GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q vs Radeon Pro W5700

Place in the ranking	120	248
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	46.69	69.08
Power efficiency	12.96	26.36
Architecture	RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	Navi 10	TU116
Market segment	Workstation	Laptop
Release date	19 November 2019 (5 years ago)	23 April 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$799	$229

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q has 48% 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	1536
Core clock speed	1243 MHz	1140 MHz
Boost clock speed	1930 MHz	1335 MHz
Number of transistors	10,300 million	6,600 million
Manufacturing process technology	7 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	205 Watt	60 Watt
Texture fill rate	277.9	128.2
Floating-point processing power	8.893 TFLOPS	4.101 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	48
TMUs	144	96

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	no data	medium sized
Interface	PCIe 4.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	305 mm	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin	None

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	1500 MHz
Memory bandwidth	448.0 GB/s	288.0 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

No outputs

API 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.

Pro W5700 38.53
+68%

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 22.93

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 W5700 14808
+68%

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 8814

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	130−140 +66.7%	78 −66.7%
4K	55−60 +61.8%	34 −61.8%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	6.15 −109%	2.94 +109%
4K	14.53 −116%	6.74 +116%

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q has 109% lower cost per frame in 1080p
GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q has 116% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	95−100 +0%	95−100 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Metro Exodus	81 +0%	81 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	92 +0%	92 +0%
Valorant	102 +0%	102 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	85 +0%	85 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Dota 2	89 +0%	89 +0%
Far Cry 5	62 +0%	62 +0%
Fortnite	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	95−100 +0%	95−100 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	87 +0%	87 +0%
Metro Exodus	57 +0%	57 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	172 +0%	172 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	38 +0%	38 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%
Valorant	63 +0%	63 +0%
World of Tanks	240−250 +0%	240−250 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Dota 2	86 +0%	86 +0%
Far Cry 5	117 +0%	117 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	95−100 +0%	95−100 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	140−150 +0%	140−150 +0%
Valorant	93 +0%	93 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +0%	170−180 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
World of Tanks	150−160 +0%	150−160 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Far Cry 5	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Metro Exodus	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Valorant	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Dota 2	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Metro Exodus	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Dota 2	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Far Cry 5	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Fortnite	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Valorant	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%

This is how Pro W5700 and GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q compete in popular games:

Pro W5700 is 67% faster in 1080p
Pro W5700 is 62% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	38.53	22.93
Recency	19 November 2019	23 April 2019
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	6 GB
Chip lithography	7 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	205 Watt	60 Watt

Pro W5700 has a 68% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 months, a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 71.4% more advanced lithography process.

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q, on the other hand, has 241.7% lower power consumption.

The Radeon Pro W5700 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon Pro W5700 is a workstation card while GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is a notebook one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.