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

✅Less risky long-term buy than Radeon R9 295X2: it remains the more sensible modern option while Radeon R9 295X2 is already legacy-tier future-proofing.
✅Draws 60W instead of 500W, a 440W reduction.
✅More future proof: Turing (2018−2022) on 12nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.

Trade-offs

❌Lower average FPS than Radeon R9 295X2 across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
❌Less VRAM, with 6 GB vs 8 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
❌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 5.8 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $1,499 MSRP).

Radeon R9 295X2

2014

Why buy it

✅7.2% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
✅Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 5.8 vs 0 G3D/$ ($1,499 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).
✅33.3% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (8 GB vs 6 GB).

Trade-offs

❌Poor future-proofing: 2014-era hardware with 8 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.
❌733.3% higher power demand at 500W vs 60W.

GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design

2019

Radeon R9 295X2

2014

Why buy it

✅Less risky long-term buy than Radeon R9 295X2: it remains the more sensible modern option while Radeon R9 295X2 is already legacy-tier future-proofing.
✅Draws 60W instead of 500W, a 440W reduction.
✅More future proof: Turing (2018−2022) on 12nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.

Why buy it

✅7.2% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
✅Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 5.8 vs 0 G3D/$ ($1,499 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).
✅33.3% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (8 GB vs 6 GB).

Trade-offs

❌Lower average FPS than Radeon R9 295X2 across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
❌Less VRAM, with 6 GB vs 8 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
❌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 5.8 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $1,499 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Poor future-proofing: 2014-era hardware with 8 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.
❌733.3% higher power demand at 500W vs 60W.

Quick Answers

So, is Radeon R9 295X2 better than GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design?

Yes, but this is not really about a huge raw performance gap. Radeon R9 295X2 averages 7.2% more FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data. The broader synthetic picture is also very close at 8,589 vs 8,734 in G3D Mark. The bigger reason to prefer Radeon R9 295X2 is the overall package: you are getting FSR upscaling.

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 2014, the stronger feature stack with no meaningful modern upscaling stack instead of FSR upscaling, and a 12nm process instead of 28nm. That broader feature stack should age better as more games lean on modern upscaling and frame-generation support.

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

Radeon R9 295X2 can still make sense if you find it at the right price, especially around $1,499 MSRP. Radeon R9 295X2 is still the smarter buy for most people, though, because the raw performance is close while the overall package is cleaner. Radeon R9 295X2 is priced in an unclear MSRP range at $1,499 MSRP versus an unclear MSRP, and you are getting 7.2% more estimated average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data and 1.7% higher G3D Mark. GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design is the newer 2019 card, so it still has a real case if you care more about newer architecture, lower power draw (60W vs 500W), and future-proofing than about squeezing out the strongest gaming value today.

When does GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design make more sense than Radeon R9 295X2?

Yes. GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design is still an excellent gaming GPU in 2026: it is still comfortable for 1080p and decent for 1440p, though 4K is more situational. It makes more sense if your priority is newer architecture, lower power draw (60W vs 500W), future-proofing, and staying closer to an unclear MSRP more than squeezing out the extra headroom of Radeon R9 295X2. The trade-off is that Radeon R9 295X2 currently gives you 1.7% higher G3D Mark and 7.2% more estimated average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data. It also leads G3D-per-dollar by 100+%.

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 295X2 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design	Radeon R9 295X2
1080p
low	80 FPS	105 FPS
medium	69 FPS	89 FPS
high	59 FPS	73 FPS
ultra	39 FPS	49 FPS
1440p
low	70 FPS	89 FPS
medium	62 FPS	75 FPS
high	46 FPS	55 FPS
ultra	30 FPS	36 FPS
4K
low	26 FPS	36 FPS
medium	25 FPS	32 FPS
high	17 FPS	20 FPS
ultra	14 FPS	17 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design Open Radeon R9 295X2

