Radeon R9 Fury vs GeForce GTX 1660 Super

Place in the ranking	164	223
Place by popularity	9	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	57.14	8.04
Power efficiency	18.25	6.22
Architecture	Turing (2018−2022)	GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)
GPU code name	TU116	Fiji
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Release date	29 October 2019 (5 years ago)	10 July 2015 (9 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$229	$549

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 1660 Super has 611% better value for money than R9 Fury.

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	1408	3584
Compute units	no data	56
Core clock speed	1530 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	1785 MHz	1000 MHz
Number of transistors	6,600 million	8,900 million
Manufacturing process technology	12 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	125 Watt	275 Watt
Texture fill rate	157.1	224.0
Floating-point processing power	5.027 TFLOPS	7.168 TFLOPS
ROPs	48	64
TMUs	88	224

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).

Bus support	no data	PCIe 3.0
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	229 mm	no data
Width	2-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1x 8-pin	2x 8-pin
Bridgeless CrossFire	-	+

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	GDDR6	High Bandwidth Memory (HBM)
High bandwidth memory (HBM)	no data	+
Maximum RAM amount	6 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	192 Bit	4096 Bit
Memory clock speed	1750 MHz	500 MHz
Memory bandwidth	336.0 GB/s	512 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 DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort	1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort
Eyefinity	-	+
Number of Eyefinity displays	no data	6
HDMI	+	+
HDCP	+	-
DisplayPort support	-	+
G-SYNC support	+	-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

AppAcceleration	-	+
CrossFire	-	+
FRTC	-	+
FreeSync	-	+
HD3D	-	+
LiquidVR	-	+
PowerTune	-	+
TressFX	-	+
TrueAudio	-	+
UVD	-	+
VCE	-	+
DDMA audio	no data	+
NVENC	+	-
Ansel	+	-

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12 (12_1)	DirectX® 12
Shader Model	6.5	6.3
OpenGL	4.6	4.5
OpenCL	1.2	2.0
Vulkan	1.2.131	+
Mantle	-	+
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.

GTX 1660 Super 33.13
+33.3%

R9 Fury 24.85

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.

GTX 1660 Super 12736
+33.3%

R9 Fury 9555

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.

GTX 1660 Super 21981
+25.3%

R9 Fury 17543

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.

GTX 1660 Super 76654
+82.3%

R9 Fury 42039

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.

GTX 1660 Super 15995
+9.7%

R9 Fury 14580

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.

GTX 1660 Super 95473
+18.7%

R9 Fury 80439

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	91 +2.2%	89 −2.2%
1440p	55 −76.4%	97 +76.4%
4K	30 −63.3%	49 +63.3%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	2.52 +145%	6.17 −145%
1440p	4.16 +35.9%	5.66 −35.9%
4K	7.63 +46.8%	11.20 −46.8%

GTX 1660 Super has 145% lower cost per frame in 1080p
GTX 1660 Super has 36% lower cost per frame in 1440p
GTX 1660 Super has 47% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	90 +95.7%	45−50 −95.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	76 +52%	50−55 −52%
Elden Ring	93 +14.8%	80−85 −14.8%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	92 +21.1%	75−80 −21.1%
Counter-Strike 2	62 +34.8%	45−50 −34.8%
Cyberpunk 2077	59 +18%	50−55 −18%
Forza Horizon 4	163 +49.5%	100−110 −49.5%
Metro Exodus	108 +66.2%	65−70 −66.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2	80 +48.1%	50−55 −48.1%
Valorant	143 +43%	100−105 −43%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	90−95 +23.7%	75−80 −23.7%
Counter-Strike 2	52 +13%	45−50 −13%
Cyberpunk 2077	49 −2%	50−55 +2%
Dota 2	166 +95.3%	85−90 −95.3%
Elden Ring	96 +18.5%	80−85 −18.5%
Far Cry 5	147 +93.4%	75−80 −93.4%
Fortnite	150−160 +22.4%	120−130 −22.4%
Forza Horizon 4	129 +18.3%	100−110 −18.3%
Grand Theft Auto V	133 +56.5%	85−90 −56.5%
Metro Exodus	73 +12.3%	65−70 −12.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	233 +49.4%	150−160 −49.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2	43 −25.6%	50−55 +25.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	110−120 +48.7%	76 −48.7%
Valorant	77 −29.9%	100−105 +29.9%
World of Tanks	270−280 +3.4%	268 −3.4%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	79 +3.9%	75−80 −3.9%
Counter-Strike 2	48 +4.3%	45−50 −4.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	44 −13.6%	50−55 +13.6%
Dota 2	211 +62.3%	130 −62.3%
Far Cry 5	85−90 −13.5%	101 +13.5%
Forza Horizon 4	112 +2.8%	100−110 −2.8%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	180−190 +19.2%	150−160 −19.2%
Valorant	122 +22%	100−105 −22%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	62 +47.6%	40−45 −47.6%
Elden Ring	56 +27.3%	40−45 −27.3%
Grand Theft Auto V	62 +47.6%	40−45 −47.6%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	162 −8%	170−180 +8%
Red Dead Redemption 2	27 +17.4%	21−24 −17.4%
World of Tanks	210−220 +34.2%	158 −34.2%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	56 +12%	50−55 −12%
Counter-Strike 2	29 +38.1%	21−24 −38.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	25 +19%	21−24 −19%
Far Cry 5	100−110 +45.8%	70−75 −45.8%
Forza Horizon 4	80 +21.2%	65−70 −21.2%
Metro Exodus	67 +17.5%	55−60 −17.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	50−55 +50%	35−40 −50%
Valorant	73 +9%	65−70 −9%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	16 −37.5%	21−24 +37.5%
Dota 2	60 +27.7%	47 −27.7%
Elden Ring	27 +35%	20−22 −35%
Grand Theft Auto V	60 +27.7%	47 −27.7%
Metro Exodus	22 +15.8%	18−20 −15.8%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	101 +32.9%	75−80 −32.9%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 +31.3%	16−18 −31.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	60 +27.7%	47 −27.7%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	29 +11.5%	24−27 −11.5%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +50%	21−24 −50%
Cyberpunk 2077	11 +37.5%	8−9 −37.5%
Dota 2	95 −7.4%	102 +7.4%
Far Cry 5	45−50 +21.1%	38 −21.1%
Fortnite	40−45 +25.7%	35 −25.7%
Forza Horizon 4	44 +15.8%	35−40 −15.8%
Valorant	34 +6.3%	30−35 −6.3%

4K
High Preset

World of Tanks

109

+0%

109

+0%

This is how GTX 1660 Super and R9 Fury compete in popular games:

GTX 1660 Super is 2% faster in 1080p
R9 Fury is 76% faster in 1440p
R9 Fury is 63% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the GTX 1660 Super is 96% faster.
in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the R9 Fury is 38% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GTX 1660 Super is ahead in 55 tests (86%)
R9 Fury is ahead in 8 tests (13%)
there's a draw in 1 test (2%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	33.13	24.85
Recency	29 October 2019	10 July 2015
Maximum RAM amount	6 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	12 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	125 Watt	275 Watt

GTX 1660 Super has a 33.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 120% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1660 Super is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 Fury in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.