GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q vs Radeon Pro 555X

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon Pro 555X with GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q, including specs and performance data.

Pro 555X
2018
4 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
8.39

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q outperforms Pro 555X by a whopping 172% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking501243
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data68.65
Power efficiency7.8026.56
ArchitectureGCN 4.0 (2016−2020)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code namePolaris 21TU116
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date16 July 2018 (6 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 cores7681536
Core clock speed907 MHz1140 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1335 MHz
Number of transistors3,000 million6,600 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt60 Watt
Texture fill rate43.54128.2
Floating-point processing power1.393 TFLOPS4.101 TFLOPS
ROPs1648
TMUs4896

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
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8PCIe 3.0 x16
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 amount4 GB6 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit192 Bit
Memory clock speed1275 MHz1500 MHz
Memory bandwidth81.6 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

Supported technologies

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

FreeSync+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.46.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan1.2.1311.2.131
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.

Pro 555X 8.39
GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 22.85
+172%

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.

Pro 555X 3235
GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 8814
+172%

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 HD27−30
−185%
77
+185%
4K12−14
−183%
34
+183%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data2.97
4Kno data6.74

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
−185%
35−40
+185%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
−167%
56
+167%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
−225%
35−40
+225%
Battlefield 5 24−27
−252%
88
+252%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 16−18
−312%
70
+312%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
−185%
35−40
+185%
Far Cry 5 18−20
−384%
92
+384%
Far Cry New Dawn 21−24
−161%
60−65
+161%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
−145%
130−140
+145%
Hitman 3 16−18
−181%
45−50
+181%
Horizon Zero Dawn 45−50
−123%
100−110
+123%
Metro Exodus 24−27
−380%
120
+380%
Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
−300%
92
+300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30
−175%
75−80
+175%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
−69%
95−100
+69%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
−138%
50−55
+138%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
−225%
35−40
+225%
Battlefield 5 24−27
−236%
84
+236%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 16−18
−288%
66
+288%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
−185%
35−40
+185%
Far Cry 5 18−20
−305%
77
+305%
Far Cry New Dawn 21−24
−161%
60−65
+161%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
−145%
130−140
+145%
Hitman 3 16−18
−181%
45−50
+181%
Horizon Zero Dawn 45−50
−123%
100−110
+123%
Metro Exodus 24−27
−280%
95
+280%
Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
−222%
74
+222%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30
−175%
75−80
+175%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
−108%
50−55
+108%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
−69%
95−100
+69%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
−100%
42
+100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
−225%
35−40
+225%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 16−18
−194%
50
+194%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
−185%
35−40
+185%
Far Cry 5 18−20
−184%
54
+184%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
−145%
130−140
+145%
Hitman 3 16−18
−181%
45−50
+181%
Horizon Zero Dawn 45−50
−64.6%
79
+64.6%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30
−175%
75−80
+175%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
−113%
51
+113%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
−69%
95−100
+69%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
−213%
72
+213%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
−169%
40−45
+169%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
−169%
35−40
+169%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
−200%
24−27
+200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
−450%
21−24
+450%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
−225%
24−27
+225%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−250%
14−16
+250%
Far Cry 5 10−11
−160%
24−27
+160%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
−282%
130−140
+282%
Hitman 3 12−14
−125%
27−30
+125%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
−161%
45−50
+161%
Metro Exodus 10−12
−291%
40−45
+291%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−513%
45−50
+513%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
−238%
27−30
+238%
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55
−147%
130−140
+147%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
−171%
35−40
+171%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 7−8
−214%
21−24
+214%
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7
−200%
18−20
+200%
Hitman 3 4−5
−350%
18−20
+350%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
−269%
110−120
+269%
Metro Exodus 6−7
−317%
24−27
+317%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
−520%
31
+520%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−180%
14−16
+180%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
−200%
12−14
+200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−225%
12−14
+225%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%
Far Cry 5 4−5
−225%
12−14
+225%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
−210%
30−35
+210%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
−575%
27−30
+575%
Watch Dogs: Legion 3−4
−233%
10−11
+233%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
−150%
20−22
+150%

This is how Pro 555X and GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is 185% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is 183% faster in 4K

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

  • in Shadow of the Tomb Raider, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is 575% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q surpassed Pro 555X in all 72 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.39 22.85
Recency 16 July 2018 23 April 2019
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 6 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 60 Watt

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q has a 172.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 months, a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 16.7% more advanced lithography process, and 25% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro 555X in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon Pro 555X is a mobile workstation card while GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 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.


AMD Radeon Pro 555X
Radeon Pro 555X
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.


3.8 166 votes

Rate Radeon Pro 555X 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.