GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q vs Radeon R9 295X2

Place in the ranking	253	248
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	2.37	69.15
Power efficiency	3.07	26.31
Architecture	GCN 2.0 (2013−2017)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	Vesuvius	TU116
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Design	reference	no data
Release date	29 April 2014 (10 years ago)	23 April 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$1,499	$229

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q has 2818% better value for money than R9 295X2.

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	2816	1536
Core clock speed	no data	1140 MHz
Boost clock speed	1018 MHz	1335 MHz
Number of transistors	6,200 million	6,600 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	500 Watt	60 Watt
Texture fill rate	179.2	128.2
Floating-point processing power	5.733 TFLOPS	4.101 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	48
TMUs	176	96

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 size	no data	medium sized
Bus support	PCIe 2.1 x16	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	307 mm	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	2 x 8-pin	None

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	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	6 GB
Memory bus width	512 Bit	192 Bit
Memory clock speed	1250 MHz	1500 MHz
Memory bandwidth	640 GB/s	288.0 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 Connectors	1x DVI, 4x mini-DisplayPort	No outputs
Eyefinity	+	-
HDMI	+	-

Supported technologies

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

CrossFire	+	-
FreeSync	+	-
HD3D	+	-
LiquidVR	+	-
TressFX	+	-
UVD	+	-
DDMA audio	+	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	DirectX® 12	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	6.3	6.5
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	2.0	1.2
Vulkan	+	1.2.131
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. 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.

R9 295X2 22.30

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 22.93
+2.8%

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 295X2 8573

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 8814
+2.8%

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 295X2 21197
+58.7%

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 13355

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	75−80 −4%	78 +4%
4K	30−35 −13.3%	34 +13.3%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	19.99 −581%	2.94 +581%
4K	49.97 −642%	6.74 +642%

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q has 581% lower cost per frame in 1080p
GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q has 642% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Elden Ring	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	95−100 +0%	95−100 +0%
Metro Exodus	81 +0%	81 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	92 +0%	92 +0%
Valorant	102 +0%	102 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	85 +0%	85 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Dota 2	89 +0%	89 +0%
Elden Ring	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%
Far Cry 5	62 +0%	62 +0%
Fortnite	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	95−100 +0%	95−100 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	87 +0%	87 +0%
Metro Exodus	57 +0%	57 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	172 +0%	172 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	38 +0%	38 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%
Valorant	63 +0%	63 +0%
World of Tanks	240−250 +0%	240−250 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	70−75 +0%	70−75 +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	117 +0%	117 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	95−100 +0%	95−100 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	140−150 +0%	140−150 +0%
Valorant	93 +0%	93 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Elden Ring	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +0%	170−180 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
World of Tanks	150−160 +0%	150−160 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Far Cry 5	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Metro Exodus	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Valorant	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Dota 2	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Elden Ring	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Metro Exodus	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Dota 2	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Far Cry 5	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Fortnite	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Valorant	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%

This is how R9 295X2 and GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q compete in popular games:

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

All in all, in popular games:

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

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	22.30	22.93
Recency	29 April 2014	23 April 2019
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	6 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	500 Watt	60 Watt

R9 295X2 has a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount.

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q, on the other hand, has a 2.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 733.3% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon R9 295X2 and GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q.

Be aware that Radeon R9 295X2 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.