GeForce GTX 1660 vs Radeon R7 350

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
Radeon HD 7750 Radeon HD 7770 Radeon R7 350 Radeon R7 450 OEM
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
GTX 1650 SUPER GTX 1650 TU116 GTX 1660 GTX 1660 Super GTX 1660 Ti

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 350 and GeForce GTX 1660, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R7 350
2016
2 GB GDDR5, 55 Watt
5.53

GTX 1660 outperforms R7 350 by a whopping 442% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

R7 350 R7 350
GTX 1660 GTX 1660

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking610191
Place by popularitynot in top-10044
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data47.06
Power efficiency7.0117.40
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameCape VerdeTU116
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date6 July 2016 (8 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 cores5121408
Core clock speed800 MHz1530 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1785 MHz
Number of transistors1,500 million6,600 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)55 Watt120 Watt
Texture fill rate25.60157.1
Floating-point processing power0.8192 TFLOPS5.027 TFLOPS
ROPs1648
TMUs3288

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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length168 mm229 mm
Width1-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1x 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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB6 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit192 Bit
Memory clock speed1125 MHz2001 MHz
Memory bandwidth72 GB/s192.1 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 DisplayPort1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
HDMI++

API 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

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
−500%
84
+500%
1440p9−10
−467%
51
+467%
4K4−5
−575%
27
+575%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data2.61
1440pno data4.29
4Kno data8.11

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 72
+0%
72
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 71
+0%
71
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 56
+0%
56
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 55
+0%
55
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 132
+0%
132
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 86
+0%
86
+0%
Metro Exodus 95
+0%
95
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 112
+0%
112
+0%
Valorant 138
+0%
138
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 48
+0%
48
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 45
+0%
45
+0%
Dota 2 150
+0%
150
+0%
Far Cry 5 145
+0%
145
+0%
Fortnite 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 110
+0%
110
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 63
+0%
63
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 115
+0%
115
+0%
Metro Exodus 66
+0%
66
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 216
+0%
216
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 40
+0%
40
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Valorant 65
+0%
65
+0%
World of Tanks 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 43
+0%
43
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 38
+0%
38
+0%
Dota 2 197
+0%
197
+0%
Far Cry 5 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 95
+0%
95
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 59
+0%
59
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 115
+0%
115
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 52
+0%
52
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 52
+0%
52
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 129
+0%
129
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 25
+0%
25
+0%
World of Tanks 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 23
+0%
23
+0%
Far Cry 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 67
+0%
67
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 40
+0%
40
+0%
Metro Exodus 59
+0%
59
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Valorant 72
+0%
72
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Dota 2 49
+0%
49
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 49
+0%
49
+0%
Metro Exodus 20
+0%
20
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 81
+0%
81
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 49
+0%
49
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 6
+0%
6
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10
+0%
10
+0%
Dota 2 87
+0%
87
+0%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Fortnite 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 36
+0%
36
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 22
+0%
22
+0%
Valorant 38
+0%
38
+0%

This is how R7 350 and GTX 1660 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1660 is 500% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1660 is 467% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 1660 is 575% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 5.53 29.95
Recency 6 July 2016 14 March 2019
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 6 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 55 Watt 120 Watt

R7 350 has 118.2% lower power consumption.

GTX 1660, on the other hand, has a 441.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce GTX 1660 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 350 in performance tests.

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 R7 350
Radeon R7 350
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660
GeForce GTX 1660
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 350 Radeon R7 350
vs
HD 7770 Radeon HD 7770
GTX 1660 GeForce GTX 1660
vs
Arc A580 Arc A580
R7 350 Radeon R7 350
vs
RX Vega 11 Radeon RX Vega 11
R7 350 Radeon R7 350
vs
GTX 750 Ti OEM GeForce GTX 750 Ti OEM
R7 350 Radeon R7 350
vs
RX 590 Radeon RX 590
R7 350 Radeon R7 350
vs
RX 580 2048SP Radeon RX 580 2048SP
R7 350 Radeon R7 350
vs
GeForce 6100 GeForce 6100
R7 350 Radeon R7 350
vs
GTX 1650 GeForce GTX 1650
R7 350 Radeon R7 350
vs
Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs
R7 350 Radeon R7 350
vs
UHD Graphics 730 UHD Graphics 730
R7 350 Radeon R7 350
vs
RX 6600 XT Radeon RX 6600 XT
R7 350 Radeon R7 350
vs
RX 6600 Radeon RX 6600
R7 350 Radeon R7 350
vs
RTX 3050 8 GB GeForce RTX 3050 8 GB

Community ratings

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

3.8 489 votes

Rate Radeon R7 350 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 5514 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.