Radeon R9 Fury vs GeForce GTX 1660 Super

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 1660 Super and Radeon R9 Fury, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GTX 1660 Super
2019
6 GB GDDR6, 125 Watt
33.08
+33.2%

GTX 1660 Super outperforms R9 Fury by a substantial 33% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking162219
Place by popularity8not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation58.528.15
Power efficiency18.146.19
ArchitectureTuring (2018−2022)GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)
GPU code nameTU116Fiji
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date29 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 618% 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 cores14083584
Compute unitsno data56
Core clock speed1530 MHzno data
Boost clock speed1785 MHz1000 MHz
Number of transistors6,600 million8,900 million
Manufacturing process technology12 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)125 Watt275 Watt
Texture fill rate157.1224.0
Floating-point processing power5.027 TFLOPS7.168 TFLOPS
ROPs4864
TMUs88224

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 supportno dataPCIe 3.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length229 mmno data
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 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 typeGDDR6High Bandwidth Memory (HBM)
High bandwidth memory (HBM)no data+
Maximum RAM amount6 GB4 GB
Memory bus width192 Bit4096 Bit
Memory clock speed1750 MHz500 MHz
Memory bandwidth336.0 GB/s512 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 DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort
Eyefinity-+
Number of Eyefinity displaysno data6
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 audiono data+
NVENC+-
Ansel+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)DirectX® 12
Shader Model6.56.3
OpenGL4.64.5
OpenCL1.22.0
Vulkan1.2.131+
Mantle-+
CUDA7.5-

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 33.08
+33.2%
R9 Fury 24.84

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 12747
+33.2%
R9 Fury 9570

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 HD90
+2.3%
88
−2.3%
1440p54
−90.7%
103
+90.7%
4K29
−62.1%
47
+62.1%

Cost per frame, $

1080p2.546.24
1440p4.245.33
4K7.9011.68

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 76
+90%
40−45
−90%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 88
+63%
50−55
−63%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 66
+57.1%
40−45
−57.1%
Battlefield 5 100−110
+32.1%
80−85
−32.1%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 80
+56.9%
50−55
−56.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 63
+57.5%
40−45
−57.5%
Far Cry 5 70−75
+29.8%
55−60
−29.8%
Far Cry New Dawn 121
+86.2%
65−70
−86.2%
Forza Horizon 4 170−180
+20.7%
140−150
−20.7%
Hitman 3 77
+54%
50−55
−54%
Horizon Zero Dawn 321
+179%
110−120
−179%
Metro Exodus 144
+69.4%
85−90
−69.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2 80
+23.1%
65−70
−23.1%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 110−120
+39.3%
80−85
−39.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 217
+111%
100−110
−111%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 135
+150%
50−55
−150%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 48
+14.3%
40−45
−14.3%
Battlefield 5 100−110
+110%
51
−110%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 72
+41.2%
50−55
−41.2%
Cyberpunk 2077 52
+30%
40−45
−30%
Far Cry 5 70−75
+29.8%
55−60
−29.8%
Far Cry New Dawn 86
+32.3%
65−70
−32.3%
Forza Horizon 4 170−180
+20.7%
140−150
−20.7%
Hitman 3 75
+50%
50−55
−50%
Horizon Zero Dawn 290
+152%
110−120
−152%
Metro Exodus 118
+38.8%
85−90
−38.8%
Red Dead Redemption 2 89
+36.9%
65−70
−36.9%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 129
+53.6%
80−85
−53.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 65−70
+27.8%
50−55
−27.8%
Watch Dogs: Legion 208
+102%
100−110
−102%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 51
+75.9%
29
−75.9%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 44
+4.8%
40−45
−4.8%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 55
+7.8%
50−55
−7.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 49
+22.5%
40−45
−22.5%
Far Cry 5 70−75
+29.8%
55−60
−29.8%
Forza Horizon 4 107
−35.5%
140−150
+35.5%
Hitman 3 65
+30%
50−55
−30%
Horizon Zero Dawn 99
−16.2%
110−120
+16.2%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 112
+33.3%
80−85
−33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 61
+32.6%
46
−32.6%
Watch Dogs: Legion 31
−232%
100−110
+232%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 57
−14%
65−70
+14%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 60−65
+34%
45−50
−34%
Far Cry New Dawn 57
+50%
35−40
−50%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 40
+53.8%
24−27
−53.8%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 34
+41.7%
24−27
−41.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 38
+35.7%
27−30
−35.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 26
+62.5%
16−18
−62.5%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+31%
27−30
−31%
Forza Horizon 4 190−200
+33.8%
140−150
−33.8%
Hitman 3 43
+43.3%
30−33
−43.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 71
+39.2%
50−55
−39.2%
Metro Exodus 67
+42.6%
45−50
−42.6%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 80
+48.1%
50−55
−48.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 45−50
+45.2%
30−35
−45.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion 196
+40%
140−150
−40%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 56
+33.3%
40−45
−33.3%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
−15.2%
38
+15.2%
Far Cry New Dawn 31
+63.2%
18−20
−63.2%
Hitman 3 25
+25%
20−22
−25%
Horizon Zero Dawn 66
−93.9%
120−130
+93.9%
Metro Exodus 44
+57.1%
27−30
−57.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40
+11.1%
36
−11.1%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24
+118%
11
−118%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 18
+38.5%
12−14
−38.5%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 19
+35.7%
14−16
−35.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 11
+83.3%
6−7
−83.3%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+35.7%
14−16
−35.7%
Forza Horizon 4 54
+58.8%
30−35
−58.8%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 44
+46.7%
30−33
−46.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 12
+9.1%
10−12
−9.1%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 28
+27.3%
21−24
−27.3%

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

  • GTX 1660 Super is 2% faster in 1080p
  • R9 Fury is 91% faster in 1440p
  • R9 Fury is 62% faster in 4K

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

  • in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 1660 Super is 179% faster.
  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the R9 Fury is 232% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GTX 1660 Super is ahead in 66 tests (92%)
  • R9 Fury is ahead in 6 tests (8%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 33.08 24.84
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 33.2% 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.

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.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Super
GeForce GTX 1660 Super
AMD Radeon R9 Fury
Radeon R9 Fury

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.


4.3 20252 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 1660 Super on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 174 votes

Rate Radeon R9 Fury 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.