GeForce GTX 1660 vs Radeon RX Vega 64
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega 64 and GeForce GTX 1660, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RX Vega 64 outperforms GTX 1660 by a significant 22% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 140 | 201 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 50 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 18.81 | 42.39 |
| Power efficiency | 8.55 | 17.27 |
| Architecture | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | Vega 10 | TU116 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 7 August 2017 (7 years ago) | 14 March 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $499 | $219 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
GTX 1660 has 125% better value for money than RX Vega 64.
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 | 4096 | 1408 |
| Core clock speed | 1247 MHz | 1530 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1546 MHz | 1785 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 12,500 million | 6,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 295 Watt | 120 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 395.8 | 157.1 |
| Floating-point processing power | 12.66 TFLOPS | 5.027 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 48 |
| TMUs | 256 | 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 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 279 mm | 229 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 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 | HBM2 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 2048 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 945 MHz | 2001 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 483.8 GB/s | 192.1 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 Connectors | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | + | + |
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 | 6.4 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.125 | 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.
- Other tests
- Passmark
- 3DMark 11 Performance GPU
- 3DMark Vantage Performance
- 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
- 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
- 3DMark Ice Storm GPU
- SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 maya-04
- SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 sw-03
- SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 snx-02
- SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 catia-04
- SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 creo-01
- SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 mediacal-01
- SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 showcase-01
- SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 energy-01
- SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 3dsmax-05
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
3DMark Ice Storm GPU
Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 maya-04
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 sw-03
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 snx-02
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 catia-04
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 creo-01
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 mediacal-01
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 showcase-01
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 energy-01
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 3dsmax-05
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 | 116
+39.8%
| 83
−39.8%
|
| 1440p | 76
+52%
| 50
−52%
|
| 4K | 50
+85.2%
| 27
−85.2%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.30
−63%
| 2.64
+63%
|
| 1440p | 6.57
−49.9%
| 4.38
+49.9%
|
| 4K | 9.98
−23%
| 8.11
+23%
|
- GTX 1660 has 63% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GTX 1660 has 50% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- GTX 1660 has 23% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
- Full HD
Low Preset - Full HD
Medium Preset - Full HD
High Preset - Full HD
Ultra Preset - Full HD
Epic Preset - 1440p
High Preset - 1440p
Ultra Preset - 1440p
Epic Preset - 4K
High Preset - 4K
Ultra Preset - 4K
Epic Preset
| Atomic Heart | 100−110
−9.9%
|
111
+9.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 190−200
−38.3%
|
271
+38.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+9.9%
|
71
−9.9%
|
| Atomic Heart | 100−110
+21.7%
|
83
−21.7%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 161
+50.5%
|
100−110
−50.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 190−200
−13.8%
|
223
+13.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+34.5%
|
58
−34.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 110
+10%
|
100
−10%
|
| Fortnite | 150−160
+14.3%
|
130−140
−14.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 167
+26.5%
|
132
−26.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 100−110
+7%
|
100
−7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+22.3%
|
110−120
−22.3%
|
| Valorant | 315
+2.9%
|
306
−2.9%
|
| Atomic Heart | 100−110
+106%
|
49
−106%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 146
+36.4%
|
100−110
−36.4%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 190−200
+83.2%
|
107
−83.2%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+2.6%
|
270−280
−2.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+66%
|
47
−66%
|
| Dota 2 | 150
−46%
|
219
+46%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 104
+13%
|
92
−13%
|
| Fortnite | 150−160
+14.3%
|
130−140
−14.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 158
+28.5%
|
123
−28.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 100−110
+21.6%
|
88
−21.6%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 110−120
+1.7%
|
115
−1.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 73
+28.1%
|
57
−28.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+22.3%
|
110−120
−22.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 132
+29.4%
|
102
−29.4%
|
| Valorant | 293
+2.1%
|
287
−2.1%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 139
+29.9%
|
100−110
−29.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+95%
|
40
−95%
|
| Dota 2 | 138
−42.8%
|
197
+42.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 98
+14%
|
86
−14%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 128
+30.6%
|
98
−30.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+22.3%
|
110−120
−22.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 77
+35.1%
|
57
−35.1%
|
| Valorant | 140
+21.7%
|
115
−21.7%
|
| Fortnite | 150−160
+14.3%
|
130−140
−14.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
+37.1%
|
62
−37.1%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 230−240
+19.8%
|
190−200
−19.8%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 65−70
+30.8%
|
52
−30.8%
|
| Metro Exodus | 46
+39.4%
|
33
−39.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+35.7%
|
129
−35.7%
|
| Valorant | 263
+16.4%
|
226
−16.4%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+16.9%
|
75−80
−16.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+58.3%
|
24
−58.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 81
+37.3%
|
59
−37.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 98
+28.9%
|
76
−28.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 60−65
+28.6%
|
45−50
−28.6%
|
| Fortnite | 85−90
+25.7%
|
70−75
−25.7%
|
| Atomic Heart | 27−30
+22.7%
|
21−24
−22.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+144%
|
16
−144%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 70−75
+44.9%
|
49
−44.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 46
+130%
|
20
−130%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 48
+37.1%
|
35
−37.1%
|
| Valorant | 205
+64%
|
125
−64%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 59
+34.1%
|
40−45
−34.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+30%
|
30−33
−30%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+70%
|
10
−70%
|
| Dota 2 | 96
+10.3%
|
87
−10.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 44
+46.7%
|
30
−46.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 66
+32%
|
50
−32%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+34.4%
|
30−35
−34.4%
|
| Fortnite | 40−45
+30.3%
|
30−35
−30.3%
|
This is how RX Vega 64 and GTX 1660 compete in popular games:
- RX Vega 64 is 40% faster in 1080p
- RX Vega 64 is 52% faster in 1440p
- RX Vega 64 is 85% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the RX Vega 64 is 144% faster.
- in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 1660 is 46% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX Vega 64 is ahead in 58 tests (92%)
- GTX 1660 is ahead in 5 tests (8%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 31.74 | 26.08 |
| Recency | 7 August 2017 | 14 March 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 295 Watt | 120 Watt |
RX Vega 64 has a 21.7% higher aggregate performance score, and a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount.
GTX 1660, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 16.7% more advanced lithography process, and 145.8% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX Vega 64 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 1660 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
