Radeon R9 285 vs GeForce GTX 1660 Ti

Place in the ranking	161	316
Place by popularity	24	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	43.88	8.79
Power efficiency	19.30	6.31
Architecture	Turing (2018−2022)	GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)
GPU code name	TU116	Tonga
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Release date	22 February 2019 (5 years ago)	2 September 2014 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$279	$249

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 1660 Ti has 399% better value for money than R9 285.

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	1500 MHz	918 MHz
Boost clock speed	1770 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	6,600 million	5,000 million
Manufacturing process technology	12 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	120 Watt	190 Watt
Texture fill rate	169.9	102.8
Floating-point processing power	5.437 TFLOPS	3.29 TFLOPS
ROPs	48	32
TMUs	96	112

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).

Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	229 mm	221 mm
Width	2-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1x 8-pin	2x 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	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1500 MHz	1375 MHz
Memory bandwidth	288.0 GB/s	176.0 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	2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2
HDMI	+	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 (12_0)
Shader Model	6.5	6.5
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	2.1
Vulkan	1.2.131	1.2.170
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 33.56
+93.2%

R9 285 17.37

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 Ti 12904
+93.2%

R9 285 6680

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 16024
+87%

R9 285 8570

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	103 +106%	50−55 −106%
1440p	60 +100%	30−35 −100%
4K	39 +117%	18−21 −117%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	2.71 +83.8%	4.98 −83.8%
1440p	4.65 +78.5%	8.30 −78.5%
4K	7.15 +93.4%	13.83 −93.4%

GTX 1660 Ti has 84% lower cost per frame in 1080p
GTX 1660 Ti has 78% lower cost per frame in 1440p
GTX 1660 Ti has 93% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	65−70 +123%	30−33 −123%
Cyberpunk 2077	78 +95%	40−45 −95%
Elden Ring	84 +110%	40−45 −110%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	90 +100%	45−50 −100%
Counter-Strike 2	65−70 +123%	30−33 −123%
Cyberpunk 2077	36 +100%	18−20 −100%
Forza Horizon 4	156 +95%	80−85 −95%
Metro Exodus	98 +96%	50−55 −96%
Red Dead Redemption 2	119 +98.3%	60−65 −98.3%
Valorant	161 +101%	80−85 −101%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	123 +105%	60−65 −105%
Counter-Strike 2	65−70 +123%	30−33 −123%
Cyberpunk 2077	28 +100%	14−16 −100%
Dota 2	140 +100%	70−75 −100%
Elden Ring	116 +93.3%	60−65 −93.3%
Far Cry 5	118 +96.7%	60−65 −96.7%
Fortnite	134 +106%	65−70 −106%
Forza Horizon 4	127 +95.4%	65−70 −95.4%
Grand Theft Auto V	119 +98.3%	60−65 −98.3%
Metro Exodus	68 +94.3%	35−40 −94.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	180−190 +96.8%	95−100 −96.8%
Red Dead Redemption 2	45 +114%	21−24 −114%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	110−120 +109%	55−60 −109%
Valorant	82 +105%	40−45 −105%
World of Tanks	270−280 +98.6%	140−150 −98.6%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	78 +95%	40−45 −95%
Counter-Strike 2	65−70 +123%	30−33 −123%
Cyberpunk 2077	23 +130%	10−11 −130%
Dota 2	168 +97.6%	85−90 −97.6%
Far Cry 5	90−95 +100%	45−50 −100%
Forza Horizon 4	110 +100%	55−60 −100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	98 +96%	50−55 −96%
Valorant	118 +96.7%	60−65 −96.7%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	62 +107%	30−33 −107%
Elden Ring	62 +107%	30−33 −107%
Grand Theft Auto V	62 +107%	30−33 −107%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +94.4%	90−95 −94.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2	28 +100%	14−16 −100%
World of Tanks	210−220 +95.5%	110−120 −95.5%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	63 +110%	30−33 −110%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +93.8%	16−18 −93.8%
Cyberpunk 2077	13 +117%	6−7 −117%
Far Cry 5	100−110 +112%	50−55 −112%
Forza Horizon 4	78 +95%	40−45 −95%
Metro Exodus	65 +117%	30−33 −117%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	55−60 +104%	27−30 −104%
Valorant	82 +105%	40−45 −105%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +106%	16−18 −106%
Dota 2	56 +107%	27−30 −107%
Elden Ring	25 +108%	12−14 −108%
Grand Theft Auto V	56 +107%	27−30 −107%
Metro Exodus	21 +110%	10−11 −110%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 +112%	50−55 −112%
Red Dead Redemption 2	19 +111%	9−10 −111%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	56 +107%	27−30 −107%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	31 +93.8%	16−18 −93.8%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +106%	16−18 −106%
Cyberpunk 2077	6 +100%	3−4 −100%
Dota 2	94 +109%	45−50 −109%
Far Cry 5	45−50 +95.8%	24−27 −95.8%
Fortnite	45−50 +114%	21−24 −114%
Forza Horizon 4	43 +105%	21−24 −105%
Valorant	41 +95.2%	21−24 −95.2%

This is how GTX 1660 Ti and R9 285 compete in popular games:

GTX 1660 Ti is 106% faster in 1080p
GTX 1660 Ti is 100% faster in 1440p
GTX 1660 Ti is 117% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	33.56	17.37
Recency	22 February 2019	2 September 2014
Maximum RAM amount	6 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	12 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	120 Watt	190 Watt

GTX 1660 Ti has a 93.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 58.3% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 285 in performance tests.

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