GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design vs Radeon R9 290X

NVIDIA

GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design

2019Core: 1140 MHzBoost: 1335 MHz
GTX family
····
VS
AMD

Radeon R9 290X

2013Boost: 947 MHz
Similar parts
·······

GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design vs Radeon R9 290X Performance Spectrum

About G3D Mark

G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.

GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design vs Radeon R9 290X FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with Ryzen 7 9800X3D to isolate GPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design vs Radeon R9 290X: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each GPU makes more sense in practice: raw FPS, VRAM, features, power draw, pricing, and long-term headroom.

GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design

2019

Why buy it

  • 14.4% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
  • 50% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (6 GB vs 4 GB).
  • Radeon R9 290X is already legacy-tier future-proofing, so GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design is the less risky modern option long term.
  • Draws 60W instead of 350W, a 290W reduction.

Trade-offs

  • Older hardware, 6 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in newer AAA releases.
  • Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 15.3 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $549 MSRP).

Radeon R9 290X

2013

Why buy it

  • Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 15.3 vs 0 G3D/$ ($549 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).

Trade-offs

  • Lower average FPS than GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
  • Less VRAM, with 4 GB vs 6 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
  • 2013 hardware with 4 GB of VRAM already sits in legacy territory for modern games.
  • 483.3% higher power demand at 350W vs 60W.

Quick Answers

Which GPU is faster for gaming right now?
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design is the faster gaming card right now. In our data, it leads by 14.4% in average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data and by 1.9% in PassMark G3D (8,589 vs 8,426), so the answer here is pretty clean.
Which GPU is the safer long-term pick for 2026 and beyond?
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design is the safer long-term pick for 2026 and beyond. The case is simple: 6 GB vs 4 GB of VRAM, a 12nm process instead of 28nm, and a newer 2019 generation instead of 2013. That gives it more room for heavier textures and higher settings over time.
Which GPU is the better buy today?
Radeon R9 290X makes the most sense today based on the pricing and value data we have for this matchup. If you are mainly targeting 1080p and some 1440p, Radeon R9 290X is the easier value choice. If you care more about 1080p and some 1440p headroom, GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design has the stronger long-term case.

GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design vs Radeon R9 290X Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

NVIDIA

GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design

The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in April 23 2019. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 1140 MHz to 1335 MHz. It has 1536 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 60W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 8,589 points. Launch price was $229.

AMD

Radeon R9 290X

The Radeon R9 290X is manufactured by AMD. It was released in October 24 2013. It features the GCN 2.0 architecture. The boost clock speed is 947 MHz. It has 2816 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 350W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 8,426 points. Launch price was $549.

Graphics Performance

The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design scores 8,589 and the Radeon R9 290X reaches 8,426 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.9% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design is built on Turing while the Radeon R9 290X uses GCN 2.0, both on 12 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 1,536 (GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design) vs 2,816 (Radeon R9 290X). Raw compute: 4.101 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design) vs 5.632 TFLOPS (Radeon R9 290X). Boost clocks: 1335 MHz vs 947 MHz.

FeatureGeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q DesignRadeon R9 290X
G3D Mark Score
8,589+2%
8,426
Architecture
Turing
GCN 2.0
Process Node
12 nm
28 nm
Shading Units
1536
2816+83%
Compute (TFLOPS)
4.101 TFLOPS
5.632 TFLOPS+37%
Boost Clock
1335 MHz+41%
947 MHz
ROPs
48
64+33%
TMUs
96
176+83%
L1 Cache
1.5 MB+117%
0.69 MB
L2 Cache
1.5 MB+50%
1 MB

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design gets NVIDIA DLSS, which still tends to look cleaner in motion. The Radeon R9 290X leans on FSR, which is flexible and widely supported, but usually a bit rougher at the same settings.

FeatureGeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q DesignRadeon R9 290X
Upscaling Tech
Upscaling support
FSR Upscaling / FSR 4
Frame Generation
Not Supported
Not Supported
Ray Reconstruction
No
No
Low Latency
NVIDIA Reflex
AMD Anti-Lag
💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design has 6 GB of VRAM, while the Radeon R9 290X carries 4 GB. GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design gives you 50% more memory capacity, which matters more once you move into heavier textures, mods, or higher resolutions. Memory bandwidth: 288 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design) vs 320 GB/s (Radeon R9 290X) — a 11.1% advantage for the Radeon R9 290X. Memory bus width is 192-bit on the GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design and 512-bit on the Radeon R9 290X. L2 Cache: 1.5 MB (GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design) vs 1 MB (Radeon R9 290X) — the GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

FeatureGeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q DesignRadeon R9 290X
VRAM Capacity
6 GB+50%
4 GB
Memory Type
GDDR6
GDDR5
Memory Bandwidth
288 GB/s
320 GB/s+11%
Bus Width
192-bit
512-bit+167%
L2 Cache
1.5 MB+50%
1 MB
🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (12_1) (GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design) vs 12.0 (Radeon R9 290X). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.1. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 6.

FeatureGeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q DesignRadeon R9 290X
DirectX
12 (12_1)
12.0
Vulkan
1.4+27%
1.1
OpenGL
4.6
4.6
Max Displays
4
6+50%
🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: 7th Gen NVENC (GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design) vs VCE 2.0 (Radeon R9 290X). Decoder: 4th Gen NVDEC vs UVD 4.2. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9,MPEG-2,VC-1 (GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design) vs MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1 (Radeon R9 290X).

FeatureGeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q DesignRadeon R9 290X
Encoder
7th Gen NVENC
VCE 2.0
Decoder
4th Gen NVDEC
UVD 4.2
Codecs
H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9,MPEG-2,VC-1
MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1
🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design draws 60W versus the Radeon R9 290X's 350W — a 141.5% difference. The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 500W (GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design) vs 750W (Radeon R9 290X). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs 6-pin + 8-pin. Typical load temperature: 85°C vs 95°C.

FeatureGeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q DesignRadeon R9 290X
TDP
60W-83%
350W
Recommended PSU
500W-33%
750W
Power Connector
PCIe-powered
6-pin + 8-pin
Length
275mm
Height
109mm
Slots
0-100%
2
Temp (Load)
85°C-11%
95°C
Perf/Watt
143.2+494%
24.1
💰

Value Analysis

The newer card here is GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design (2019 vs 2013).

FeatureGeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q DesignRadeon R9 290X
MSRP
$549
Codename
TU116
Hawaii
Release
April 23 2019
October 24 2013
Ranking
#299
#342

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.