GeForce GTX 1660 vs Radeon R9 M390
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 M390 with GeForce GTX 1660, including specs and performance data.
GTX 1660 outperforms R9 M390 by a whopping 209% 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 | 527 | 230 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 47 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 34.42 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 17.83 |
| Architecture | GCN (2012−2015) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | Pitcairn | TU116 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 9 June 2015 (10 years ago) | 14 March 2019 (7 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 | 1024 | 1408 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 1530 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1785 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5000 Million | 6,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 120 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 157.1 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 5.027 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 48 |
| TMUs | no data | 88 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 1.4 MB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 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 | large | no data |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | no data | 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 2001 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 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 data | 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.
| 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 | no data | 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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
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 | 43
−93%
| 83
+93%
|
| 1440p | 16−18
−213%
| 50
+213%
|
| 4K | 20
−35%
| 27
+35%
|
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 | 45−50
−465%
|
271
+465%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
−274%
|
71
+274%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 16−18
−359%
|
78
+359%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
−168%
|
100−110
+168%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
−365%
|
223
+365%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
−205%
|
58
+205%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
−245%
|
100
+245%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
−142%
|
130−140
+142%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
−230%
|
132
+230%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30
−257%
|
100
+257%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−242%
|
110−120
+242%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
−244%
|
306
+244%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
−168%
|
100−110
+168%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
−123%
|
107
+123%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 130−140
−95%
|
270−280
+95%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
−147%
|
47
+147%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
−227%
|
219
+227%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
−217%
|
92
+217%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
−142%
|
130−140
+142%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
−208%
|
123
+208%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30
−214%
|
88
+214%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 34
−238%
|
115
+238%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
−217%
|
57
+217%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−242%
|
110−120
+242%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 31
−229%
|
102
+229%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
−222%
|
287
+222%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
−168%
|
100−110
+168%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
−111%
|
40
+111%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
−194%
|
197
+194%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
−197%
|
86
+197%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
−145%
|
98
+145%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−242%
|
110−120
+242%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18
−217%
|
57
+217%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
−29.2%
|
115
+29.2%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 55−60
−142%
|
130−140
+142%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−265%
|
62
+265%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 65−70
−188%
|
190−200
+188%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
−333%
|
52
+333%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
−230%
|
33
+230%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
−169%
|
129
+169%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
−124%
|
226
+124%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
−250%
|
75−80
+250%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−243%
|
24
+243%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
−211%
|
59
+211%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−245%
|
76
+245%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−269%
|
45−50
+269%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 18−20
−268%
|
70−75
+268%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−433%
|
16
+433%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
−145%
|
49
+145%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
−300%
|
20
+300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12
−192%
|
35
+192%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−166%
|
125
+166%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
−300%
|
40−45
+300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−867%
|
27−30
+867%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−233%
|
10
+233%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
−164%
|
87
+164%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−233%
|
30
+233%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−233%
|
50
+233%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−256%
|
30−35
+256%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 9−10
−267%
|
30−35
+267%
|
This is how R9 M390 and GTX 1660 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1660 is 93% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1660 is 213% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1660 is 35% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 1660 is 867% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 1660 surpassed R9 M390 in all 60 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.00 | 27.78 |
| Recency | 9 June 2015 | 14 March 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 12 nm |
GTX 1660 has a 209% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 133% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce GTX 1660 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 M390 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R9 M390 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.
