GeForce GTX 1660 vs Radeon HD 8470D

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon HD 8470D and GeForce GTX 1660, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

HD 8470D
2013
65 Watt
0.95

GTX 1660 outperforms HD 8470D by a whopping 3019% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1124194
Place by popularitynot in top-10044
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data46.47
Power efficiency1.0317.34
ArchitectureTeraScale 3 (2010−2013)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameScrapperTU116
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date29 July 2013 (11 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.

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 cores1921408
Core clock speed800 MHz1530 MHz
Boost clock speed850 MHz1785 MHz
Number of transistors1,303 million6,600 million
Manufacturing process technology32 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt120 Watt
Texture fill rate10.20157.1
Floating-point processing power0.3264 TFLOPS5.027 TFLOPS
ROPs448
TMUs1288

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).

InterfaceIGPPCIe 3.0 x16
Lengthno data229 mm
WidthIGP2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 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 typeSystem SharedGDDR5
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared6 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared192 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared2001 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data192.1 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 ConnectorsNo outputs1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
HDMI-+

API and SDK 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

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.

HD 8470D 0.95
GTX 1660 29.63
+3019%

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.

HD 8470D 374
GTX 1660 11659
+3017%

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

HD 8470D 854
GTX 1660 21064
+2366%

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.

HD 8470D 3426
GTX 1660 71229
+1979%

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

HD 8470D 670
GTX 1660 14164
+2014%

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

HD 8470D 5583
GTX 1660 81755
+1364%

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 HD13
−562%
86
+562%
1440p1−2
−5100%
52
+5100%
4K0−129

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data2.55
1440pno data4.21
4Kno data7.55

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 3−4
−3600%
111
+3600%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
−929%
72
+929%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−3450%
71
+3450%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 3−4
−2667%
83
+2667%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
−700%
56
+700%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−2800%
58
+2800%
Fortnite 1−2
−13200%
130−140
+13200%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
−2540%
132
+2540%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
−1300%
110−120
+1300%
Valorant 30−35
−887%
306
+887%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 3−4
−1533%
49
+1533%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
−586%
48
+586%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 21−24
−1078%
270−280
+1078%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−2250%
47
+2250%
Dota 2 14−16
−1464%
219
+1464%
Fortnite 1−2
−13200%
130−140
+13200%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
−2360%
123
+2360%
Metro Exodus 1−2
−5600%
57
+5600%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
−1300%
110−120
+1300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
−1940%
102
+1940%
Valorant 30−35
−826%
287
+826%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 7−8
−514%
43
+514%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−1900%
40
+1900%
Dota 2 14−16
−1307%
197
+1307%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
−1860%
98
+1860%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
−1300%
110−120
+1300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
−1040%
57
+1040%
Valorant 30−35
−271%
115
+271%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 1−2
−13200%
130−140
+13200%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 1−2
−2500%
24−27
+2500%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 5−6
−3840%
190−200
+3840%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 5−6
−2480%
129
+2480%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−2300%
24
+2300%
Far Cry 5 0−1 59
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−3700%
76
+3700%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
−2350%
45−50
+2350%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 1−2
−6900%
70−75
+6900%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 1−2
−2200%
21−24
+2200%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−227%
49
+227%
Valorant 5−6
−2400%
125
+2400%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 10
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%
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%
Forza Horizon 5 63
+0%
63
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 115
+0%
115
+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%

1440p
High Preset

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%
Forza Horizon 5 40
+0%
40
+0%

4K
High Preset

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%
Dota 2 87
+0%
87
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 50
+0%
50
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 22
+0%
22
+0%

This is how HD 8470D and GTX 1660 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1660 is 562% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1660 is 5100% faster in 1440p

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

  • in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 1660 is 13200% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GTX 1660 is ahead in 42 tests (65%)
  • there's a draw in 23 tests (35%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.95 29.63
Recency 29 July 2013 14 March 2019
Chip lithography 32 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 120 Watt

HD 8470D has 84.6% lower power consumption.

GTX 1660, on the other hand, has a 3018.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, and a 166.7% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce GTX 1660 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 8470D in performance tests.

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 HD 8470D
Radeon HD 8470D
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660
GeForce GTX 1660

Other comparisons

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.


3.1 122 votes

Rate Radeon HD 8470D on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 5591 vote

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon HD 8470D or GeForce GTX 1660, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.