GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q vs Radeon R7 250E

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
HD 7730 HD 7750 HD 7770 HD 8730 OEM HD 8760 OEM R7 250E R7 250X R7 250XE R7 350 R7 450 OEM R9 255 OEM RX 540 OEM
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
1650 Mobile 1650 Max-Q 1650 Mobile Refresh 1650 Ti Max-Q 1650 Ti Mobile 1660 Max-Q 1660 Mobile 1660 Ti Mobile 1660 Ti Max-Q 1660 Ti Mobile Refresh

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 250E with GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q, including specs and performance data.

R7 250E
2013
1 GB GDDR5, 55 Watt
4.01

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q outperforms R7 250E by a whopping 424% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
R7 250E R7 250E
GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking719289
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.0923.36
Power efficiency5.5526.70
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2012−2020)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameCape VerdeTU116
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date20 December 2013 (11 years ago)23 April 2019 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$109 $229

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q has 2043% better value for money than R7 250E.

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 cores5121536
Core clock speed800 MHz1140 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1335 MHz
Number of transistors1,500 million6,600 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)55 Watt60 Watt
Texture fill rate25.60128.2
Floating-point processing power0.8192 TFLOPS4.101 TFLOPS
ROPs1648
TMUs3296

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 datamedium sized
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length168 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount1 GB6 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit192 Bit
Memory clock speed1125 MHz1500 MHz
Memory bandwidth72 GB/s288.0 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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortNo outputs
HDMI+-

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.2.1311.2.131
CUDA-7.5

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.

R7 250E 4.01
GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 21.03
+424%

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.

R7 250E 1970
GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 13355
+578%

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 HD14−16
−464%
79
+464%
4K6−7
−450%
33
+450%

Cost per frame, $

1080p7.79
−169%
2.90
+169%
4K18.17
−162%
6.94
+162%
  • GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q has 169% lower cost per frame in 1080p
  • GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q has 162% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
God of War 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 83
+0%
83
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Far Cry 5 69
+0%
69
+0%
Fortnite 92
+0%
92
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
God of War 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Valorant 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 78
+0%
78
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 240−250
+0%
240−250
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Dota 2 94
+0%
94
+0%
Far Cry 5 66
+0%
66
+0%
Fortnite 90
+0%
90
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
God of War 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 87
+0%
87
+0%
Metro Exodus 48
+0%
48
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 92
+0%
92
+0%
Valorant 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 73
+0%
73
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Dota 2 86
+0%
86
+0%
Far Cry 5 62
+0%
62
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
God of War 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 51
+0%
51
+0%
Valorant 93
+0%
93
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 79
+0%
79
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
God of War 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 31
+0%
31
+0%
Valorant 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 38
+0%
38
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Dota 2 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Far Cry 5 30
+0%
30
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
God of War 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

This is how R7 250E and GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is 464% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is 450% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 65 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 4.01 21.03
Recency 20 December 2013 23 April 2019
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 6 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 55 Watt 60 Watt

R7 250E has 9.1% lower power consumption.

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q, on the other hand, has a 424.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 250E in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 250E is a desktop graphics card while GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is a notebook one.

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 R7 250E
Radeon R7 250E
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q
Like
Like

Other comparisons

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

R7 250E Radeon R7 250E
vs
GTS 450 Rev. 2 GeForce GTS 450 Rev. 2
GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q
vs
RX 5600M Radeon RX 5600M
R7 250E Radeon R7 250E
vs
GTX 460 768MB GeForce GTX 460 768MB
FX 330 NVIDIA FX 330
vs
R9 260 OEM 260 OEM
GTX 1060 6 GB Rev. 2 NVIDIA GTX 1060 6 GB Rev. 2
vs
R9 260 OEM 260 OEM
ATI IGP 340 ATI IGP 340
vs
R9 260 OEM 260 OEM
GT 240 NVIDIA GT 240
vs
R7 250E 250E
R5 M445 AMD R5 M445
vs
R7 250E 250E
RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 2000/3000) AMD RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 2000/3000)
vs
R7 260 260
GT 530 OEM NVIDIA GT 530 OEM
vs
R9 270 270
ATI HD 5870 Eyefinity 6 ATI HD 5870 Eyefinity 6
vs
R9 270 270
ATI 7000 Radeon 7000
vs
R9 290 290
Pro 560X AMD Pro 560X
vs
R9 290 290

Community ratings

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

4 25 votes

Rate Radeon R7 250E on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.3 586 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R7 250E or GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.