GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design vs Radeon RX 480

NVIDIA

GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design

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

Radeon RX 480

2016Core: 1120 MHzBoost: 1266 MHz
Similar parts
·······

GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design vs Radeon RX 480 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 RX 480 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 RX 480: 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

  • Radeon RX 480 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 150W, a 90W reduction.
  • More future proof: Turing (2018−2022) on 12nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.

Trade-offs

  • Lower average FPS than Radeon RX 480 across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
  • Less VRAM, with 6 GB vs 8 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
  • 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 37.3 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $229 MSRP).

Radeon RX 480

2016

Why buy it

  • 2.4% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
  • Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 37.3 vs 0 G3D/$ ($229 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).
  • 33.3% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (8 GB vs 6 GB).

Trade-offs

  • 2016 hardware with 8 GB of VRAM already sits in legacy territory for modern games.
  • 150% higher power demand at 150W vs 60W.

Quick Answers

Which GPU is faster for gaming right now?
Radeon RX 480 is the faster gaming card right now. In our data, it leads by 2.4% in average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data. PassMark G3D leans toward GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design instead at 8,589 vs 8,546, so for this question the real-game FPS result matters more than the synthetic split.
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: a 12nm process instead of 14nm and a newer 2019 generation instead of 2016. That makes it the less risky pick as game demands keep moving.
Which GPU is the better buy today?
Radeon RX 480 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 RX 480 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 RX 480 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 RX 480

The Radeon RX 480 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in June 29 2016. It features the GCN 4.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1120 MHz to 1266 MHz. It has 2304 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 150W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 8,546 points. Launch price was $229.

Graphics Performance

The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design scores 8,589 and the Radeon RX 480 reaches 8,546 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.5% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design is built on Turing while the Radeon RX 480 uses GCN 4.0, both on 12 nm vs 14 nm. Shader units: 1,536 (GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design) vs 2,304 (Radeon RX 480). Raw compute: 4.101 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design) vs 5.834 TFLOPS (Radeon RX 480). Boost clocks: 1335 MHz vs 1266 MHz.

FeatureGeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q DesignRadeon RX 480
G3D Mark Score
8,589
8,546
Architecture
Turing
GCN 4.0
Process Node
12 nm
14 nm
Shading Units
1536
2304+50%
Compute (TFLOPS)
4.101 TFLOPS
5.834 TFLOPS+42%
Boost Clock
1335 MHz+5%
1266 MHz
ROPs
48+50%
32
TMUs
96
144+50%
L1 Cache
1.5 MB+168%
0.56 MB
L2 Cache
1.5 MB
2 MB+33%

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 RX 480 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 RX 480
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 RX 480 carries 8 GB. Radeon RX 480 gives you 33.3% 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 256 GB/s (Radeon RX 480) — a 12.5% advantage for the GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design. Memory bus width is 192-bit on the GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design and 256-bit on the Radeon RX 480. L2 Cache: 1.5 MB (GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design) vs 2 MB (Radeon RX 480) — the Radeon RX 480 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

FeatureGeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q DesignRadeon RX 480
VRAM Capacity
6 GB
8 GB+33%
Memory Type
GDDR6
GDDR5
Memory Bandwidth
288 GB/s+13%
256 GB/s
Bus Width
192-bit
256-bit+33%
L2 Cache
1.5 MB
2 MB+33%
🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (12_1) (GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design) vs 12.0 (Radeon RX 480). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 4.

FeatureGeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q DesignRadeon RX 480
DirectX
12 (12_1)
12.0
Vulkan
1.4+8%
1.3
OpenGL
4.6
4.6
Max Displays
4
4
🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: 7th Gen NVENC (GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design) vs VCE 3.4 (Radeon RX 480). Decoder: 4th Gen NVDEC vs UVD 6.3. 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,HEVC (Radeon RX 480).

FeatureGeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q DesignRadeon RX 480
Encoder
7th Gen NVENC
VCE 3.4
Decoder
4th Gen NVDEC
UVD 6.3
Codecs
H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9,MPEG-2,VC-1
MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC
🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design draws 60W versus the Radeon RX 480's 150W — a 85.7% 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 500W (Radeon RX 480). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs 8-pin. Typical load temperature: 85°C vs 85°C.

FeatureGeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q DesignRadeon RX 480
TDP
60W-60%
150W
Recommended PSU
500W
500W
Power Connector
PCIe-powered
8-pin
Length
240mm
Height
95mm
Slots
0-100%
2
Temp (Load)
85°C
85°C
Perf/Watt
143.2+151%
57.0
💰

Value Analysis

The newer card here is GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design (2019 vs 2016).

FeatureGeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q DesignRadeon RX 480
MSRP
$229
Codename
TU116
Ellesmere
Release
April 23 2019
June 29 2016
Ranking
#299
#305

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.