GeForce GTX 1660 Super vs Radeon Pro W5700
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro W5700 with GeForce GTX 1660 Super, including specs and performance data.
Pro W5700 outperforms GTX 1660 Super by a moderate 16% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 124 | 167 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 7 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 46.21 | 56.22 |
| Power efficiency | 12.90 | 18.19 |
| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | Navi 10 | TU116 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 19 November 2019 (5 years ago) | 29 October 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $799 | $229 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
GTX 1660 Super has 22% better value for money than Pro W5700.
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 | 2304 | 1408 |
| Core clock speed | 1243 MHz | 1530 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1930 MHz | 1785 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 10,300 million | 6,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 205 Watt | 125 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 277.9 | 157.1 |
| Floating-point processing power | 8.893 TFLOPS | 5.027 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 48 |
| TMUs | 144 | 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).
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 305 mm | 229 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 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 | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 448.0 GB/s | 336.0 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 Connectors | 5x mini-DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | - | + |
| HDCP | - | + |
| G-SYNC support | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| NVENC | - | + |
| Ansel | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 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. 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.
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 | 100−110
+9.9%
| 91
−9.9%
|
| 1440p | 65−70
+16.1%
| 56
−16.1%
|
| 4K | 30−35
+0%
| 30
+0%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 7.99
−218%
| 2.52
+218%
|
| 1440p | 12.29
−201%
| 4.09
+201%
|
| 4K | 26.63
−249%
| 7.63
+249%
|
- GTX 1660 Super has 218% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GTX 1660 Super has 201% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- GTX 1660 Super has 249% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 90
+0%
|
90
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 76
+0%
|
76
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 92
+0%
|
92
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 62
+0%
|
62
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 59
+0%
|
59
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 163
+0%
|
163
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 96
+0%
|
96
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 108
+0%
|
108
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 80
+0%
|
80
+0%
|
| Valorant | 143
+0%
|
143
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 52
+0%
|
52
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 49
+0%
|
49
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 166
+0%
|
166
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 147
+0%
|
147
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 129
+0%
|
129
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 67
+0%
|
67
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 133
+0%
|
133
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 73
+0%
|
73
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 233
+0%
|
233
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 43
+0%
|
43
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Valorant | 77
+0%
|
77
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 79
+0%
|
79
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 48
+0%
|
48
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 44
+0%
|
44
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 211
+0%
|
211
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 112
+0%
|
112
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 67
+0%
|
67
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Valorant | 122
+0%
|
122
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 62
+0%
|
62
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 62
+0%
|
62
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 162
+0%
|
162
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 27
+0%
|
27
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 56
+0%
|
56
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 25
+0%
|
25
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80
+0%
|
80
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 67
+0%
|
67
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Valorant | 73
+0%
|
73
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 60
+0%
|
60
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 60
+0%
|
60
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 22
+0%
|
22
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 101
+0%
|
101
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 60
+0%
|
60
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 29
+0%
|
29
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6
+0%
|
6
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 11
+0%
|
11
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 95
+0%
|
95
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 44
+0%
|
44
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 22
+0%
|
22
+0%
|
| Valorant | 34
+0%
|
34
+0%
|
This is how Pro W5700 and GTX 1660 Super compete in popular games:
- Pro W5700 is 10% faster in 1080p
- Pro W5700 is 16% faster in 1440p
- A tie in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 36.93 | 31.75 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 205 Watt | 125 Watt |
Pro W5700 has a 16.3% higher aggregate performance score, a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 71.4% more advanced lithography process.
GTX 1660 Super, on the other hand, has 64% lower power consumption.
The Radeon Pro W5700 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 1660 Super in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon Pro W5700 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce GTX 1660 Super is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
