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.

Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook

This comparison brings together gaming FPS, raw graphics performance, VRAM, feature set, power efficiency, pricing context, and long-term value so you can see which GPU actually makes more sense.

GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design

2019

Why buy it

✅50% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (6 GB vs 4 GB).
✅Less risky long-term buy than Radeon R9 290X: it remains the more sensible modern option while Radeon R9 290X is already legacy-tier future-proofing.
✅Draws 60W instead of 350W, a 290W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 6 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.
❌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

❌Less VRAM, with 4 GB vs 6 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
❌Poor future-proofing: 2013-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.
❌483.3% higher power demand at 350W vs 60W.

GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design

2019

Radeon R9 290X

2013

Why buy it

✅50% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (6 GB vs 4 GB).
✅Less risky long-term buy than Radeon R9 290X: it remains the more sensible modern option while Radeon R9 290X is already legacy-tier future-proofing.
✅Draws 60W instead of 350W, a 290W reduction.

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

❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 6 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 15.3 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $549 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Less VRAM, with 4 GB vs 6 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
❌Poor future-proofing: 2013-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.
❌483.3% higher power demand at 350W vs 60W.

Quick Answers

So, is GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design better than Radeon R9 290X?

Yes, but this is not really about a huge raw performance gap. The broader synthetic picture is also very close at 8,589 vs 8,426 in G3D Mark. The bigger reason to prefer GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design is the overall package: you are getting a newer generation, no meaningful modern upscaling stack, plus much lower power draw (60W vs 350W).

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer 2019 generation instead of 2013, more VRAM at 6 GB instead of 4 GB, the stronger feature stack with no meaningful modern upscaling stack instead of FSR upscaling, and a 12nm process instead of 28nm. That extra memory headroom makes it the safer pick for newer games, heavier textures, and higher settings over time.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper card?

GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design is the smarter buy by a wide margin. GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design is priced in an unclear MSRP range at an unclear MSRP versus $549 MSRP, and you are getting 1.9% higher G3D Mark. Radeon R9 290X really only makes sense now as a very cheap stopgap or a used-market placeholder.

Is Radeon R9 290X still worth buying for gaming in 2026?

No, not for a fresh gaming build. Radeon R9 290X is 2013 hardware with 4 GB of VRAM, 8,426 in G3D Mark, and FSR upscaling. That is simply too far behind to be an easy modern recommendation.

Games Benchmarks

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 9800X3D 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 290X Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design	Radeon R9 290X
1080p
low	80 FPS	103 FPS
medium	69 FPS	89 FPS
high	59 FPS	72 FPS
ultra	39 FPS	43 FPS
1440p
low	70 FPS	90 FPS
medium	62 FPS	79 FPS
high	46 FPS	57 FPS
ultra	30 FPS	33 FPS
4K
low	26 FPS	28 FPS
medium	25 FPS	27 FPS
high	17 FPS	18 FPS
ultra	14 FPS	15 FPS

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

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design	Radeon R9 290X
1080p
low	219 FPS	197 FPS
medium	192 FPS	168 FPS
high	145 FPS	134 FPS
ultra	117 FPS	104 FPS
1440p
low	166 FPS	134 FPS
medium	141 FPS	104 FPS
high	112 FPS	82 FPS
ultra	89 FPS	62 FPS
4K
low	98 FPS	61 FPS
medium	82 FPS	49 FPS
high	66 FPS	44 FPS
ultra	51 FPS	35 FPS

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

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design	Radeon R9 290X
1080p
low	387 FPS	379 FPS
medium	309 FPS	303 FPS
high	258 FPS	253 FPS
ultra	193 FPS	190 FPS
1440p
low	290 FPS	284 FPS
medium	232 FPS	228 FPS
high	193 FPS	190 FPS
ultra	145 FPS	142 FPS
4K
low	193 FPS	190 FPS
medium	155 FPS	152 FPS
high	129 FPS	126 FPS
ultra	97 FPS	95 FPS

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

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design	Radeon R9 290X
1080p
low	235 FPS	155 FPS
medium	197 FPS	128 FPS
high	160 FPS	110 FPS
ultra	135 FPS	94 FPS
1440p
low	178 FPS	110 FPS
medium	153 FPS	91 FPS
high	120 FPS	79 FPS
ultra	97 FPS	65 FPS
4K
low	96 FPS	66 FPS
medium	76 FPS	52 FPS
high	60 FPS	41 FPS
ultra	45 FPS	31 FPS

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

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design and Radeon R9 290X

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 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.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design	Radeon 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 gives access to NVIDIA DLSS (Deep Learning Super Sampling), widely regarding as the superior upscaling method for image quality. The Radeon R9 290X relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design	Radeon 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 comes with 6 GB of VRAM, while the Radeon R9 290X has 4 GB. The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design offers 50% 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 290X) — a 11.1% advantage for the Radeon R9 290X. 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 290X) — 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 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.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design	Radeon 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).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design	Radeon 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.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design	Radeon 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