GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design vs Radeon R9 390

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.

Value Upgrade Path

This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design is positioned at rank #96 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Balanced cost-benefit for your build. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.•
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design

#28

Radeon RX 6650M XT

MSRP: $400|Avg: $400

99%

#30

Radeon 8050S

MSRP: $400|Avg: $400

94%

#31

Radeon RX 8050S

MSRP: $400|Avg: $400

94%

#86

Radeon RX 550X (móvel)

MSRP: $35|Avg: $35

252%

#88

GeForce GTX 1070 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $150

228%

#89

GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $100

227%

#93

GeForce GTX 1050 (Mobile)

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50

207%

#94

Radeon RX 6300

MSRP: $60|Avg: $40

205%

#96

GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: N/A

100%

#97

GeForce GTX 760M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $40

100%

#100

GeForce 945M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $98

98%

#103

Radeon RX 460 (móvel)

MSRP: $99|Avg: $45

96%

#105

GeForce GTX 680M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50

95%

#106

Radeon HD 7470M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $12

95%

#110

GeForce RTX 3050 4GB Mobile

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $150

93%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Per Dollar

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

⚠️ Generational Difference

The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design uses modern memory architecture. The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The Radeon R9 390 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.

🚀 Performance Leadership

The Radeon R9 390 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 3.1% higher G3D Mark score and 33.3% more VRAM (8 GB vs 6 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design.

Insight	GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design	Radeon R9 390
Performance	❌Lower raw frame rates (-3.1%)	✅Leading raw performance (+3.1%)
Longevity	Turing (2018−2022) (12nm)	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / GCN 2.0 (2013−2017))
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	🎮 High Capacity (6 GB)	✅ More VRAM (+33.3%)
Efficiency	💡 Excellent Perf/Watt	⚡ Higher Power Consumption
Case Fit	—	Standard Size (275mm)

💎 Value Proposition

While current pricing data is unavailable, the Radeon R9 390 remains the clear technical winner. Check real-time availability to determine if the performance gap justifies the market price.

Performance Check

Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.

Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.

GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design Benchmark Check

Radeon R9 390 Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design and Radeon R9 390

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.

Radeon R9 390

The Radeon R9 390 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in June 18 2015. It features the GCN 2.0 architecture. The boost clock speed is 1000 MHz. It has 2560 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 300W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 8,855 points. Launch price was $329.

⚡

Graphics Performance

The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design scores 8,589 and the Radeon R9 390 reaches 8,855 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 3.1% 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 390 uses GCN 2.0, both on 12 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 1,536 (GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design) vs 2,560 (Radeon R9 390). Raw compute: 4.101 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design) vs 5.12 TFLOPS (Radeon R9 390). Boost clocks: 1335 MHz vs 1000 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design	Radeon R9 390
G3D Mark Score	8,589	8,855+3%
Architecture	Turing	GCN 2.0
Process Node	12 nm	28 nm
Shading Units	1536	2560+67%
Compute (TFLOPS)	4.101 TFLOPS	5.12 TFLOPS+25%
Boost Clock	1335 MHz+34%	1000 MHz
ROPs	48	64+33%
TMUs	96	160+67%
L1 Cache	1.5 MB+138%	0.63 MB
L2 Cache	1.5 MB+50%	1 MB

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design	Radeon R9 390
Upscaling Tech	FSR 2.1 (Compatible)	FSR 1.0 (Software)
Frame Generation	FSR 3 (Compatible)	Not Supported
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	Standard	AMD Anti-Lag

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design comes with 6 GB of VRAM, while the Radeon R9 390 has 8 GB. The Radeon R9 390 offers 33.3% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 288 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design) vs 320 GB/s (Radeon R9 390) — a 11.1% advantage for the Radeon R9 390. Bus width: 192-bit vs 512-bit. L2 Cache: 1.5 MB (GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design) vs 1 MB (Radeon R9 390) — the GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design	Radeon R9 390
VRAM Capacity	6 GB	8 GB+33%
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 390). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.2. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 6.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design	Radeon R9 390
DirectX	12 (12_1)	12.0
Vulkan	1.4+17%	1.2
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 390). 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 390).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design	Radeon R9 390
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 390's 300W — a 133.3% 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 390). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs 6-pin + 8-pin. Typical load temperature: 85°C vs 95°C.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design	Radeon R9 390
TDP	60W-80%	300W
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+385%	29.5