GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q vs Radeon R9 290

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 290 with GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q, including specs and performance data.

R9 290
2013
4 GB GDDR5, 275 Watt
21.06

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q outperforms R9 290 by a small 9% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking274256
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation8.0868.96
Power efficiency5.2526.20
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameHawaiiTU116
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date5 November 2013 (11 years ago)23 April 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$399 $229

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q has 753% better value for money than R9 290.

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 cores25601536
Core clock speed947 MHz1140 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1335 MHz
Number of transistors6,200 million6,600 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)275 Watt60 Watt
Texture fill rate151.5128.2
Floating-point processing power4.849 TFLOPS4.101 TFLOPS
ROPs6448
TMUs16096

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
Length275 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pinNone

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 amount4 GB6 GB
Memory bus width512 Bit192 Bit
Memory clock speed1250 MHz1500 MHz
Memory bandwidth320.0 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortNo outputs
HDMI+-

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.36.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan1.2.1311.2.131
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.

R9 290 21.06
GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 22.93
+8.9%

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.

R9 290 8093
GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 8814
+8.9%

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.

R9 290 11860
GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 13355
+12.6%

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 HD70−75
−12.9%
79
+12.9%
4K30−35
−10%
33
+10%

Cost per frame, $

1080p5.70
−96.6%
2.90
+96.6%
4K13.30
−91.7%
6.94
+91.7%
  • GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q has 97% lower cost per frame in 1080p
  • GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q has 92% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Battlefield 5 83
+0%
83
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Far Cry 5 69
+0%
69
+0%
Fortnite 92
+0%
92
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Valorant 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Battlefield 5 78
+0%
78
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 240−250
+0%
240−250
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Dota 2 94
+0%
94
+0%
Far Cry 5 66
+0%
66
+0%
Fortnite 90
+0%
90
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 87
+0%
87
+0%
Metro Exodus 48
+0%
48
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 92
+0%
92
+0%
Valorant 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 73
+0%
73
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Dota 2 86
+0%
86
+0%
Far Cry 5 62
+0%
62
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 51
+0%
51
+0%
Valorant 93
+0%
93
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 79
+0%
79
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 31
+0%
31
+0%
Valorant 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 38
+0%
38
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Dota 2 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Far Cry 5 30
+0%
30
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

This is how R9 290 and GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is 13% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is 10% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 67 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 21.06 22.93
Recency 5 November 2013 23 April 2019
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 6 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 275 Watt 60 Watt

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q has a 8.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 358.3% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon R9 290 and GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q.

Be aware that Radeon R9 290 is a desktop card while GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is a notebook one.

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 R9 290
Radeon R9 290
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q

Other comparisons

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.


4.1 580 votes

Rate Radeon R9 290 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.3 565 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 give us your opinion about Radeon R9 290 or GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.