GeForce GTX 1660 vs Radeon R9 Nano

Place in the ranking	247	180
Place by popularity	not in top-100	51
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	5.34	48.95
Power efficiency	8.70	17.46
Architecture	GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	Fiji	TU116
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Design	reference	no data
Release date	27 August 2015 (9 years ago)	14 March 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$649	$219

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 1660 has 817% better value for money than R9 Nano.

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	4096	1408
Compute units	64	no data
Core clock speed	no data	1530 MHz
Boost clock speed	1000 MHz	1785 MHz
Number of transistors	8,900 million	6,600 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	175 Watt	120 Watt
Texture fill rate	256.0	157.1
Floating-point processing power	8.192 TFLOPS	5.027 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	48
TMUs	256	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 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	152 mm	229 mm
Width	2-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1x 8-pin	1x 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 type	High Bandwidth Memory (HBM)	GDDR5
High bandwidth memory (HBM)	+	no data
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	6 GB
Memory bus width	4096 Bit	192 Bit
Memory clock speed	500 MHz	2001 MHz
Memory bandwidth	512 GB/s	192.1 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 Connectors	1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
Eyefinity	+	-
Number of Eyefinity displays	6	no 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	+	-
ZeroCore	+	-
VCE	+	-
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	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	2.0	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.

R9 Nano 21.99

GTX 1660 30.26
+37.6%

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 Nano 8486

GTX 1660 11678
+37.6%

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 Nano 17282

GTX 1660 21064
+21.9%

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 Nano 43546

GTX 1660 71229
+63.6%

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 Nano 14362
+1.4%

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 Nano 81374

GTX 1660 81755
+0.5%

3DMark Ice Storm GPU

Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.

R9 Nano 402499

GTX 1660 570753
+41.8%

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	89 +7.2%	83 −7.2%
1440p	35−40 −45.7%	51 +45.7%
4K	51 +82.1%	28 −82.1%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	7.29	2.64
1440p	18.54	4.29
4K	12.73	7.82

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

35−40

−103%

71
+103%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	45−50 −32.7%	65−70 +32.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	35−40 −59.5%	59 +59.5%
Battlefield 5	70−75 −37.5%	95−100 +37.5%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	45−50 −62.2%	73 +62.2%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 −65.7%	58 +65.7%
Far Cry 5	50−55 −33.3%	65−70 +33.3%
Far Cry New Dawn	55−60 −32.8%	75−80 +32.8%
Forza Horizon 4	130−140 −24.1%	160−170 +24.1%
Hitman 3	40−45 −56.8%	69 +56.8%
Horizon Zero Dawn	100−110 −194%	306 +194%
Metro Exodus	75−80 −89.5%	144 +89.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2	55−60 −93.1%	112 +93.1%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	70−75 −43.8%	100−110 +43.8%
Watch Dogs: Legion	95−100 −136%	227 +136%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	45−50 −151%	123 +151%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	35−40 −13.5%	42 +13.5%
Battlefield 5	70−75 −37.5%	95−100 +37.5%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	45−50 −48.9%	67 +48.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 −34.3%	47 +34.3%
Far Cry 5	50−55 −33.3%	65−70 +33.3%
Far Cry New Dawn	55−60 −32.8%	75−80 +32.8%
Forza Horizon 4	130−140 −24.1%	160−170 +24.1%
Hitman 3	40−45 −52.3%	67 +52.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	100−110 −176%	287 +176%
Metro Exodus	75−80 −48.7%	113 +48.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2	55−60 −36.2%	79 +36.2%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	70−75 −50.7%	110 +50.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	45−50 −33.3%	60−65 +33.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion	95−100 −123%	214 +123%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	45−50 −32.7%	65−70 +32.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	35−40 +0%	37 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	45−50 −8.9%	49 +8.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 −14.3%	40 +14.3%
Far Cry 5	50−55 −33.3%	65−70 +33.3%
Forza Horizon 4	130−140 +35.7%	98 −35.7%
Hitman 3	40−45 −34.1%	59 +34.1%
Horizon Zero Dawn	100−110 +11.8%	93 −11.8%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	70−75 −30.1%	95 +30.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	47 −21.3%	57 +21.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion	95−100 +231%	29 −231%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

55−60

−39.7%

81
+39.7%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	40−45 −35.7%	55−60 +35.7%
Far Cry New Dawn	30−35 −35.3%	45−50 +35.3%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	21−24 −39.1%	30−35 +39.1%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	21−24 −28.6%	27 +28.6%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	24−27 −36%	34 +36%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 −84.6%	24 +84.6%
Far Cry 5	24−27 −40%	35−40 +40%
Forza Horizon 4	120−130 −40.3%	170−180 +40.3%
Hitman 3	24−27 −50%	39 +50%
Horizon Zero Dawn	45−50 −48.9%	67 +48.9%
Metro Exodus	40−45 −43.9%	59 +43.9%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	45−50 −45.7%	67 +45.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 −53.8%	40−45 +53.8%
Watch Dogs: Legion	120−130 −47.2%	187 +47.2%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

35−40

−43.2%

53
+43.2%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 −36.4%	30−33 +36.4%
Far Cry New Dawn	16−18 −41.2%	24−27 +41.2%
Hitman 3	16−18 −23.5%	21 +23.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn	110−120 +81%	63 −81%
Metro Exodus	24−27 −83.3%	44 +83.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	35 +0%	35 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 −46.2%	18−20 +46.2%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	10−12 −36.4%	15 +36.4%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14 −41.7%	17 +41.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −100%	10 +100%
Far Cry 5	12−14 −41.7%	16−18 +41.7%
Forza Horizon 4	30−33 −66.7%	50 +66.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	24−27 −38.5%	36 +38.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion	9−10 −33.3%	12 +33.3%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

18−20

−36.8%

26
+36.8%

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

R9 Nano is 7% faster in 1080p
GTX 1660 is 46% faster in 1440p
R9 Nano is 82% faster in 4K

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

in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the R9 Nano is 231% faster.
in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 1660 is 194% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

R9 Nano is ahead in 4 tests (6%)
GTX 1660 is ahead in 66 tests (92%)
there's a draw in 2 tests (3%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	21.99	30.26
Recency	27 August 2015	14 March 2019
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	6 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	175 Watt	120 Watt

GTX 1660 has a 37.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 45.8% lower power consumption.

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

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