GeForce GTX 1660 vs Radeon R7 350

Place in the ranking	606	188
Place by popularity	not in top-100	40
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	46.96
Power efficiency	7.01	17.40
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	Cape Verde	TU116
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Release date	6 July 2016 (8 years ago)	14 March 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$219

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	512	1408
Core clock speed	800 MHz	1530 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1785 MHz
Number of transistors	1,500 million	6,600 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	55 Watt	120 Watt
Texture fill rate	25.60	157.1
Floating-point processing power	0.8192 TFLOPS	5.027 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	48
TMUs	32	88

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).

Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	168 mm	229 mm
Width	1-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	1x 8-pin

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	GDDR5	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	6 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	192 Bit
Memory clock speed	1125 MHz	2001 MHz
Memory bandwidth	72 GB/s	192.1 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 DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
HDMI	+	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_1)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	5.1	6.5
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.2
Vulkan	1.2.131	1.2.131
CUDA	-	7.5

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	14−16 −500%	84 +500%
1440p	9−10 −467%	51 +467%
4K	4−5 −575%	27 +575%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	2.61
1440p	no data	4.29
4K	no data	8.11

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	72 +0%	72 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	71 +0%	71 +0%
Elden Ring	84 +0%	84 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	56 +0%	56 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	55 +0%	55 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	132 +0%	132 +0%
Metro Exodus	95 +0%	95 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	112 +0%	112 +0%
Valorant	138 +0%	138 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	48 +0%	48 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	45 +0%	45 +0%
Dota 2	150 +0%	150 +0%
Elden Ring	90 +0%	90 +0%
Far Cry 5	145 +0%	145 +0%
Fortnite	140−150 +0%	140−150 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	110 +0%	110 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	115 +0%	115 +0%
Metro Exodus	66 +0%	66 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	216 +0%	216 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	40 +0%	40 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%
Valorant	65 +0%	65 +0%
World of Tanks	270−280 +0%	270−280 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	43 +0%	43 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	38 +0%	38 +0%
Dota 2	197 +0%	197 +0%
Far Cry 5	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	95 +0%	95 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +0%	170−180 +0%
Valorant	115 +0%	115 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	52 +0%	52 +0%
Elden Ring	47 +0%	47 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	52 +0%	52 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	129 +0%	129 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	25 +0%	25 +0%
World of Tanks	190−200 +0%	190−200 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	26 +0%	26 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	23 +0%	23 +0%
Far Cry 5	90−95 +0%	90−95 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	67 +0%	67 +0%
Metro Exodus	59 +0%	59 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Valorant	72 +0%	72 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	16 +0%	16 +0%
Dota 2	49 +0%	49 +0%
Elden Ring	21 +0%	21 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	49 +0%	49 +0%
Metro Exodus	20 +0%	20 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	81 +0%	81 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	49 +0%	49 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	10 +0%	10 +0%
Dota 2	87 +0%	87 +0%
Far Cry 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Fortnite	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	36 +0%	36 +0%
Valorant	38 +0%	38 +0%

This is how R7 350 and GTX 1660 compete in popular games:

GTX 1660 is 500% faster in 1080p
GTX 1660 is 467% faster in 1440p
GTX 1660 is 575% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	5.60	30.33
Recency	6 July 2016	14 March 2019
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	6 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	55 Watt	120 Watt

R7 350 has 118.2% lower power consumption.

GTX 1660, on the other hand, has a 441.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce GTX 1660 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 350 in performance tests.

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