Component comparison
GeForce MX450 vs GeForce GTX 1660 Ti
GeForce MX450 vs GeForce GTX 1660 Ti — detailed GPU comparison: performance, gaming FPS, specifications.
Advantages
A
GeForce MX450
- + Release year (+1)
- + Die size (mm²) (+84 mm²)
- + Energy efficiency (+2.7)
B
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti
- + VRAM (GB) (+4 GB)
- + Memory clock (MHz) (+250 MHz)
- + Bandwidth (GB/s) (+208 GB/s)
- + Memory bus (bit) (+128 bit)
- + TGP / TDP (W) (+55 W)
- + Transistors (M) (+1,900M)
- + CUDA cores (+640)
- + TMUs (+32)
- + ROPs (+16)
- + FP32 performance (TFLOPS) (+0.88 TFLOPS)
- + Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) (+34.56 GPixel/s)
- + Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) (+81.70 GTexel/s)
- + PassMark (overall) (+8904)
- + 3DMark Time Spy (+3759)
- + 3DMark Fire Strike (+10093)
- + Geekbench OpenCL (+32370)
- + Geekbench Vulkan (+30809)
- + Normalized score (+19.0)
Detailed spec comparison
| Spec |
Component A
GeForce MX450
|
Component B
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti
|
|---|---|---|
| Release year | 2020 (+1) | 2019 |
| VRAM (GB) | 2 GB | 6 GB (+4 GB) |
| Memory type | GDDR5, GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Memory clock (MHz) | 1250 MHz | 1500 MHz (+250 MHz) |
| Bandwidth (GB/s) | 80 GB/s | 288 GB/s (+208 GB/s) |
| Memory bus (bit) | 64 bit | 192 bit (+128 bit) |
| TGP / TDP (W) | 25 W | 80 W (+55 W) |
| Lithography (nm) | 12 nm | 12 nm |
| Transistors (M) | 4,700M | 6,600M (+1,900M) |
| Die size (mm²) | 200 mm² (+84 mm²) | 284 mm² |
| Base clock (MHz) | 1395 MHz | — |
| Boost clock (MHz) | 1575 MHz | — |
| CUDA cores | 896 | 1,536 (+640) |
| TMUs | 64 | 96 (+32) |
| ROPs | 32 | 48 (+16) |
| RT cores | — | — |
| Tensor cores | — | — |
| FP32 performance (TFLOPS) | 3.23 TFLOPS | 4.10 TFLOPS (+0.88 TFLOPS) |
| Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) | 50.40 GPixel/s | 84.96 GPixel/s (+34.56 GPixel/s) |
| Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) | 88.20 GTexel/s | 169.90 GTexel/s (+81.70 GTexel/s) |
| Energy efficiency | 27.6 (+2.7) | 24.9 |
| PassMark (overall) | 3,714 | 12,618 (+8904) |
| 3DMark Time Spy | 1,900 | 5,659 (+3759) |
| 3DMark Fire Strike | 4,725 | 14,818 (+10093) |
| Geekbench OpenCL | 28,541 | 60,911 (+32370) |
| Geekbench Vulkan | 27,321 | 58,130 (+30809) |
| Normalized score | 44.7 | 63.7 (+19.0) |
In both
CUDA
FPS in games (1080p)
| Game | GeForce MX450 | GeForce GTX 1660 Ti | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| Battlefield 5 | 49 FPS | 111 FPS | 126.5% (B) |
| CS:GO | 240 FPS | 240 FPS | ≈ |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 88 FPS | 147 FPS | 67% (B) |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 32 FPS | 86 FPS | 168.8% (B) |
| Dota 2 | 88 FPS | 121 FPS | 37.5% (B) |
| Far Cry 5 | 34 FPS | 93 FPS | 173.5% (B) |
| Fortnite | 61 FPS | 120 FPS | 96.7% (B) |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35 FPS | 134 FPS | 282.9% (B) |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 34 FPS | 107 FPS | 214.7% (B) |
| GTA V | 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
| Metro Exodus | 10 FPS | 54 FPS | 440% (B) |
| Overwatch | 240 FPS | 240 FPS | ≈ |
| PUBG | 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 16 FPS | 75 FPS | 368.8% (B) |
| The Witcher 3 | 33 FPS | 103 FPS | 212.1% (B) |
| Valorant | 85 FPS | 209 FPS | 145.9% (B) |
Specs from public sources (PassMark, Geekbench). FPS measured at 1080p medium settings.
Based on the comparison:
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti wins 18 of the comparable criteria.
The choice depends on your use case.
🤔 How to choose
Universal advice for any use case.
- Reliability vs price: reliability (median 50) ↔ price (median 385.1).
- Weight vs CPU: mobility (median 48) ↔ overall performance (median 49.8).
- Upgradeability vs battery: upgradability (median 50) ↔ battery life (median 2.8).