GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q vs Radeon Vega Frontier Edition

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon Vega Frontier Edition with GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q, including specs and performance data.

Vega Frontier Edition
2017
16 GB HBM2, 300 Watt
33.85
+47.9%

Vega Frontier Edition outperforms GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q by a considerable 48% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking156246
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation19.2169.02
Power efficiency7.7326.13
ArchitectureGCN 5.0 (2017−2020)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameVega 10TU116
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date27 June 2017 (7 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 Max-Q has 259% better value for money than Vega Frontier Edition.

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 cores40961536
Core clock speed1382 MHz1140 MHz
Boost clock speed1600 MHz1335 MHz
Number of transistors12,500 million6,600 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)300 Watt60 Watt
Texture fill rate409.6128.2
Floating-point processing power13.11 TFLOPS4.101 TFLOPS
ROPs6448
TMUs25696

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 connectors2x 8-pinNone

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 amount16 GB6 GB
Memory bus width2048 Bit192 Bit
Memory clock speed945 MHz1500 MHz
Memory bandwidth483.8 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 Connectors1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPortNo outputs
HDMI+-

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

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.

Vega Frontier Edition 33.85
+47.9%
GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 22.88

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.

Vega Frontier Edition 13039
+47.9%
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 HD110−120
+41%
78
−41%
4K45−50
+45.2%
31
−45.2%

Cost per frame, $

1080p9.082.94
4K22.207.39

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 56
+0%
56
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Battlefield 5 88
+0%
88
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 70
+0%
70
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Far Cry 5 92
+0%
92
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Hitman 3 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Metro Exodus 120
+0%
120
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 92
+0%
92
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Battlefield 5 84
+0%
84
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 66
+0%
66
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Far Cry 5 77
+0%
77
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Hitman 3 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Metro Exodus 95
+0%
95
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 74
+0%
74
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 42
+0%
42
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 50
+0%
50
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Far Cry 5 54
+0%
54
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Hitman 3 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 79
+0%
79
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 51
+0%
51
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 72
+0%
72
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Hitman 3 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Hitman 3 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 31
+0%
31
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%

This is how Vega Frontier Edition and GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q compete in popular games:

  • Vega Frontier Edition is 41% faster in 1080p
  • Vega Frontier Edition is 45% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 33.85 22.88
Recency 27 June 2017 23 April 2019
Maximum RAM amount 16 GB 6 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 300 Watt 60 Watt

Vega Frontier Edition has a 47.9% higher aggregate performance score, and a 166.7% higher maximum VRAM amount.

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 16.7% more advanced lithography process, and 400% lower power consumption.

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

Be aware that Radeon Vega Frontier Edition 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.

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 Vega Frontier Edition
Radeon Vega Frontier Edition
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.


3.7 25 votes

Rate Radeon Vega Frontier Edition on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.4 539 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.