Radeon R9 M385X vs GeForce GTX 1660 Ti

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Radeon R9 M385X, including specs and performance data.

GTX 1660 Ti
2019
6 GB GDDR6, 120 Watt
33.48
+548%

GTX 1660 Ti outperforms R9 M385X by a whopping 548% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking160620
Place by popularity30not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation39.47no data
Power efficiency19.21no data
ArchitectureTuring (2018−2022)GCN 2.0 (2013−2017)
GPU code nameTU116Strato
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date22 February 2019 (5 years ago)5 May 2015 (9 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$279 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores1536896
Core clock speed1500 MHz1000 MHz
Boost clock speed1770 MHz1100 MHz
Number of transistors6,600 million2,080 million
Manufacturing process technology12 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)120 Wattno data
Texture fill rate169.961.60
Floating-point processing power5.437 TFLOPS1.971 TFLOPS
ROPs4816
TMUs9656

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 sizeno datalarge
Bus supportno dataPCIe 3.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length229 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 8-pinno data

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 GB4 GB
Memory bus width192 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1500 MHz1500 MHz
Memory bandwidth288.0 GB/s76.8 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 DisplayPortNo outputs
Eyefinity-+
HDMI+-

Supported technologies

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

FreeSync-+
HD3D-+
PowerTune-+
DualGraphics-+
ZeroCore-+
Switchable graphics-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)DirectX® 12
Shader Model6.56.3
OpenGL4.64.4
OpenCL1.2Not Listed
Vulkan1.2.131-
Mantle-+
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 Ti 33.48
+548%
R9 M385X 5.17

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 12907
+548%
R9 M385X 1993

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

GTX 1660 Ti 22892
+315%
R9 M385X 5515

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

GTX 1660 Ti 61217
+392%
R9 M385X 12453

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
+371%
R9 M385X 3405

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

GTX 1660 Ti 93095
+313%
R9 M385X 22544

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 HD103
+268%
28
−268%
1440p59
+556%
9−10
−556%
4K37
+640%
5−6
−640%

Cost per frame, $

1080p2.71no data
1440p4.73no data
4K7.54no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 78
+767%
9−10
−767%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 86
+514%
14−16
−514%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 74
+1380%
5−6
−1380%
Battlefield 5 130
+900%
12−14
−900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 95
+764%
10−12
−764%
Cyberpunk 2077 71
+689%
9−10
−689%
Far Cry 5 104
+845%
10−12
−845%
Far Cry New Dawn 112
+700%
14−16
−700%
Forza Horizon 4 231
+600%
30−35
−600%
Hitman 3 70−75
+536%
10−12
−536%
Horizon Zero Dawn 140−150
+339%
30−35
−339%
Metro Exodus 134
+1017%
12−14
−1017%
Red Dead Redemption 2 119
+750%
14−16
−750%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 171
+850%
18−20
−850%
Watch Dogs: Legion 120−130
+155%
45−50
−155%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 122
+771%
14−16
−771%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 55
+1000%
5−6
−1000%
Battlefield 5 121
+831%
12−14
−831%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 85
+673%
10−12
−673%
Cyberpunk 2077 57
+533%
9−10
−533%
Far Cry 5 82
+645%
10−12
−645%
Far Cry New Dawn 79
+464%
14−16
−464%
Forza Horizon 4 218
+561%
30−35
−561%
Hitman 3 70−75
+536%
10−12
−536%
Horizon Zero Dawn 140−150
+339%
30−35
−339%
Metro Exodus 114
+850%
12−14
−850%
Red Dead Redemption 2 89
+536%
14−16
−536%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 127
+606%
18−20
−606%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 70−75
+70.7%
41
−70.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 120−130
+155%
45−50
−155%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 53
+279%
14−16
−279%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 50
+900%
5−6
−900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 70
+536%
10−12
−536%
Cyberpunk 2077 46
+411%
9−10
−411%
Far Cry 5 61
+455%
10−12
−455%
Forza Horizon 4 97
+194%
30−35
−194%
Hitman 3 70−75
+536%
10−12
−536%
Horizon Zero Dawn 102
+209%
30−35
−209%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 110
+511%
18−20
−511%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 62
+244%
18−20
−244%
Watch Dogs: Legion 120−130
+155%
45−50
−155%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 97
+593%
14−16
−593%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 75
+650%
10−11
−650%
Far Cry New Dawn 54
+575%
8−9
−575%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 41
+720%
5−6
−720%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 36 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 52
+940%
5−6
−940%
Cyberpunk 2077 27
+1250%
2−3
−1250%
Far Cry 5 41
+583%
6−7
−583%
Forza Horizon 4 202
+1583%
12−14
−1583%
Hitman 3 40−45
+367%
9−10
−367%
Horizon Zero Dawn 75
+525%
12−14
−525%
Metro Exodus 65
+2067%
3−4
−2067%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 78
+550%
12−14
−550%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 45−50
+1050%
4−5
−1050%
Watch Dogs: Legion 170−180
+427%
30−35
−427%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 65
+622%
9−10
−622%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 36
+800%
4−5
−800%
Far Cry New Dawn 29
+867%
3−4
−867%
Hitman 3 27−30
+2600%
1−2
−2600%
Horizon Zero Dawn 160−170
+1938%
8−9
−1938%
Metro Exodus 46
+2200%
2−3
−2200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 43
+4200%
1−2
−4200%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 25
+733%
3−4
−733%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 19
+850%
2−3
−850%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 25
+1150%
2−3
−1150%
Cyberpunk 2077 11 0−1
Far Cry 5 20
+567%
3−4
−567%
Forza Horizon 4 51
+1175%
4−5
−1175%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 43
+617%
6−7
−617%
Watch Dogs: Legion 16−18
+1500%
1−2
−1500%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 44
+633%
6−7
−633%

This is how GTX 1660 Ti and R9 M385X compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1660 Ti is 268% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1660 Ti is 556% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 1660 Ti is 640% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 1660 Ti is 4200% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, GTX 1660 Ti surpassed R9 M385X in all 68 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 33.48 5.17
Recency 22 February 2019 5 May 2015
Maximum RAM amount 6 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 12 nm 28 nm

GTX 1660 Ti has a 547.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 M385X in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is a desktop card while Radeon R9 M385X is a notebook one.


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 Ti
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti
AMD Radeon R9 M385X
Radeon R9 M385X

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.


4.2 7781 vote

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 4 votes

Rate Radeon R9 M385X 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.