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 390: it remains the more sensible modern option while Radeon R9 390 is already legacy-tier future-proofing.
✅Draws 60W instead of 300W, a 240W reduction.
✅More future proof: Turing (2018−2022) on 12nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.

Trade-offs

❌Lower average FPS than Radeon R9 390 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 26.9 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $329 MSRP).

Radeon R9 390

2015

Why buy it

✅5.8% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
✅Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 26.9 vs 0 G3D/$ ($329 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: 2015-era hardware with 8 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.
❌400% higher power demand at 300W vs 60W.

GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design

2019

Radeon R9 390

2015

Why buy it

✅Less risky long-term buy than Radeon R9 390: it remains the more sensible modern option while Radeon R9 390 is already legacy-tier future-proofing.
✅Draws 60W instead of 300W, a 240W reduction.
✅More future proof: Turing (2018−2022) on 12nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.

Why buy it

✅5.8% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
✅Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 26.9 vs 0 G3D/$ ($329 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 390 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 26.9 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $329 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Poor future-proofing: 2015-era hardware with 8 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.
❌400% higher power demand at 300W vs 60W.

Quick Answers

So, is Radeon R9 390 better than GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design?

Yes, but this is not really about a huge raw performance gap. Radeon R9 390 averages 5.8% more FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data. The broader synthetic picture is also very close at 8,589 vs 8,855 in G3D Mark. The bigger reason to prefer Radeon R9 390 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 2015, 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 390 can still make sense if you find it at the right price, especially around $329 MSRP. Radeon R9 390 is still the smarter buy for most people, though, because the raw performance is close while the overall package is cleaner. Radeon R9 390 is priced in an unclear MSRP range at $329 MSRP versus an unclear MSRP, and you are getting 5.8% more estimated average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data and 3.1% 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 300W), 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 390?

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 300W), future-proofing, and staying closer to an unclear MSRP more than squeezing out the extra headroom of Radeon R9 390. The trade-off is that Radeon R9 390 currently gives you 3.1% higher G3D Mark and 5.8% 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 390 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design	Radeon R9 390
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 390

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design	Radeon R9 390
1080p
low	219 FPS	184 FPS
medium	192 FPS	162 FPS
high	145 FPS	134 FPS
ultra	117 FPS	103 FPS
1440p
low	166 FPS	131 FPS
medium	141 FPS	106 FPS
high	112 FPS	85 FPS
ultra	89 FPS	65 FPS
4K
low	98 FPS	60 FPS
medium	82 FPS	50 FPS
high	66 FPS	45 FPS
ultra	51 FPS	36 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design Open Radeon R9 390

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design	Radeon R9 390
1080p
low	387 FPS	398 FPS
medium	309 FPS	319 FPS
high	258 FPS	266 FPS
ultra	193 FPS	199 FPS
1440p
low	290 FPS	299 FPS
medium	232 FPS	239 FPS
high	193 FPS	199 FPS
ultra	145 FPS	149 FPS
4K
low	193 FPS	199 FPS
medium	155 FPS	159 FPS
high	129 FPS	133 FPS
ultra	97 FPS	100 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design Open Radeon R9 390

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design	Radeon R9 390
1080p
low	235 FPS	224 FPS
medium	197 FPS	193 FPS
high	160 FPS	156 FPS
ultra	135 FPS	132 FPS
1440p
low	178 FPS	170 FPS
medium	153 FPS	146 FPS
high	120 FPS	113 FPS
ultra	97 FPS	92 FPS
4K
low	96 FPS	95 FPS
medium	76 FPS	75 FPS
high	60 FPS	59 FPS
ultra	45 FPS	45 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design Open Radeon R9 390

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 390

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 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.

⚡

Graphics Performance

The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design scores 8,589 and the Radeon R9 390 reaches 8,855 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 3.1% 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 390 uses GCN 2.0, both on 12 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 1,536 (GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design) vs 2,560 (Radeon R9 390). Raw compute: 4.101 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design) vs 5.12 TFLOPS (Radeon R9 390). Boost clocks: 1335 MHz vs 1000 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design	Radeon R9 390
G3D Mark Score	8,589	8,855+3%
Architecture	Turing	GCN 2.0
Process Node	12 nm	28 nm
Shading Units	1536	2560+67%
Compute (TFLOPS)	4.101 TFLOPS	5.12 TFLOPS+25%
Boost Clock	1335 MHz+34%	1000 MHz
ROPs	48	64+33%
TMUs	96	160+67%
L1 Cache	1.5 MB+138%	0.63 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 390 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 390
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 390 has 8 GB. The Radeon R9 390 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 (Radeon R9 390) — a 11.1% advantage for the Radeon R9 390. 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 390) — 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 390
VRAM Capacity	6 GB	8 GB+33%
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 390). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.2. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 6.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design	Radeon R9 390
DirectX	12 (12_1)	12.0
Vulkan	1.4+17%	1.2
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 390). 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 390).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design	Radeon R9 390
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 390's 300W — a 133.3% 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 390). 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 390
TDP	60W-80%	300W
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+385%	29.5