GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design
VS
Radeon Pro W5500

GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design vs Radeon Pro W5500

NVIDIA

GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design

2019Core: 1140 MHzBoost: 1335 MHz
VS
AMD

Radeon Pro W5500

2020Core: 1187 MHzBoost: 1400 MHz

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. The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design is positioned at rank 96 and the Radeon Pro W5500 is on rank 69, so the Radeon Pro W5500 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design

#28
Radeon RX 6650M XT
MSRP: $400|Avg: $400
99%
#30
Radeon 8050S
MSRP: $400|Avg: $400
94%
#31
Radeon RX 8050S
MSRP: $400|Avg: $400
94%
#86
Radeon RX 550X (móvel)
MSRP: $35|Avg: $35
252%
#88
228%
#89
227%
#93
GeForce GTX 1050 (Mobile)
MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50
207%
#94
Radeon RX 6300
MSRP: $60|Avg: $40
205%
#96
100%
#97
GeForce GTX 760M
MSRP: N/A|Avg: $40
100%
#100
GeForce 945M
MSRP: N/A|Avg: $98
98%
#103
Radeon RX 460 (móvel)
MSRP: $99|Avg: $45
96%
#105
GeForce GTX 680M
MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50
95%
#106
Radeon HD 7470M
MSRP: N/A|Avg: $12
95%
#110
GeForce RTX 3050 4GB Mobile
MSRP: N/A|Avg: $150
93%
Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Per Dollar Radeon Pro W5500

#32
Radeon AI PRO R9700
MSRP: $1299|Avg: $1450
99%
#33
Radeon Pro Vega 64
MSRP: $599|Avg: $114
96%
#38
Radeon PRO W6600X
MSRP: $699|Avg: $699
84%
#41
Quadro RTX 3000 (móvel)
MSRP: $600|Avg: $600
81%
#42
Radeon Pro W5700
MSRP: $799|Avg: $300
81%
#43
Radeon Pro W5700X
MSRP: $999|Avg: $999
79%
#54
Tesla K20m
MSRP: $3199|Avg: $55
661%
#69
Radeon Pro W5500
MSRP: $399|Avg: $300
100%
#72
Quadro P2200
MSRP: $429|Avg: $227
98%
#73
T1000
MSRP: $350|Avg: $382
98%
#74
Quadro P620
MSRP: $170|Avg: $48
97%
#78
Radeon Pro 570
MSRP: $300|Avg: $100
95%
#80
T400
MSRP: $180|Avg: $179
90%
Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

The Radeon Pro W5500 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 3.8% higher G3D Mark score and 33.3% more VRAM (8 GB vs 6 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design.

InsightGeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q DesignRadeon Pro W5500
Performance
Lower raw frame rates (-3.8%)
Leading raw performance (+3.8%)
Longevity
Turing (2018−2022) (12nm)
RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) (7nm)
Ecosystem
Supports FSR Upscaling
Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM
🎮 High Capacity (6 GB)
🎮 High Capacity (8 GB)
Efficiency
💡 Excellent Perf/Watt
⚡ Higher Power Consumption
Case Fit
📏 Compact / SFF Friendly

💎 Value Proposition

While current pricing data is unavailable, the Radeon Pro W5500 remains the clear technical winner. Check real-time availability to determine if the performance gap justifies the market price.

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 Ti with Max-Q Design and Radeon Pro W5500

NVIDIA

GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design

The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in April 23 2019. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 1140 MHz to 1335 MHz. It has 1536 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 60W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 8,589 points. Launch price was $229.

AMD

Radeon Pro W5500

The Radeon Pro W5500 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in February 10 2020. It features the RDNA 1.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1187 MHz to 1400 MHz. It has 1408 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 125W. Manufactured using 7 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 8,913 points. Launch price was $399.

Graphics Performance

The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design scores 8,589 and the Radeon Pro W5500 reaches 8,913 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 3.8% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design is built on Turing while the Radeon Pro W5500 uses RDNA 1.0, both on 12 nm vs 7 nm. Shader units: 1,536 (GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design) vs 1,408 (Radeon Pro W5500). Raw compute: 4.101 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design) vs 3.942 TFLOPS (Radeon Pro W5500). Boost clocks: 1335 MHz vs 1400 MHz.

FeatureGeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q DesignRadeon Pro W5500
G3D Mark Score
8,589
8,913+4%
Architecture
Turing
RDNA 1.0
Process Node
12 nm
7 nm
Shading Units
1536+9%
1408
Compute (TFLOPS)
4.101 TFLOPS+4%
3.942 TFLOPS
Boost Clock
1335 MHz
1400 MHz+5%
ROPs
48+50%
32
TMUs
96+9%
88
L2 Cache
1.5 MB
2 MB+33%

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

FeatureGeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q DesignRadeon Pro W5500
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 Ti with Max-Q Design comes with 6 GB of VRAM, while the Radeon Pro W5500 has 8 GB. The Radeon Pro W5500 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 Ti with Max-Q Design) vs 2 MB (Radeon Pro W5500) — the Radeon Pro W5500 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

FeatureGeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q DesignRadeon Pro W5500
VRAM Capacity
6 GB
8 GB+33%
Memory Type
GDDR6
GDDR6
Bus Width
192-bit+50%
128-bit
L2 Cache
1.5 MB
2 MB+33%
🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (12_1) (GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design) vs 12.1 (Radeon Pro W5500). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.2. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 4.

FeatureGeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q DesignRadeon Pro W5500
DirectX
12 (12_1)
12.1
Vulkan
1.4+17%
1.2
OpenGL
4.6
4.6
Max Displays
4
4
🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: 7th Gen NVENC (GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design) vs VCN 2.0 (Radeon Pro W5500). Decoder: 4th Gen NVDEC vs VCN 2.0. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9,MPEG-2,VC-1 (GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design) vs HEVC,H.264,VP9 (Radeon Pro W5500).

FeatureGeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q DesignRadeon Pro W5500
Encoder
7th Gen NVENC
VCN 2.0
Decoder
4th Gen NVDEC
VCN 2.0
Codecs
H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9,MPEG-2,VC-1
HEVC,H.264,VP9
🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design draws 60W versus the Radeon Pro W5500's 125W — a 70.3% difference. The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 500W (GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design) vs 500W (Radeon Pro W5500). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Typical load temperature: 85°C vs 75°C.

FeatureGeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q DesignRadeon Pro W5500
TDP
60W-52%
125W
Recommended PSU
500W
500W
Power Connector
PCIe-powered
PCIe-powered
Length
241mm
Height
111mm
Slots
0-100%
1
Temp (Load)
85°C
75°C-12%
Perf/Watt
143.2+101%
71.3
💰

Value Analysis

The Radeon Pro W5500 is the newer GPU (2020 vs 2019).

FeatureGeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q DesignRadeon Pro W5500
MSRP
$399
Avg Price (30d)
$300
Codename
TU116
Navi 14
Release
April 23 2019
February 10 2020
Ranking
#299
#294