Radeon R7 240 vs GeForce GTX 1660 Super

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 1660 Super and Radeon R7 240, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GTX 1660 Super
2019
6 GB GDDR6, 125 Watt
33.09
+1320%

GTX 1660 Super outperforms R7 240 by a whopping 1320% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking162850
Place by popularity8not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation58.490.16
Power efficiency18.165.33
ArchitectureTuring (2018−2022)GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code nameTU116Oland
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Designno datareference
Release date29 October 2019 (5 years ago)8 October 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$229 $69

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 1660 Super has 36456% better value for money than R7 240.

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 cores1408320
Core clock speed1530 MHzno data
Boost clock speed1785 MHz780 MHz
Number of transistors6,600 million950 million
Manufacturing process technology12 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)125 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate157.114.00
Floating-point processing power5.027 TFLOPS0.448 TFLOPS
ROPs488
TMUs8820

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 supportno dataPCIe 3.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x8
Length229 mm168 mm
Width2-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 8-pinN/A

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 typeGDDR6GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount6 GB2 GB
Memory bus width192 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1750 MHz1150 MHz
Memory bandwidth336.0 GB/s72 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 DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA
HDMI++
HDCP+-
G-SYNC support+-

Supported technologies

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

CrossFire-+
FreeSync-+
DDMA audiono data+
NVENC+-
Ansel+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)DirectX® 12
Shader Model6.55.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.2.131-
CUDA7.5-

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.

GTX 1660 Super 33.09
+1320%
R7 240 2.33

  • Other tests
    • Passmark
    • 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

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.

GTX 1660 Super 12747
+1321%
R7 240 897

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.

GTX 1660 Super 15995
+1211%
R7 240 1220

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
+1400%
6−7
−1400%
1440p54
+1700%
3−4
−1700%
4K29
+1350%
2−3
−1350%

Cost per frame, $

1080p2.5411.50
1440p4.2423.00
4K7.9034.50

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
Cyberpunk 2077 76
+1420%
5−6
−1420%
Assassin's Creed Odyssey 88
+1367%
6−7
−1367%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 66
+1550%
4−5
−1550%
Battlefield 5 100−110
+1429%
7−8
−1429%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 80
+1500%
5−6
−1500%
Cyberpunk 2077 63
+1475%
4−5
−1475%
Far Cry 5 70−75
+1380%
5−6
−1380%
Far Cry New Dawn 121
+1413%
8−9
−1413%
Forza Horizon 4 170−180
+1358%
12−14
−1358%
Hitman 3 77
+1440%
5−6
−1440%
Horizon Zero Dawn 321
+1429%
21−24
−1429%
Metro Exodus 144
+1340%
10−11
−1340%
Red Dead Redemption 2 80
+1500%
5−6
−1500%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 110−120
+1363%
8−9
−1363%
Watch Dogs: Legion 217
+1450%
14−16
−1450%
Assassin's Creed Odyssey 135
+1400%
9−10
−1400%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 48
+1500%
3−4
−1500%
Battlefield 5 100−110
+1429%
7−8
−1429%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 72
+1340%
5−6
−1340%
Cyberpunk 2077 52
+1633%
3−4
−1633%
Far Cry 5 70−75
+1380%
5−6
−1380%
Far Cry New Dawn 86
+1333%
6−7
−1333%
Forza Horizon 4 170−180
+1358%
12−14
−1358%
Hitman 3 75
+1400%
5−6
−1400%
Horizon Zero Dawn 290
+1511%
18−20
−1511%
Metro Exodus 118
+1375%
8−9
−1375%
Red Dead Redemption 2 89
+1383%
6−7
−1383%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 129
+1333%
9−10
−1333%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 65−70
+1625%
4−5
−1625%
Watch Dogs: Legion 208
+1386%
14−16
−1386%
Assassin's Creed Odyssey 51
+1600%
3−4
−1600%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 44
+1367%
3−4
−1367%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 55
+1733%
3−4
−1733%
Cyberpunk 2077 49
+1533%
3−4
−1533%
Far Cry 5 70−75
+1380%
5−6
−1380%
Forza Horizon 4 107
+1429%
7−8
−1429%
Hitman 3 65
+1525%
4−5
−1525%
Horizon Zero Dawn 99
+1550%
6−7
−1550%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 112
+1500%
7−8
−1500%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 61
+1425%
4−5
−1425%
Watch Dogs: Legion 31
+1450%
2−3
−1450%
Red Dead Redemption 2 57
+1325%
4−5
−1325%
Battlefield 5 60−65
+1475%
4−5
−1475%
Far Cry New Dawn 57
+1325%
4−5
−1325%
Assassin's Creed Odyssey 40
+1900%
2−3
−1900%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 34
+1600%
2−3
−1600%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 38
+1800%
2−3
−1800%
Cyberpunk 2077 26
+2500%
1−2
−2500%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+1800%
2−3
−1800%
Forza Horizon 4 190−200
+1483%
12−14
−1483%
Hitman 3 43
+1333%
3−4
−1333%
Horizon Zero Dawn 71
+1675%
4−5
−1675%
Metro Exodus 67
+1575%
4−5
−1575%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 80
+1500%
5−6
−1500%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 45−50
+1400%
3−4
−1400%
Watch Dogs: Legion 196
+1533%
12−14
−1533%
Red Dead Redemption 2 56
+1767%
3−4
−1767%
Battlefield 5 30−35
+1550%
2−3
−1550%
Far Cry New Dawn 31
+1450%
2−3
−1450%
Hitman 3 25
+2400%
1−2
−2400%
Horizon Zero Dawn 66
+1550%
4−5
−1550%
Metro Exodus 44
+1367%
3−4
−1367%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40
+1900%
2−3
−1900%
Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24
+2300%
1−2
−2300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 18
+1700%
1−2
−1700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 19
+1800%
1−2
−1800%
Cyberpunk 2077 11 0−1
Far Cry 5 18−20
+1800%
1−2
−1800%
Forza Horizon 4 54
+1700%
3−4
−1700%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 44
+1367%
3−4
−1367%
Watch Dogs: Legion 12 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 28
+2700%
1−2
−2700%

This is how GTX 1660 Super and R7 240 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1660 Super is 1400% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1660 Super is 1700% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 1660 Super is 1350% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 33.09 2.33
Recency 29 October 2019 8 October 2013
Maximum RAM amount 6 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 12 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 125 Watt 50 Watt

GTX 1660 Super has a 1320.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.

R7 240, on the other hand, has 150% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1660 Super is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 240 in performance tests.


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

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.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Super
GeForce GTX 1660 Super
AMD Radeon R7 240
Radeon R7 240

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


4.3
20269 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3
1194 votes

Rate Radeon R7 240 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.