Radeon R7 250X vs GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile

Place in the ranking	185	589
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	100.00	0.63
Architecture	Turing (2018−2022)	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code name	TU116	Cape Verde
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Design	no data	reference
Release date	23 April 2019 (5 years ago)	13 February 2014 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$229	$99

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 1660 Ti Mobile has 15773% better value for money than R7 250X.

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	1536	640
Core clock speed	1455 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	1590 MHz	1000 MHz
Number of transistors	6,600 million	1,500 million
Manufacturing process technology	12 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	80 Watt	80 Watt
Texture fill rate	152.6	38.00
Floating-point processing power	4.884 TFLOPS	1.216 TFLOPS
ROPs	48	16
TMUs	96	40

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	medium sized	no data
Bus support	no data	PCIe 3.0
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	no data	210 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	1 x 6-pin

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	GDDR6	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	6 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	192 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1500 MHz	1625 MHz
Memory bandwidth	288.0 GB/s	96 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	No outputs	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort
Eyefinity	-	+
HDMI	-	+

Supported technologies

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

CrossFire	-	+
FreeSync	-	+
DDMA audio	no data	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	DirectX® 12
Shader Model	6.5	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	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.

GTX 1660 Ti Mobile 30.14
+413%

R7 250X 5.88

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 Ti Mobile 14818
+418%

R7 250X 2860

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	88 +450%	16−18 −450%
1440p	57 +470%	10−12 −470%
4K	35 +483%	6−7 −483%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

86
+438%

16−18

−438%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	80 +471%	14−16 −471%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	66 +450%	12−14 −450%
Battlefield 5	129 +438%	24−27 −438%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	82 +486%	14−16 −486%
Cyberpunk 2077	68 +467%	12−14 −467%
Far Cry 5	98 +444%	18−20 −444%
Far Cry New Dawn	102 +467%	18−20 −467%
Forza Horizon 4	304 +453%	55−60 −453%
Hitman 3	77 +450%	14−16 −450%
Horizon Zero Dawn	209 +423%	40−45 −423%
Metro Exodus	126 +425%	24−27 −425%
Red Dead Redemption 2	99 +450%	18−20 −450%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	155 +417%	30−33 −417%
Watch Dogs: Legion	225 +463%	40−45 −463%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	125 +421%	24−27 −421%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	49 +444%	9−10 −444%
Battlefield 5	109 +419%	21−24 −419%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	73 +421%	14−16 −421%
Cyberpunk 2077	54 +440%	10−11 −440%
Far Cry 5	77 +450%	14−16 −450%
Far Cry New Dawn	70 +483%	12−14 −483%
Forza Horizon 4	256 +469%	45−50 −469%
Hitman 3	74 +429%	14−16 −429%
Horizon Zero Dawn	207 +418%	40−45 −418%
Metro Exodus	104 +478%	18−20 −478%
Red Dead Redemption 2	83 +419%	16−18 −419%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	118 +462%	21−24 −462%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	55−60 +460%	10−11 −460%
Watch Dogs: Legion	214 +435%	40−45 −435%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	53 +430%	10−11 −430%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	42 +425%	8−9 −425%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	53 +430%	10−11 −430%
Cyberpunk 2077	52 +420%	10−11 −420%
Far Cry 5	57 +470%	10−11 −470%
Forza Horizon 4	99 +450%	18−20 −450%
Hitman 3	63 +425%	12−14 −425%
Horizon Zero Dawn	90 +463%	16−18 −463%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	101 +461%	18−20 −461%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	55 +450%	10−11 −450%
Watch Dogs: Legion	33 +450%	6−7 −450%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

80
+471%

14−16

−471%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	66 +450%	12−14 −450%
Far Cry New Dawn	46 +475%	8−9 −475%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	36 +414%	7−8 −414%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	32 +433%	6−7 −433%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	38 +443%	7−8 −443%
Cyberpunk 2077	25 +525%	4−5 −525%
Far Cry 5	36 +414%	7−8 −414%
Forza Horizon 4	182 +420%	35−40 −420%
Hitman 3	41 +486%	7−8 −486%
Horizon Zero Dawn	65 +442%	12−14 −442%
Metro Exodus	60 +500%	10−11 −500%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	55−60 +480%	10−11 −480%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−35 +450%	6−7 −450%
Watch Dogs: Legion	203 +480%	35−40 −480%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

56
+460%

10−11

−460%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	31 +417%	6−7 −417%
Far Cry New Dawn	25 +525%	4−5 −525%
Hitman 3	25 +525%	4−5 −525%
Horizon Zero Dawn	76 +443%	14−16 −443%
Metro Exodus	41 +486%	7−8 −486%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	35 +483%	6−7 −483%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	22 +450%	4−5 −450%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	13 +550%	2−3 −550%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	19 +533%	3−4 −533%
Cyberpunk 2077	10 +900%	1−2 −900%
Far Cry 5	18 +500%	3−4 −500%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +414%	7−8 −414%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	30−35 +450%	6−7 −450%
Watch Dogs: Legion	13 +550%	2−3 −550%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

+440%

5−6
−440%

This is how GTX 1660 Ti Mobile and R7 250X compete in popular games:

GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is 450% faster in 1080p
GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is 470% faster in 1440p
GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is 483% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	30.14	5.88
Recency	23 April 2019	13 February 2014
Maximum RAM amount	6 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	12 nm	28 nm

GTX 1660 Ti Mobile has a 412.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 250X in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is a notebook card while Radeon R7 250X is a desktop one.

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