Radeon 625 vs GeForce GTX 1660
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1660 with Radeon 625, including specs and performance data.
GTX 1660 outperforms 625 by a whopping 984% 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 | 234 | 857 |
| Place by popularity | 38 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 35.25 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 17.76 | 3.93 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | TU116 | Polaris 24 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 14 March 2019 (6 years ago) | 13 May 2019 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $219 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | 1408 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 1530 MHz | 730 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1785 MHz | 1024 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 6,600 million | 1,550 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 157.1 | 24.58 |
| Floating-point processing power | 5.027 TFLOPS | 0.7864 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 8 |
| TMUs | 88 | 24 |
| L1 Cache | 1.4 MB | 96 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1536 KB | 128 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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Length | 229 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | None |
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 | GDDR5 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2001 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192.1 GB/s | 14.4 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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 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.
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.
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 | 83
+1086%
| 7−8
−1086%
|
| 1440p | 50
+1150%
| 4−5
−1150%
|
| 4K | 27
+1250%
| 2−3
−1250%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.64 | no data |
| 1440p | 4.38 | no data |
| 4K | 8.11 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 271
+3771%
|
7−8
−3771%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 71
+1320%
|
5−6
−1320%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 79
+1029%
|
7−8
−1029%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+1238%
|
8−9
−1238%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 223
+3086%
|
7−8
−3086%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 58
+1060%
|
5−6
−1060%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 100
+1329%
|
7−8
−1329%
|
| Fortnite | 130−140
+923%
|
12−14
−923%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 132
+915%
|
12−14
−915%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 100
+1567%
|
6−7
−1567%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 59
+743%
|
7−8
−743%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+769%
|
12−14
−769%
|
| Valorant | 306
+595%
|
40−45
−595%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+1238%
|
8−9
−1238%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 107
+1429%
|
7−8
−1429%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+442%
|
50−55
−442%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 47
+840%
|
5−6
−840%
|
| Dota 2 | 219
+742%
|
24−27
−742%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 92
+1214%
|
7−8
−1214%
|
| Fortnite | 130−140
+923%
|
12−14
−923%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 123
+846%
|
12−14
−846%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 88
+1367%
|
6−7
−1367%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 115
+1817%
|
6−7
−1817%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 46
+557%
|
7−8
−557%
|
| Metro Exodus | 57
+1325%
|
4−5
−1325%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+769%
|
12−14
−769%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 102
+1033%
|
9−10
−1033%
|
| Valorant | 287
+552%
|
40−45
−552%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+1238%
|
8−9
−1238%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40
+700%
|
5−6
−700%
|
| Dota 2 | 197
+658%
|
24−27
−658%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 86
+1129%
|
7−8
−1129%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 98
+654%
|
12−14
−654%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 36
+414%
|
7−8
−414%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+769%
|
12−14
−769%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 57
+533%
|
9−10
−533%
|
| Valorant | 115
+161%
|
40−45
−161%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 130−140
+923%
|
12−14
−923%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 62
+933%
|
6−7
−933%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 190−200
+947%
|
18−20
−947%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 52
+1200%
|
4−5
−1200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 33 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 129
+461%
|
21−24
−461%
|
| Valorant | 226
+883%
|
21−24
−883%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+1000%
|
7−8
−1000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24
+1100%
|
2−3
−1100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 59
+1375%
|
4−5
−1375%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 76
+1167%
|
6−7
−1167%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 24
+1100%
|
2−3
−1100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45−50
+1100%
|
4−5
−1100%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 70−75
+1300%
|
5−6
−1300%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 49
+227%
|
14−16
−227%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 18−20
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20
+1900%
|
1−2
−1900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35
+1067%
|
3−4
−1067%
|
| Valorant | 125
+862%
|
12−14
−862%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+1000%
|
4−5
−1000%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+1350%
|
2−3
−1350%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 87
+1143%
|
7−8
−1143%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30
+2900%
|
1−2
−2900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50
+2400%
|
2−3
−2400%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 13
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+967%
|
3−4
−967%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 30−35
+1000%
|
3−4
−1000%
|
This is how GTX 1660 and Radeon 625 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1660 is 1086% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1660 is 1150% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1660 is 1250% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the GTX 1660 is 3771% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 1660 surpassed Radeon 625 in all 55 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 26.33 | 2.43 |
| Recency | 14 March 2019 | 13 May 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 50 Watt |
GTX 1660 has a 983.5% higher aggregate performance score, a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.
Radeon 625, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 month, and 140% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 1660 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 625 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 1660 is a desktop graphics card while Radeon 625 is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
