AMD Radeon R9 Nano vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti

#ad
Buy
VS

Combined performance score

GTX 1660 Ti
33.39
+52.5%

GeForce GTX 1660 Ti outperforms Radeon R9 Nano by 53% in our combined benchmark results.

General info

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

Place in performance ranking149233
Place by popularity30not in top-100
Value for money25.885.28
ArchitectureTuring (2018−2021)GCN 1.2 (2015−2016)
GPU code nameTuring TU116Fiji
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Designno datareference
Release date22 February 2019 (5 years old)10 September 2015 (8 years old)
Launch price (MSRP)$279 $649
Current price$284 (1x MSRP)$27 (0x MSRP)
Value for money

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 1660 Ti has 390% better value for money than R9 Nano.

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 cores15364096
Compute unitsno data64
Core clock speed1500 MHzno data
Boost clock speed1770 MHz1000 MHz
Number of transistors6,600 million8,900 million
Manufacturing process technology12 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)120 Watt175 Watt
Texture fill rate169.9256.0
Floating-point performanceno data8,192 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 supportno dataPCIe 3.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length229 mm152 mm
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 8-pin1x 8-pin
Bridgeless CrossFireno data1

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 typeGDDR6High Bandwidth Memory (HBM)
High bandwidth memory (HBM)no data+
Maximum RAM amount6 GB4 GB
Memory bus width192 Bit4096 Bit
Memory clock speed12000 MHz500 MHz
Memory bandwidth288.0 GB/s512 GB/s
Shared memory--

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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort
Eyefinityno data+
Number of Eyefinity displaysno data6
HDMI++
DisplayPort supportno data+

Technologies

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

AppAccelerationno data+
CrossFireno data1
Endurono data-
FRTCno data1
FreeSyncno data1
HD3Dno data+
LiquidVRno data1
PowerTuneno data+
TressFXno data1
TrueAudiono data+
ZeroCoreno data+
VCEno data+
DDMA audiono data+

API support

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

DirectX12 (12_1)DirectX® 12
Shader Model6.56.3
OpenGL4.64.5
OpenCL1.22.0
Vulkan1.2.131+
Mantleno data+
CUDA7.5no 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.

GTX 1660 Ti 33.39
+52.5%
R9 Nano 21.89

GeForce GTX 1660 Ti outperforms Radeon R9 Nano by 53% in our combined 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%

GTX 1660 Ti 12942
+52.5%
R9 Nano 8486

GeForce GTX 1660 Ti outperforms Radeon R9 Nano by 53% in Passmark.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

GTX 1660 Ti 61217
+40.6%
R9 Nano 43546

GeForce GTX 1660 Ti outperforms Radeon R9 Nano by 41% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

GTX 1660 Ti 22892
+32.5%
R9 Nano 17282

GeForce GTX 1660 Ti outperforms Radeon R9 Nano by 32% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.

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%

GTX 1660 Ti 16024
+11.6%
R9 Nano 14362

GeForce GTX 1660 Ti outperforms Radeon R9 Nano by 12% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

GTX 1660 Ti 93095
+14.4%
R9 Nano 81374

GeForce GTX 1660 Ti outperforms Radeon R9 Nano by 14% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.

3DMark Ice Storm GPU

Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.

Benchmark coverage: 8%

GTX 1660 Ti 483604
+20.2%
R9 Nano 402499

GeForce GTX 1660 Ti outperforms Radeon R9 Nano by 20% in 3DMark Ice Storm GPU.

