Radeon R9 280 vs GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile with Radeon R9 280, including specs and performance data.
1660 Ti Mobile outperforms R9 280 by an impressive 98% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 249 | 414 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 32.12 | 4.69 |
| Power efficiency | 25.13 | 5.07 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) |
| GPU code name | TU116 | Tahiti |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Design | no data | reference |
| Release date | 23 April 2019 (6 years ago) | 4 March 2014 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $229 | $279 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
GTX 1660 Ti Mobile has 585% better value for money than R9 280.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 1792 |
| Core clock speed | 1455 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1590 MHz | 933 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 6,600 million | 4,313 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 200 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 152.6 | 104.5 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.884 TFLOPS | 3.344 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 32 |
| TMUs | 96 | 112 |
| L1 Cache | 1.5 MB | 448 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1536 KB | 768 KB |
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 | 275 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-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 | 3 GB |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 288.0 GB/s | 240 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 2x 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 | - | + |
| HD3D | - | + |
| LiquidVR | - | + |
| TressFX | - | + |
| TrueAudio | - | + |
| UVD | - | + |
| DDMA audio | no data | + |
API and SDK support
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 benchmarks
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.
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.
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
+120%
| 40−45
−120%
|
| 1440p | 58
+115%
| 27−30
−115%
|
| 4K | 35
+119%
| 16−18
−119%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.60
+168%
| 6.98
−168%
|
| 1440p | 3.95
+162%
| 10.33
−162%
|
| 4K | 6.54
+167%
| 17.44
−167%
|
- GTX 1660 Ti Mobile has 168% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GTX 1660 Ti Mobile has 162% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- GTX 1660 Ti Mobile has 167% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 147
+110%
|
70−75
−110%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 86
+115%
|
40−45
−115%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 111
+102%
|
55−60
−102%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 133
+105%
|
65−70
−105%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 68
+127%
|
30−33
−127%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 117
+113%
|
55−60
−113%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 93
+107%
|
45−50
−107%
|
| Fortnite | 120−130
+112%
|
60−65
−112%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 134
+106%
|
65−70
−106%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 100
+100%
|
50−55
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−110
+112%
|
50−55
−112%
|
| Valorant | 209
+109%
|
100−105
−109%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 103
+106%
|
50−55
−106%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 101
+102%
|
50−55
−102%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 260−270
+105%
|
130−140
−105%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 54
+100%
|
27−30
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 121
+102%
|
60−65
−102%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 98
+118%
|
45−50
−118%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 89
+123%
|
40−45
−123%
|
| Fortnite | 120−130
+112%
|
60−65
−112%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 125
+108%
|
60−65
−108%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 90
+100%
|
45−50
−100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 105
+110%
|
50−55
−110%
|
| Metro Exodus | 54
+100%
|
27−30
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−110
+112%
|
50−55
−112%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 103
+106%
|
50−55
−106%
|
| Valorant | 207
+107%
|
100−105
−107%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 94
+109%
|
45−50
−109%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 52
+117%
|
24−27
−117%
|
| Dota 2 | 116
+111%
|
55−60
−111%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 90
+100%
|
45−50
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 83
+108%
|
40−45
−108%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 99
+120%
|
45−50
−120%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 109
+98.2%
|
55−60
−98.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55
+104%
|
27−30
−104%
|
| Valorant | 125
+108%
|
60−65
−108%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 107
+114%
|
50−55
−114%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+119%
|
27−30
−119%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 180−190
+109%
|
90−95
−109%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 50−55
+113%
|
24−27
−113%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30
+114%
|
14−16
−114%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+106%
|
85−90
−106%
|
| Valorant | 197
+107%
|
95−100
−107%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 69
+130%
|
30−33
−130%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 25
+108%
|
12−14
−108%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 52
+117%
|
24−27
−117%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60
+100%
|
30−33
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+100%
|
35−40
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
+110%
|
21−24
−110%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 69
+130%
|
30−33
−130%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+125%
|
12−14
−125%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 50−55
+117%
|
24−27
−117%
|
| Metro Exodus | 19
+111%
|
9−10
−111%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35
+119%
|
16−18
−119%
|
| Valorant | 152
+103%
|
75−80
−103%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 38
+111%
|
18−20
−111%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+125%
|
12−14
−125%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 85
+113%
|
40−45
−113%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 26
+117%
|
12−14
−117%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 31
+121%
|
14−16
−121%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+124%
|
21−24
−124%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+107%
|
14−16
−107%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 30−33
+114%
|
14−16
−114%
|
This is how GTX 1660 Ti Mobile and R9 280 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is 120% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is 115% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is 119% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 26.19 | 13.22 |
| Recency | 23 April 2019 | 4 March 2014 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 3 GB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 200 Watt |
GTX 1660 Ti Mobile has a 98.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 150% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 280 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is a notebook graphics card while Radeon R9 280 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
