GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile vs Radeon Pro WX 8200

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon Pro WX 8200 with GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile, including specs and performance data.

Pro WX 8200
2018
8 GB HBM2, 230 Watt
35.05
+20.9%

Pro WX 8200 outperforms GTX 1660 Ti Mobile by a significant 21% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking143190
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation25.41100.00
Power efficiency10.6025.20
ArchitectureGCN 5.0 (2017−2020)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameVega 10TU116
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date13 August 2018 (6 years ago)23 April 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$999 $229

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 1660 Ti Mobile has 294% better value for money than Pro WX 8200.

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 cores35841536
Core clock speed1200 MHz1455 MHz
Boost clock speed1500 MHz1590 MHz
Number of transistors12,500 million6,600 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)230 Watt80 Watt
Texture fill rate336.0152.6
Floating-point processing power10.75 TFLOPS4.884 TFLOPS
ROPs6448
TMUs22496

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
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length267 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pinno data

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 typeHBM2GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount8 GB6 GB
Memory bus width2048 Bit192 Bit
Memory clock speed1000 MHz1500 MHz
Memory bandwidth512.0 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 Connectors4x mini-DisplayPortNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.46.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan1.1.1251.2.131
CUDA-7.5

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 HD100−110
+16.3%
86
−16.3%
1440p65−70
+16.1%
56
−16.1%
4K40−45
+11.1%
36
−11.1%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 86
+0%
86
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 80
+0%
80
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 66
+0%
66
+0%
Battlefield 5 129
+0%
129
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 82
+0%
82
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 68
+0%
68
+0%
Far Cry 5 98
+0%
98
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 102
+0%
102
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 304
+0%
304
+0%
Hitman 3 77
+0%
77
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 209
+0%
209
+0%
Metro Exodus 126
+0%
126
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 99
+0%
99
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 155
+0%
155
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 225
+0%
225
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 125
+0%
125
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 49
+0%
49
+0%
Battlefield 5 109
+0%
109
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 73
+0%
73
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 54
+0%
54
+0%
Far Cry 5 77
+0%
77
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 70
+0%
70
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 256
+0%
256
+0%
Hitman 3 74
+0%
74
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 207
+0%
207
+0%
Metro Exodus 104
+0%
104
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 83
+0%
83
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 118
+0%
118
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 214
+0%
214
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 53
+0%
53
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 42
+0%
42
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 53
+0%
53
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 52
+0%
52
+0%
Far Cry 5 57
+0%
57
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 99
+0%
99
+0%
Hitman 3 63
+0%
63
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 90
+0%
90
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 101
+0%
101
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 55
+0%
55
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 33
+0%
33
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 80
+0%
80
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 66
+0%
66
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 46
+0%
46
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 36
+0%
36
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 32
+0%
32
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 38
+0%
38
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 25
+0%
25
+0%
Far Cry 5 36
+0%
36
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 182
+0%
182
+0%
Hitman 3 41
+0%
41
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 65
+0%
65
+0%
Metro Exodus 60
+0%
60
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 203
+0%
203
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 56
+0%
56
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 31
+0%
31
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 25
+0%
25
+0%
Hitman 3 25
+0%
25
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 76
+0%
76
+0%
Metro Exodus 41
+0%
41
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35
+0%
35
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 22
+0%
22
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 13
+0%
13
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 19
+0%
19
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10
+0%
10
+0%
Far Cry 5 18
+0%
18
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 13
+0%
13
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 27
+0%
27
+0%

This is how Pro WX 8200 and GTX 1660 Ti Mobile compete in popular games:

  • Pro WX 8200 is 16% faster in 1080p
  • Pro WX 8200 is 16% faster in 1440p
  • Pro WX 8200 is 11% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 35.05 28.99
Recency 13 August 2018 23 April 2019
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 6 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 230 Watt 80 Watt

Pro WX 8200 has a 20.9% higher aggregate performance score, and a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount.

GTX 1660 Ti Mobile, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 8 months, a 16.7% more advanced lithography process, and 187.5% lower power consumption.

The Radeon Pro WX 8200 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon Pro WX 8200 is a workstation card while GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is a notebook 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 WX 8200
Radeon Pro WX 8200
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile

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.


4.1 27 votes

Rate Radeon Pro WX 8200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.3 1541 vote

Rate GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile 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.