GeForce GTX 1660 vs Radeon R7 M380
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R7 M380 with GeForce GTX 1660, including specs and performance data.
GTX 1660 outperforms R7 M380 by a whopping 598% 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 | 736 | 233 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 38 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 36.25 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 17.76 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | Tropo | TU116 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 5 May 2015 (10 years ago) | 14 March 2019 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $219 |
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 | 640 | 1408 |
| Compute units | 10 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 900 MHz | 1530 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 915 MHz | 1785 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,500 million | 6,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 120 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 36.60 | 157.1 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.171 TFLOPS | 5.027 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 48 |
| TMUs | 40 | 88 |
| L1 Cache | 160 KB | 1.4 MB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 1536 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).
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 229 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 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 type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | 2001 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 32 GB/s | 192.1 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 | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| HDMI | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| DualGraphics | + | - |
| ZeroCore | + | - |
| Switchable graphics | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | Not Listed | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.2.131 |
| Mantle | + | - |
| 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 | 10−12
−730%
| 83
+730%
|
| 1440p | 7−8
−614%
| 50
+614%
|
| 4K | 3−4
−800%
| 27
+800%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 2.64 |
| 1440p | no data | 4.38 |
| 4K | no data | 8.11 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−1494%
|
271
+1494%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−788%
|
71
+788%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 9−10
−778%
|
79
+778%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
−575%
|
100−110
+575%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−1212%
|
223
+1212%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−625%
|
58
+625%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−733%
|
100
+733%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
−478%
|
130−140
+478%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−595%
|
132
+595%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12
−809%
|
100
+809%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 9−10
−556%
|
59
+556%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−565%
|
110−120
+565%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−467%
|
306
+467%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
−575%
|
100−110
+575%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−529%
|
107
+529%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 70−75
−276%
|
270−280
+276%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−488%
|
47
+488%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
−508%
|
219
+508%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−667%
|
92
+667%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
−478%
|
130−140
+478%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−547%
|
123
+547%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12
−700%
|
88
+700%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
−785%
|
115
+785%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 9−10
−411%
|
46
+411%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
−714%
|
57
+714%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−565%
|
110−120
+565%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−750%
|
102
+750%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−431%
|
287
+431%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
−575%
|
100−110
+575%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−400%
|
40
+400%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
−447%
|
197
+447%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−617%
|
86
+617%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−416%
|
98
+416%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 9−10
−300%
|
36
+300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−565%
|
110−120
+565%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−375%
|
57
+375%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−113%
|
115
+113%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 21−24
−478%
|
130−140
+478%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−675%
|
62
+675%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
−542%
|
190−200
+542%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
−2500%
|
52
+2500%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−1550%
|
33
+1550%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−303%
|
129
+303%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−438%
|
226
+438%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−7600%
|
75−80
+7600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−700%
|
24
+700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−743%
|
59
+743%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−660%
|
76
+660%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 4−5
−500%
|
24
+500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−700%
|
45−50
+700%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 8−9
−775%
|
70−75
+775%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−206%
|
49
+206%
|
| Valorant | 20−22
−525%
|
125
+525%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−900%
|
10
+900%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−569%
|
87
+569%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−900%
|
30
+900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−900%
|
50
+900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−700%
|
30−35
+700%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
−725%
|
30−35
+725%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35
+0%
|
35
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 13
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
This is how R7 M380 and GTX 1660 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1660 is 730% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1660 is 614% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1660 is 800% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 1660 is 7600% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 1660 performs better in 59 tests (89%)
- there's a draw in 7 tests (11%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.94 | 27.50 |
| Recency | 5 May 2015 | 14 March 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 12 nm |
GTX 1660 has a 598% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 50% 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 M380 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R7 M380 is a notebook graphics card while GeForce GTX 1660 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
