Graphics Card Comparison

GTX 1660 vs R9 390X

Verdict
GTX 1660 vs R9 390X: R9 390X is faster for gaming

Head-to-head specifications

MetricGTX 1660R9 390XDifference
3DMark Time Spy1,7602,068-14.9%
Avg FPS @ 1080p3133-6.1%
Avg FPS @ 1440p1718-5.6%
Avg FPS @ 4K910-10.0%
FP32 compute (TFLOPS)5.05.9-14.9%
VRAM6 GB GDDR58 GB GDDR5
Memory bandwidth (GB/s)168448-62.5%
TDP (W)120275
Launch MSRP (USD)$219$429-49.0%
  • R9 390X averages 18 fps at 1440p versus 17 fps — about 6% faster.
  • GTX 1660 draws less power (120W vs 275W).

Verdict: GTX 1660 or R9 390X?

Our recommendation
R9 390X takes the overall edge, though GTX 1660 wins in specific areas worth weighing.

GTX 1660 advantages

  • Power efficiency (+56%)
  • Affordability (+49%)

R9 390X advantages

  • 1440p gaming (+6%)
  • 4K gaming (+10%)
  • Synthetic benchmark performance (+15%)
  • Video memory (+25%)
  • Memory bandwidth (+63%)

Which should you choose?

  • Choose the GTX 1660 if you want lower power draw, heat and noise.
  • Choose the R9 390X if you game at 1440p.
  • Choose the GTX 1660 if you want the better price for the performance.

Value for money

GTX 1660 delivers more performance per dollar, making it the better value of the two at their listed prices.

GTX 1660 vs R9 390X: which should you choose?

GTX 1660 — NVIDIA desktop graphics card (2019, Turing) with 6 GB of GDDR5, averaging 17 fps at 1440p; launched at $219.

R9 390X — AMD desktop graphics card (2015, GCN 2.0) with 8 GB of GDDR5, averaging 18 fps at 1440p; launched at $429.

GTX 1660 vs R9 390X: R9 390X is faster for gaming. R9 390X averages 18 fps at 1440p versus 17 fps — about 6% faster. GTX 1660 draws less power (120W vs 275W).

1080p, 1440p and 4K

At 1440p — the most common enthusiast resolution — the R9 390X averages 18 fps against 17. At 4K (9 vs 10 fps) VRAM (6GB vs 8GB) and memory bandwidth matter more.

Power and value

Board power is 120 W versus 275 W, which affects PSU headroom, case cooling and noise. At launch MSRPs of $219 vs $429, weigh the frame-rate lead against price and power draw for your target resolution.

The verdict

Both are credible choices in the graphics card comparison space; the specification table above lays out every metric so you can weigh the trade-offs that matter to you. Pick the one whose strengths line up with how you will actually use it.

Frequently asked questions

Is the GTX 1660 better than the R9 390X?

R9 390X takes the overall edge, though GTX 1660 wins in specific areas worth weighing. R9 390X averages 18 fps at 1440p versus 17 fps — about 6% faster.

What is the main difference between the GTX 1660 and the R9 390X?

R9 390X averages 18 fps at 1440p versus 17 fps — about 6% faster. GTX 1660 draws less power (120W vs 275W).

Which is better value?

GTX 1660 delivers more performance per dollar, making it the better value of the two at their listed prices.

Which should I choose?

Choose the GTX 1660 if you want lower power draw, heat and noise. Choose the R9 390X if you game at 1440p.

Methodology

Graphics cards are compared on 3DMark Time Spy scores, average gaming frame rates at 1080p/1440p/4K, FP32 compute throughput, VRAM capacity and type, memory bandwidth, board power (TDP) and launch MSRP — plus AI workload throughput (Stable Diffusion iterations/s and local LLM tokens/s) where measured. Vintage and server GPUs without modern benchmark results are compared on specifications only, clearly labelled. Frame rates are averages across a game suite at high settings; specific titles vary.

ER
EquivalentTo Research
Data & Benchmarks Team

We compile published benchmark results (Cinebench 2024, Geekbench 6, AnTuTu v10, 3DMark), manufacturer specifications and market pricing from nine regions into normalized, comparable datasets. Every figure traces to a named public source listed on each page.

Benchmark leaderboard compilationMulti-market pricing normalizationUnit & currency conversion
✓ Reviewed by EquivalentTo Editorial Review, Data Quality & Methodology.
Last updated 2026-07-01
GTX 1660 profile → R9 390X profile → Compare something else

Related comparisons