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 HD105
+15.4%
91
−15.4%
1440p59
+68.6%
35−40
−68.6%
4K38
−18.4%
45
+18.4%

Performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 78
+123%
35−40
−123%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 86
+95.5%
40−45
−95.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 74
+94.7%
35−40
−94.7%
Battlefield 5 129
+79.2%
70−75
−79.2%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 120
+111%
55−60
−111%
Cyberpunk 2077 71
+103%
35−40
−103%
Far Cry 5 109
+87.9%
55−60
−87.9%
Far Cry New Dawn 98
+66.1%
55−60
−66.1%
Forza Horizon 4 131
+77%
70−75
−77%
Hitman 3 100−110
+64.1%
60−65
−64.1%
Horizon Zero Dawn 70−75
+53.2%
45−50
−53.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2 82
+128%
35−40
−128%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 94
+100%
45−50
−100%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
+50%
40−45
−50%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 72
+63.6%
40−45
−63.6%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 55
+44.7%
35−40
−44.7%
Battlefield 5 112
+55.6%
70−75
−55.6%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 89
+56.1%
55−60
−56.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 57
+62.9%
35−40
−62.9%
Far Cry 5 99
+70.7%
55−60
−70.7%
Far Cry New Dawn 93
+57.6%
55−60
−57.6%
Forza Horizon 4 122
+64.9%
70−75
−64.9%
Hitman 3 100−110
+64.1%
60−65
−64.1%
Horizon Zero Dawn 70−75
+53.2%
45−50
−53.2%
Metro Exodus 55
+52.8%
35−40
−52.8%
Red Dead Redemption 2 45
+25%
35−40
−25%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 82
+74.5%
45−50
−74.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 116
+137%
45−50
−137%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
+50%
40−45
−50%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 53
+20.5%
40−45
−20.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 50
+31.6%
35−40
−31.6%
Battlefield 5 102
+41.7%
70−75
−41.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 46
+31.4%
35−40
−31.4%
Far Cry 5 94
+62.1%
55−60
−62.1%
Far Cry New Dawn 84
+42.4%
55−60
−42.4%
Forza Horizon 4 97
+31.1%
70−75
−31.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 62
+31.9%
47
−31.9%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
+50%
40−45
−50%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 57
+72.7%
30−35
−72.7%
Hitman 3 60−65
+66.7%
35−40
−66.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 45−50
+58.6%
27−30
−58.6%
Metro Exodus 33
+57.1%
21−24
−57.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2 28
+75%
16−18
−75%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 51
+75.9%
27−30
−75.9%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 41
+70.8%
24−27
−70.8%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 36
+71.4%
21−24
−71.4%
Battlefield 5 76
+55.1%
45−50
−55.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 27
+108%
12−14
−108%
Far Cry 5 67
+81.1%
35−40
−81.1%
Far Cry New Dawn 65
+54.8%
40−45
−54.8%
Forza Horizon 4 77
+75%
40−45
−75%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 45−50
+80%
24−27
−80%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
+75%
16−18
−75%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 31
+93.8%
16−18
−93.8%
Hitman 3 30−35
+65%
20−22
−65%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
+71.4%
14−16
−71.4%
Metro Exodus 21
+61.5%
12−14
−61.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2 19
+58.3%
12−14
−58.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 26
+73.3%
14−16
−73.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 43
+22.9%
35
−22.9%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 25
+78.6%
14−16
−78.6%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 19
+72.7%
10−12
−72.7%
Battlefield 5 43
+65.4%
24−27
−65.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 11
+120%
5−6
−120%
Far Cry 5 35
+94.4%
18−20
−94.4%
Far Cry New Dawn 35
+66.7%
21−24
−66.7%
Forza Horizon 4 51
+64.5%
30−35
−64.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 16−18
+60%
10−11
−60%

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

1080p resolution:

  • GTX 1660 Ti is 15.4% faster than R9 Nano

1440p resolution:

  • GTX 1660 Ti is 68.6% faster than R9 Nano

4K resolution:

  • R9 Nano is 18.4% faster than GTX 1660 Ti

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

  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 1660 Ti is 137% faster than the R9 Nano.

All in all, in popular games:

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

Advantages and disadvantages


Performance score 33.39 21.89
Recency 22 February 2019 10 September 2015
Cost $279 $649
Maximum RAM amount 6 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 12 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 120 Watt 175 Watt

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


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

User ratings

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 Nano
Radeon R9 Nano

Similar GPU comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

User ratings: view and submit

Here you can see the user rating of the graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4.2 6407 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.3 87 votes

Rate AMD Radeon R9 Nano on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions and comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.