GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q vs Radeon RX 560

Place in the ranking	473	250
Place by popularity	78	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	1.48	69.28
Power efficiency	8.71	26.31
Architecture	GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	Polaris 21	TU116
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Release date	18 April 2017 (7 years ago)	23 April 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$99	$229

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q has 4581% better value for money than RX 560.

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	1024	1536
Core clock speed	1175 MHz	1140 MHz
Boost clock speed	1275 MHz	1335 MHz
Number of transistors	3,000 million	6,600 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	60 Watt
Texture fill rate	81.60	128.2
Floating-point processing power	2.611 TFLOPS	4.101 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	48
TMUs	64	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
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x8	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	170 mm	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	None	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	4 GB	6 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	192 Bit
Memory clock speed	1750 MHz	1500 MHz
Memory bandwidth	112.0 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, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort	No outputs
HDMI	+	-

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_0)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	6.4	6.5
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	2.0	1.2
Vulkan	1.2.131	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.

RX 560 9.06

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 21.89
+142%

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.

RX 560 3650

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 8814
+141%

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	35 −123%	78 +123%
4K	14−16 −143%	34 +143%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	2.83 +3.8%	2.94 −3.8%
4K	7.07 −5%	6.74 +5%

RX 560 and GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q have nearly equal cost per frame in 1080p
RX 560 and GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q have nearly equal 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%

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%
Forza Horizon 5	60−65 +0%	60−65 +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%
Far Cry 5	62 +0%	62 +0%
Fortnite	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	95−100 +0%	95−100 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	60−65 +0%	60−65 +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%
Forza Horizon 5	60−65 +0%	60−65 +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%
Grand Theft Auto V	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	120−130 +0%	120−130 +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%
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%
Forza Horizon 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +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	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Dota 2	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Metro Exodus	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	70−75 +0%	70−75 +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	10−11 +0%	10−11 +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%
Forza Horizon 5	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Valorant	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%

This is how RX 560 and GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q compete in popular games:

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is 123% faster in 1080p
GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is 143% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

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

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	9.06	21.89
Recency	18 April 2017	23 April 2019
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	6 GB
Chip lithography	14 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	60 Watt

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q has a 141.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 16.7% more advanced lithography process, and 25% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX 560 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon RX 560 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.