GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER vs Radeon Pro WX 8200
GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER
Popular choices:
Radeon Pro WX 8200
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Per Dollar Radeon Pro WX 8200
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.6% higher G3D Mark score. However, the Radeon Pro WX 8200 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER | Radeon Pro WX 8200 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.6%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.6%) |
| Longevity | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2018 / GCN 5.0 (2017−2020)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | 🎮 High Capacity (6 GB) | ✅ More VRAM (+33.3%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | Standard Size (267mm) |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $110 versus $350 for the Radeon Pro WX 8200, it costs 69% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 220.1% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER | Radeon Pro WX 8200 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+220.1%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($110) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($350) |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER and Radeon Pro WX 8200
GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER
The GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in October 29 2019. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 1530 MHz to 1785 MHz. It has 1408 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 125W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 12,692 points. Launch price was $229.
Radeon Pro WX 8200
The Radeon Pro WX 8200 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in August 13 2018. It features the GCN 5.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1200 MHz to 1500 MHz. It has 3584 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 230W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 12,615 points. Launch price was $999.
Graphics Performance
The GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER scores 12,692 and the Radeon Pro WX 8200 reaches 12,615 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.6% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is built on Turing while the Radeon Pro WX 8200 uses GCN 5.0, both on 12 nm vs 14 nm. Shader units: 1,408 (GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER) vs 3,584 (Radeon Pro WX 8200). Raw compute: 5.027 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER) vs 10.75 TFLOPS (Radeon Pro WX 8200). Boost clocks: 1785 MHz vs 1500 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER | Radeon Pro WX 8200 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 12,692 | 12,615 |
| Architecture | Turing | GCN 5.0 |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 14 nm |
| Shading Units | 1408 | 3584+155% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 5.027 TFLOPS | 10.75 TFLOPS+114% |
| Boost Clock | 1785 MHz+19% | 1500 MHz |
| ROPs | 48 | 64+33% |
| TMUs | 88 | 224+155% |
| L1 Cache | 1.4 MB+59% | 0.88 MB |
| L2 Cache | 1.5 MB | 4 MB+167% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER | Radeon Pro WX 8200 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | FSR 3 (Compatible) | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | AMD Anti-Lag |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER comes with 6 GB of VRAM, while the Radeon Pro WX 8200 has 8 GB. The Radeon Pro WX 8200 offers 33.3% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 192-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 1.5 MB (GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER) vs 4 MB (Radeon Pro WX 8200) — the Radeon Pro WX 8200 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER | Radeon Pro WX 8200 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 6 GB | 8 GB+33% |
| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Bus Width | 192-bit+50% | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1.5 MB | 4 MB+167% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (12_1) (GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER) vs 12.1 (Radeon Pro WX 8200). Vulkan: 1.3 vs 1.1. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER | Radeon Pro WX 8200 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.3+18% | 1.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 4+33% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC (Turing) (GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER) vs VCE 4.0 (Radeon Pro WX 8200). Decoder: NVDEC (Turing) vs UVD 7.0. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265,VP9,AV1 (GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER) vs MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9 (Radeon Pro WX 8200).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER | Radeon Pro WX 8200 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC (Turing) | VCE 4.0 |
| Decoder | NVDEC (Turing) | UVD 7.0 |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265,VP9,AV1 | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER draws 125W versus the Radeon Pro WX 8200's 230W — a 59.2% difference. The GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 450W (GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER) vs 500W (Radeon Pro WX 8200). Power connectors: 8-pin vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 229mm vs 267mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 75 vs 80°C.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER | Radeon Pro WX 8200 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 125W-46% | 230W |
| Recommended PSU | 450W-10% | 500W |
| Power Connector | 8-pin | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 229mm | 267mm |
| Height | 111mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 2 | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 75-6% | 80°C |
| Perf/Watt | 101.5+85% | 54.8 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER launched at $229 MSRP and currently averages $110, while the Radeon Pro WX 8200 launched at $999 and now averages $350. The GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER costs 68.6% less ($240 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 115.4 (GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER) vs 36.0 (Radeon Pro WX 8200) — the GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER offers 220.6% better value. The GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2018).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER | Radeon Pro WX 8200 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $229-77% | $999 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $110-69% | $350 |
| Performance per Dollar | 115.4+221% | 36.0 |
| Codename | TU116 | Vega 10 |
| Release | October 29 2019 | August 13 2018 |
| Ranking | #207 | #210 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER and Radeon Pro WX 8200
