GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q vs Radeon R7 350

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 350 with GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q, including specs and performance data.

R7 350
2016
2 GB GDDR5, 55 Watt
5.58

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q outperforms R7 350 by a whopping 309% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking600243
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data68.60
Power efficiency7.0726.55
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameCape VerdeTU116
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date6 July 2016 (8 years ago)23 April 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$229

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 cores5121536
Core clock speed800 MHz1140 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1335 MHz
Number of transistors1,500 million6,600 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)55 Watt60 Watt
Texture fill rate25.60128.2
Floating-point processing power0.8192 TFLOPS4.101 TFLOPS
ROPs1648
TMUs3296

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).

Laptop sizeno datamedium sized
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length168 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount2 GB6 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit192 Bit
Memory clock speed1125 MHz1500 MHz
Memory bandwidth72 GB/s288.0 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 DisplayPortNo outputs
HDMI+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.2.1311.2.131
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 HD18−20
−328%
77
+328%
4K8−9
−325%
34
+325%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data2.97
4Kno data6.74

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 56
+0%
56
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Battlefield 5 88
+0%
88
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 70
+0%
70
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Far Cry 5 92
+0%
92
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Hitman 3 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Metro Exodus 120
+0%
120
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 92
+0%
92
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Battlefield 5 84
+0%
84
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 66
+0%
66
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Far Cry 5 77
+0%
77
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Hitman 3 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Metro Exodus 95
+0%
95
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 74
+0%
74
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 42
+0%
42
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 50
+0%
50
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Far Cry 5 54
+0%
54
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Hitman 3 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 79
+0%
79
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 51
+0%
51
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 72
+0%
72
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Hitman 3 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Hitman 3 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 31
+0%
31
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%

This is how R7 350 and GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is 328% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is 325% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 5.58 22.85
Recency 6 July 2016 23 April 2019
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 6 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 55 Watt 60 Watt

R7 350 has 9.1% lower power consumption.

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q, on the other hand, has a 309.5% 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 Ti Max-Q is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 350 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 350 is a desktop card while GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is a notebook one.


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.


AMD Radeon R7 350
Radeon R7 350
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q

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.


3.8 477 votes

Rate Radeon R7 350 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.4 536 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 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.