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design	Radeon R9 295X2
1080p
low	219 FPS	193 FPS
medium	192 FPS	169 FPS
high	145 FPS	141 FPS
ultra	117 FPS	110 FPS
1440p
low	166 FPS	137 FPS
medium	141 FPS	111 FPS
high	112 FPS	88 FPS
ultra	89 FPS	68 FPS
4K
low	98 FPS	63 FPS
medium	82 FPS	53 FPS
high	66 FPS	48 FPS
ultra	51 FPS	39 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design Open Radeon R9 295X2

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design	Radeon R9 295X2
1080p
low	387 FPS	393 FPS
medium	309 FPS	314 FPS
high	258 FPS	262 FPS
ultra	193 FPS	197 FPS
1440p
low	290 FPS	295 FPS
medium	232 FPS	236 FPS
high	193 FPS	197 FPS
ultra	145 FPS	147 FPS
4K
low	193 FPS	197 FPS
medium	155 FPS	157 FPS
high	129 FPS	131 FPS
ultra	97 FPS	98 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design Open Radeon R9 295X2

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design	Radeon R9 295X2
1080p
low	235 FPS	240 FPS
medium	197 FPS	207 FPS
high	160 FPS	168 FPS
ultra	135 FPS	143 FPS
1440p
low	178 FPS	179 FPS
medium	153 FPS	155 FPS
high	120 FPS	120 FPS
ultra	97 FPS	98 FPS
4K
low	96 FPS	103 FPS
medium	76 FPS	82 FPS
high	60 FPS	65 FPS
ultra	45 FPS	50 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design Open Radeon R9 295X2

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 295X2

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 295X2

The Radeon R9 295X2 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in April 29 2014. It features the GCN 2.0 architecture. The boost clock speed is 1018 MHz. It has 2816 ×2 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 500W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 8,734 points. Launch price was $1,499.

⚡

Graphics Performance

The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design scores 8,589 and the Radeon R9 295X2 reaches 8,734 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.7% 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 295X2 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 295X2). Raw compute: 4.101 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design) vs 5.733 TFLOPS ×2 (Radeon R9 295X2). Boost clocks: 1335 MHz vs 1018 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design	Radeon R9 295X2
G3D Mark Score	8,589	8,734+2%
Architecture	Turing	GCN 2.0
Process Node	12 nm	28 nm
Shading Units	1536	2816 ×2+83%
Compute (TFLOPS)	4.101 TFLOPS	5.733 TFLOPS ×2+40%
Boost Clock	1335 MHz+31%	1018 MHz
ROPs	48	64 ×2+33%
TMUs	96	176 ×2+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 295X2 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 295X2
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 295X2 has 8 GB. The Radeon R9 295X2 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 x2 (Radeon R9 295X2) — a 1011.8% advantage for the Radeon R9 295X2. Bus width: 192-bit vs 512-bit x2. L2 Cache: 1.5 MB (GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design) vs 1 MB (Radeon R9 295X2) — 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 295X2
VRAM Capacity	6 GB	8 GB+33%
Memory Type	GDDR6	GDDR5
Memory Bandwidth	288 GB/s	320 GB/s x2+11%
Bus Width	192-bit	512-bit x2+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 295X2). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.1. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.3. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 6.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design	Radeon R9 295X2
DirectX	12 (12_1)	12.0
Vulkan	1.4+27%	1.1
OpenGL	4.6+7%	4.3
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 295X2). 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 295X2).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design	Radeon R9 295X2
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 295X2's 500W — a 157.1% 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 1000W (Radeon R9 295X2). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs 2x 8-pin. Typical load temperature: 85°C vs 65°C.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design	Radeon R9 295X2
TDP	60W-88%	500W
Recommended PSU	500W-50%	1000W
Power Connector	PCIe-powered	2x 8-pin
Length	—	307mm
Height	—	114mm
Slots	0-100%	2
Temp (Load)	85°C	65°C-24%
Perf/Watt	143.2+718%	17.5