Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Radeon R9 FURY X vs GeForce GTX 1660 Ti
Aggregated performance score
GTX 1660 Ti
2019
6 GB GDDR6
33.38
+29.1%
R9 FURY X
2015
4096 MB High Bandwidth Memory (HBM)
25.86
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti outperforms Radeon R9 FURY X by 29% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 149 | 192 |
| Place by popularity | 44 | not in top-100 |
| Value for money | 25.86 | 7.45 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2021) | GCN 3.0 (2014−2017) |
| GPU code name | Turing TU116 | Fiji |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Design | no data | reference |
| Release date | 22 February 2019 (5 years old) | 24 June 2015 (8 years old) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $279 | $649 |
| Current price | $284 (1x MSRP) | $350 (0.5x MSRP) |
Value for money
GTX 1660 Ti has 247% better value for money than R9 FURY X.
Technical specs
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 1536 | 4096 |
| Compute units | no data | 64 |
| Core clock speed | 1500 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1770 MHz | 1050 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 6,600 million | 8,900 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 275 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 169.9 | 268.8 |
| Floating-point performance | no data | 8,602 gflops |
Size and 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 support | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 229 mm | 191 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | 2x 8-pin |
| Bridgeless CrossFire | no data | 1 |
Memory
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 | High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) |
| High bandwidth memory (HBM) | no data | + |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 4096 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 12000 MHz | 1050 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 288.0 GB/s | 512 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
Video outputs and ports
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 | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort |
| Eyefinity | no data | 1 |
| Number of Eyefinity displays | no data | 6 |
| HDMI | + | + |
| DisplayPort support | no data | + |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | no data | + |
| CrossFire | no data | 1 |
| Enduro | no data | - |
| FRTC | no data | 1 |
| FreeSync | no data | 1 |
| HD3D | no data | + |
| LiquidVR | no data | 1 |
| PowerTune | no data | + |
| TressFX | no data | 1 |
| TrueAudio | no data | + |
| ZeroCore | no data | - |
| UVD | no data | + |
| VCE | no data | + |
| DDMA audio | no data | + |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | DirectX® 12 |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | + |
| Mantle | no data | + |
| CUDA | 7.5 | no data |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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.
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti outperforms Radeon R9 FURY X by 29% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti outperforms Radeon R9 FURY X by 29% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
Radeon R9 FURY X outperforms GeForce GTX 1660 Ti by 4% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
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 | 105
+31.3%
| 80−85
−31.3%
|
| 1440p | 59
+31.1%
| 45−50
−31.1%
|
| 4K | 38
+40.7%
| 27−30
−40.7%
|
Performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 78
+30%
|
60−65
−30%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 86
+32.3%
|
65−70
−32.3%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 74
+34.5%
|
55−60
−34.5%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 129
+35.8%
|
95−100
−35.8%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 120
+33.3%
|
90−95
−33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 71
+29.1%
|
55−60
−29.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 109
+36.3%
|
80−85
−36.3%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 98
+30.7%
|
75−80
−30.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 131
+31%
|
100−105
−31%
|
| Hitman 3 | 100−110
+31.3%
|
80−85
−31.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 70−75
+30.9%
|
55−60
−30.9%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 82
+36.7%
|
60−65
−36.7%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 94
+34.3%
|
70−75
−34.3%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 60−65
+40%
|
45−50
−40%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 72
+30.9%
|
55−60
−30.9%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 55
+37.5%
|
40−45
−37.5%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 112
+31.8%
|
85−90
−31.8%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 89
+36.9%
|
65−70
−36.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 57
+42.5%
|
40−45
−42.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 99
+32%
|
75−80
−32%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 93
+32.9%
|
70−75
−32.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 122
+35.6%
|
90−95
−35.6%
|
| Hitman 3 | 100−110
+31.3%
|
80−85
−31.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 70−75
+30.9%
|
55−60
−30.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 55
+37.5%
|
40−45
−37.5%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 45
+50%
|
30−33
−50%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 82
+36.7%
|
60−65
−36.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 116
+36.5%
|
85−90
−36.5%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 60−65
+40%
|
45−50
−40%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 53
+32.5%
|
40−45
−32.5%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 50
+42.9%
|
35−40
−42.9%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 102
+36%
|
75−80
−36%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 46
+31.4%
|
35−40
−31.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 94
+34.3%
|
70−75
−34.3%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 84
+29.2%
|
65−70
−29.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 97
+29.3%
|
75−80
−29.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 62
+37.8%
|
45−50
−37.8%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 60−65
+40%
|
45−50
−40%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 57
+42.5%
|
40−45
−42.5%
|
| Hitman 3 | 60−65
+33.3%
|
45−50
−33.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 45−50
+31.4%
|
35−40
−31.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 33
+37.5%
|
24−27
−37.5%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 28
+33.3%
|
21−24
−33.3%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 51
+45.7%
|
35−40
−45.7%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 41
+36.7%
|
30−33
−36.7%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 36
+33.3%
|
27−30
−33.3%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 76
+38.2%
|
55−60
−38.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27
+50%
|
18−20
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 67
+34%
|
50−55
−34%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 65
+30%
|
50−55
−30%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 77
+40%
|
55−60
−40%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45−50
+50%
|
30−33
−50%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 27−30
+33.3%
|
21−24
−33.3%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 31
+29.2%
|
24−27
−29.2%
|
| Hitman 3 | 30−35
+37.5%
|
24−27
−37.5%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 24−27
+33.3%
|
18−20
−33.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21
+31.3%
|
16−18
−31.3%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 19
+35.7%
|
14−16
−35.7%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 26
+44.4%
|
18−20
−44.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 43
+43.3%
|
30−33
−43.3%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 25
+38.9%
|
18−20
−38.9%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 19
+35.7%
|
14−16
−35.7%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 43
+43.3%
|
30−33
−43.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 11
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35
+29.6%
|
27−30
−29.6%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 35
+29.6%
|
27−30
−29.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 51
+45.7%
|
35−40
−45.7%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 16−18
+33.3%
|
12−14
−33.3%
|
This is how GTX 1660 Ti and R9 FURY X compete in popular games:
1080p resolution:
- GTX 1660 Ti is 31.3% faster than R9 FURY X
1440p resolution:
- GTX 1660 Ti is 31.1% faster than R9 FURY X
4K resolution:
- GTX 1660 Ti is 40.7% faster than R9 FURY X
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 33.38 | 25.86 |
| Recency | 22 February 2019 | 24 June 2015 |
| Cost | $279 | $649 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 275 Watt |
The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 FURY X in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
