Radeon R9 390 vs GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design
Radeon R9 390
Popular choices:
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
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.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Per Dollar GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design
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 | Radeon R9 390 | GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+3.1%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-3.1%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / GCN 2.0 (2013−2017)) | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+33.3%) | 🎮 High Capacity (6 GB) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| 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.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Radeon R9 390 and GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design
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.
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.
Graphics Performance
The Radeon R9 390 scores 8,855 and the GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design reaches 8,589 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 3.1% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon R9 390 is built on GCN 2.0 while the GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design uses Turing, both on 28 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 2,560 (Radeon R9 390) vs 1,536 (GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design). Raw compute: 5.12 TFLOPS (Radeon R9 390) vs 4.101 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design). Boost clocks: 1000 MHz vs 1335 MHz.
| Feature | Radeon R9 390 | GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 8,855+3% | 8,589 |
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 | Turing |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 2560+67% | 1536 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 5.12 TFLOPS+25% | 4.101 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1000 MHz | 1335 MHz+34% |
| ROPs | 64+33% | 48 |
| TMUs | 160+67% | 96 |
| L1 Cache | 0.63 MB | 1.5 MB+138% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1.5 MB+50% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Radeon R9 390 | GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | FSR 3 (Compatible) |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | AMD Anti-Lag | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The Radeon R9 390 comes with 8 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design has 6 GB. The Radeon R9 390 offers 33.3% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 320 GB/s (Radeon R9 390) vs 288 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design) — a 11.1% advantage for the Radeon R9 390. Bus width: 512-bit vs 192-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (Radeon R9 390) vs 1.5 MB (GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design) — the GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Radeon R9 390 | GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 8 GB+33% | 6 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 320 GB/s+11% | 288 GB/s |
| Bus Width | 512-bit+167% | 192-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1.5 MB+50% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12.0 (Radeon R9 390) vs 12 (12_1) (GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design). Vulkan: 1.2 vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 6 vs 4.
| Feature | Radeon R9 390 | GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12.0 | 12 (12_1) |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | 1.4+17% |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 6+50% | 4 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: VCE 2.0 (Radeon R9 390) vs 7th Gen NVENC (GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design). Decoder: UVD 4.2 vs 4th Gen NVDEC. Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1 (Radeon R9 390) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9,MPEG-2,VC-1 (GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design).
| Feature | Radeon R9 390 | GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | VCE 2.0 | 7th Gen NVENC |
| Decoder | UVD 4.2 | 4th Gen NVDEC |
| Codecs | MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1 | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9,MPEG-2,VC-1 |
Power & Dimensions
The Radeon R9 390 draws 300W versus the GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design's 60W — a 133.3% difference. The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 750W (Radeon R9 390) vs 500W (GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design). Power connectors: 6-pin + 8-pin vs PCIe-powered. Typical load temperature: 95°C vs 85°C.
| Feature | Radeon R9 390 | GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 300W | 60W-80% |
| Recommended PSU | 750W | 500W-33% |
| Power Connector | 6-pin + 8-pin | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 275mm | — |
| Height | 109mm | — |
| Slots | 2 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | 95°C | 85°C-11% |
| Perf/Watt | 29.5 | 143.2+385% |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2015).
| Feature | Radeon R9 390 | GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $329 | — |
| Avg Price (30d) | $65 | — |
| Codename | Grenada | TU116 |
| Release | June 18 2015 | April 23 2019 |
| Ranking | #296 | #299 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Radeon R9 390 and GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design
