2011 (13 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 cores4801536
Core clock speed600 MHz1140 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1335 MHz
Number of transistors716 million6,600 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)45 Watt60 Watt
Texture fill rate14.40128.2
Floating-point processing power0.576 TFLOPS4.101 TFLOPS
ROPs848
TMUs2496

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 sizeno datamedium sized
InterfaceMXM-A (3.0)PCIe 3.0 x16
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 amount1 GB6 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit192 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHz1500 MHz
Memory bandwidth51.2 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.2 (11_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.06.5
OpenGL4.44.6
OpenCL1.21.2
VulkanN/A1.2.131
CUDA-7.5

Pros & cons summary


Recency 2 May 2011 23 April 2019
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 6 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 45 Watt 60 Watt

E6760 MXM has 33.3% lower power consumption.

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 7 years, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 233.3% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Radeon E6760 MXM and GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q. We've got no test results to judge.


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.


AMD Radeon E6760 MXM
Radeon E6760 MXM
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.


3.3 6 votes

Rate Radeon E6760 MXM on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.4 536 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.