GeForce GTX 1660 vs Radeon R3 Graphics

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the rankingnot rated186
Place by popularitynot in top-10039
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data48.20
Power efficiencyno data17.30
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameBeemaTU116
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date28 January 2015 (9 years ago)14 March 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$219

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 cores1281408
Core clock speed267 MHz1530 MHz
Boost clock speed600 MHz1785 MHz
Number of transistors930 million6,600 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt120 Watt
Texture fill rate4.800157.1
Floating-point processing power0.1536 TFLOPS5.027 TFLOPS
ROPs448
TMUs888

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).

InterfaceIGPPCIe 3.0 x16
Lengthno data229 mm
WidthIGP2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 8-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 typeSystem SharedGDDR5
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared6 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared192 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared2001 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data192.1 GB/s
Shared memoryno data-

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 ConnectorsNo outputs1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
HDMI-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.36.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan1.2.1311.2.131
CUDA-7.5

Pros & cons summary


Recency 28 January 2015 14 March 2019
Chip lithography 28 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 120 Watt

R3 Graphics has 700% lower power consumption.

GTX 1660, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Radeon R3 Graphics and GeForce GTX 1660. We've got no test results to judge.


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.


AMD Radeon R3 Graphics
Radeon R3 Graphics
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660
GeForce GTX 1660

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.


2.9 710 votes

Rate Radeon R3 Graphics on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 5333 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 1660 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.