GeForce GTX 1660 vs Radeon R9 285

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 285 and GeForce GTX 1660, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R9 285
2014
2 GB GDDR5, 190 Watt
17.31

GTX 1660 outperforms R9 285 by an impressive 75% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking312180
Place by popularitynot in top-10051
Cost-effectiveness evaluation8.5749.00
Power efficiency6.3317.51
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameTongaTU116
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date2 September 2014 (10 years ago)14 March 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$249 $219

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 1660 has 472% better value for money than R9 285.

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 cores17921408
Core clock speed918 MHz1530 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1785 MHz
Number of transistors5,000 million6,600 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)190 Watt120 Watt
Texture fill rate102.8157.1
Floating-point processing power3.29 TFLOPS5.027 TFLOPS
ROPs3248
TMUs11288

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
Length221 mm229 mm
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors2x 6-pin1x 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 width256 Bit192 Bit
Memory clock speed1375 MHz2001 MHz
Memory bandwidth176.0 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.21x 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 Model6.56.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.11.2
Vulkan1.2.1701.2.131
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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

R9 285 17.31
GTX 1660 30.26
+74.8%

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.

R9 285 6680
GTX 1660 11677
+74.8%

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.

R9 285 8570
GTX 1660 14164
+65.3%

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 HD45−50
−84.4%
83
+84.4%
1440p27−30
−88.9%
51
+88.9%
4K16−18
−75%
28
+75%

Cost per frame, $

1080p5.532.64
1440p9.224.29
4K15.567.82

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 71
+0%
71
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 59
+0%
59
+0%
Battlefield 5 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 73
+0%
73
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 58
+0%
58
+0%
Far Cry 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Hitman 3 69
+0%
69
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 306
+0%
306
+0%
Metro Exodus 144
+0%
144
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 112
+0%
112
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 227
+0%
227
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 123
+0%
123
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 42
+0%
42
+0%
Battlefield 5 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 67
+0%
67
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 47
+0%
47
+0%
Far Cry 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Hitman 3 67
+0%
67
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 287
+0%
287
+0%
Metro Exodus 113
+0%
113
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 79
+0%
79
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 110
+0%
110
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 214
+0%
214
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 37
+0%
37
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 49
+0%
49
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40
+0%
40
+0%
Far Cry 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 98
+0%
98
+0%
Hitman 3 59
+0%
59
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 93
+0%
93
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 95
+0%
95
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 57
+0%
57
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 29
+0%
29
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 81
+0%
81
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 27
+0%
27
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 34
+0%
34
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 24
+0%
24
+0%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Hitman 3 39
+0%
39
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 67
+0%
67
+0%
Metro Exodus 59
+0%
59
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 67
+0%
67
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 187
+0%
187
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 53
+0%
53
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Hitman 3 21
+0%
21
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 63
+0%
63
+0%
Metro Exodus 44
+0%
44
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35
+0%
35
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 15
+0%
15
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 17
+0%
17
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10
+0%
10
+0%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 50
+0%
50
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 36
+0%
36
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 12
+0%
12
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 26
+0%
26
+0%

This is how R9 285 and GTX 1660 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1660 is 84% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1660 is 89% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 1660 is 75% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 17.31 30.26
Recency 2 September 2014 14 March 2019
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 6 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 190 Watt 120 Watt

GTX 1660 has a 74.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 58.3% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1660 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 285 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 R9 285
Radeon R9 285
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.


4.2 76 votes

Rate Radeon R9 285 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 5150 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.