GeForce GTX 1660 vs Radeon R9 Fury

#ad 
Buy
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 Fury and GeForce GTX 1660, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R9 Fury
2015
4 GB High Bandwidth Memory (HBM), 275 Watt
21.40

GTX 1660 outperforms R9 Fury by a significant 22% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking239202
Place by popularitynot in top-10049
Cost-effectiveness evaluation7.0642.32
Power efficiency6.1817.26
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameFijiTU116
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date10 July 2015 (9 years ago)14 March 2019 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$549 $219

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

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

GTX 1660 has 499% better value for money than R9 Fury.

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 cores35841408
Compute units56no data
Core clock speedno data1530 MHz
Boost clock speed1000 MHz1785 MHz
Number of transistors8,900 million6,600 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)275 Watt120 Watt
Texture fill rate224.0157.1
Floating-point processing power7.168 TFLOPS5.027 TFLOPS
ROPs6448
TMUs22488

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 supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Lengthno data229 mm
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors​2x 8-pin1x 8-pin
Bridgeless CrossFire+-

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 typeHigh Bandwidth Memory (HBM)GDDR5
High bandwidth memory (HBM)+no data
Maximum RAM amount4 GB6 GB
Memory bus width4096 Bit192 Bit
Memory clock speed500 MHz2001 MHz
Memory bandwidth512 GB/s192.1 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 Connectors1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
Eyefinity+-
Number of Eyefinity displays6no data
HDMI++
DisplayPort support+-

Supported technologies

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

AppAcceleration+-
CrossFire+-
FRTC+-
FreeSync+-
HD3D+-
LiquidVR+-
PowerTune+-
TressFX+-
TrueAudio+-
UVD+-
VCE+-
DDMA audio+no data

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (12_1)
Shader Model6.36.5
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL2.01.2
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.

R9 Fury 21.40
GTX 1660 26.09
+21.9%

  • Other tests
    • Passmark
    • 3DMark 11 Performance GPU
    • 3DMark Vantage Performance
    • 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
    • 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

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 Fury 9563
GTX 1660 11657
+21.9%

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

R9 Fury 17543
GTX 1660 21064
+20.1%

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

R9 Fury 42039
GTX 1660 71229
+69.4%

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 Fury 14580
+2.9%
GTX 1660 14164

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

R9 Fury 80439
GTX 1660 81755
+1.6%

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 HD90
+8.4%
83
−8.4%
1440p106
+112%
50
−112%
4K48
+77.8%
27
−77.8%

Cost per frame, $

1080p6.10
−131%
2.64
+131%
1440p5.18
−18.2%
4.38
+18.2%
4K11.44
−41%
8.11
+41%
  • GTX 1660 has 131% lower cost per frame in 1080p
  • GTX 1660 has 18% lower cost per frame in 1440p
  • GTX 1660 has 41% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

  • Full HD
    Low Preset
  • Full HD
    Medium Preset
  • Full HD
    High Preset
  • Full HD
    Ultra Preset
  • Full HD
    Epic Preset
  • 1440p
    High Preset
  • 1440p
    Ultra Preset
  • 1440p
    Epic Preset
  • 4K
    High Preset
  • 4K
    Ultra Preset
  • 4K
    Epic Preset
Counter-Strike 2 130−140
−102%
271
+102%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
−42%
71
+42%
Hogwarts Legacy 45−50
−61.2%
79
+61.2%
Battlefield 5 90−95
−15.1%
100−110
+15.1%
Counter-Strike 2 130−140
−66.4%
223
+66.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
−16%
58
+16%
Far Cry 5 75−80
−28.2%
100
+28.2%
Fortnite 110−120
−14.7%
130−140
+14.7%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
−41.9%
132
+41.9%
Forza Horizon 5 70−75
−35.1%
100
+35.1%
Hogwarts Legacy 45−50
−20.4%
59
+20.4%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 90−95
−23.1%
110−120
+23.1%
Valorant 160−170
−88.9%
306
+88.9%
Battlefield 5 90−95
−15.1%
100−110
+15.1%
Counter-Strike 2 130−140
+25.2%
107
−25.2%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 268
−0.7%
270−280
+0.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
+6.4%
47
−6.4%
Dota 2 120−130
−82.5%
219
+82.5%
Far Cry 5 75−80
−17.9%
92
+17.9%
Fortnite 95
−40%
130−140
+40%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
−32.3%
123
+32.3%
Forza Horizon 5 70−75
−18.9%
88
+18.9%
Grand Theft Auto V 85−90
−35.3%
115
+35.3%
Hogwarts Legacy 45−50
+6.5%
46
−6.5%
Metro Exodus 50−55
−11.8%
57
+11.8%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 90−95
−23.1%
110−120
+23.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 91
−12.1%
102
+12.1%
Valorant 160−170
−77.2%
287
+77.2%
Battlefield 5 90−95
−15.1%
100−110
+15.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
+25%
40
−25%
Dota 2 130
−51.5%
197
+51.5%
Far Cry 5 75−80
−10.3%
86
+10.3%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
−5.4%
98
+5.4%
Hogwarts Legacy 45−50
+36.1%
36
−36.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 50
−124%
110−120
+124%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 46
−23.9%
57
+23.9%
Valorant 160−170
+40.9%
115
−40.9%
Fortnite 72
−84.7%
130−140
+84.7%
Counter-Strike 2 50−55
−21.6%
62
+21.6%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 158
−24.7%
190−200
+24.7%
Grand Theft Auto V 40−45
−23.8%
52
+23.8%
Metro Exodus 30−35
−6.5%
33
+6.5%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+34.9%
129
−34.9%
Valorant 200−210
−12.4%
226
+12.4%
Battlefield 5 65−70
−18.5%
75−80
+18.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
−4.3%
24
+4.3%
Far Cry 5 50−55
−11.3%
59
+11.3%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
−26.7%
76
+26.7%
Hogwarts Legacy 27−30
+12.5%
24
−12.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
−25.6%
45−50
+25.6%
Fortnite 55−60
−27.3%
70−75
+27.3%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+43.8%
16
−43.8%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 109
−19.3%
130−140
+19.3%
Grand Theft Auto V 47
−4.3%
49
+4.3%
Hogwarts Legacy 16−18
−18.8%
18−20
+18.8%
Metro Exodus 20−22
+0%
20
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 36
+2.9%
35
−2.9%
Valorant 130−140
+8.8%
125
−8.8%
Battlefield 5 35−40
−22.2%
40−45
+22.2%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
−30.4%
30−33
+30.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10
+0%
Dota 2 102
+17.2%
87
−17.2%
Far Cry 5 27−30
−11.1%
30
+11.1%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
−22%
50
+22%
Hogwarts Legacy 16−18
+23.1%
13
−23.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 20
−60%
30−35
+60%
Fortnite 25
−32%
30−35
+32%

This is how R9 Fury and GTX 1660 compete in popular games:

  • R9 Fury is 8% faster in 1080p
  • R9 Fury is 112% faster in 1440p
  • R9 Fury is 78% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the R9 Fury is 44% faster.
  • in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 1660 is 124% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • R9 Fury is ahead in 13 tests (20%)
  • GTX 1660 is ahead in 51 test (77%)
  • there's a draw in 2 tests (3%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 21.40 26.09
Recency 10 July 2015 14 March 2019
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 6 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 275 Watt 120 Watt

GTX 1660 has a 21.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 129.2% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1660 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 Fury in performance tests.

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 Fury
Radeon R9 Fury
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660
GeForce GTX 1660

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.


3.7
178 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1
5719 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 1660 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R9 Fury or GeForce GTX 1660, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.