GeForce GTX 1660 vs Radeon R7 M350

Place in the ranking	764	180
Place by popularity	not in top-100	52
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	48.92
Power efficiency	5.98	17.46
Architecture	GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	Meso	TU116
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	5 May 2015 (9 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	384	1408
Compute units	6	no data
Core clock speed	1000 MHz	1530 MHz
Boost clock speed	825 MHz	1785 MHz
Number of transistors	1,550 million	6,600 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	120 Watt
Texture fill rate	24.36	157.1
Floating-point processing power	0.7795 TFLOPS	5.027 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	48
TMUs	24	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).

Bus support	PCIe 3.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x8	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	no data	229 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	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	DDR3	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	6 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	192 Bit
Memory clock speed	1000 MHz	2001 MHz
Memory bandwidth	16 GB/s	192.1 GB/s
Shared memory	no data	-

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	No outputs	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
Eyefinity	+	-
HDMI	-	+

Supported technologies

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

FreeSync	+	-
HD3D	+	-
PowerTune	+	-
DualGraphics	+	-
ZeroCore	+	-
Switchable graphics	+	-

API compatibility

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

DirectX	DirectX® 12	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	6.0	6.5
OpenGL	4.4	4.6
OpenCL	Not Listed	1.2
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.

R7 M350 3.02

GTX 1660 30.26
+902%

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.

R7 M350 1166

GTX 1660 11678
+902%

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	8−9 −938%	83 +938%
1440p	5−6 −920%	51 +920%
4K	2−3 −1300%	28 +1300%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	2.64
1440p	no data	4.29
4K	no data	7.82

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	59 +0%	59 +0%
Battlefield 5	95−100 +0%	95−100 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	73 +0%	73 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	58 +0%	58 +0%
Far Cry 5	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	160−170 +0%	160−170 +0%
Hitman 3	69 +0%	69 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	306 +0%	306 +0%
Metro Exodus	144 +0%	144 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	112 +0%	112 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	227 +0%	227 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	123 +0%	123 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	42 +0%	42 +0%
Battlefield 5	95−100 +0%	95−100 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	67 +0%	67 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	47 +0%	47 +0%
Far Cry 5	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	160−170 +0%	160−170 +0%
Hitman 3	67 +0%	67 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	287 +0%	287 +0%
Metro Exodus	113 +0%	113 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	79 +0%	79 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	110 +0%	110 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	214 +0%	214 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	37 +0%	37 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	49 +0%	49 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	40 +0%	40 +0%
Far Cry 5	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	98 +0%	98 +0%
Hitman 3	59 +0%	59 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	93 +0%	93 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	95 +0%	95 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	57 +0%	57 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	29 +0%	29 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	27 +0%	27 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	34 +0%	34 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	24 +0%	24 +0%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	170−180 +0%	170−180 +0%
Hitman 3	39 +0%	39 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	67 +0%	67 +0%
Metro Exodus	59 +0%	59 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	67 +0%	67 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	187 +0%	187 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Hitman 3	21 +0%	21 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	63 +0%	63 +0%
Metro Exodus	44 +0%	44 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	35 +0%	35 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	15 +0%	15 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	17 +0%	17 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	10 +0%	10 +0%
Far Cry 5	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	50 +0%	50 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	36 +0%	36 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	12 +0%	12 +0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

+0%

This is how R7 M350 and GTX 1660 compete in popular games:

GTX 1660 is 938% faster in 1080p
GTX 1660 is 920% faster in 1440p
GTX 1660 is 1300% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	3.02	30.26
Recency	5 May 2015	14 March 2019
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	6 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	120 Watt

R7 M350 has 242.9% lower power consumption.

GTX 1660, on the other hand, has a 902% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 50% 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 M350 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 M350 is a notebook card while GeForce GTX 1660 is a desktop one.

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