The Radeon R9 270X is the comparison's loser – it's at least 2x slower gaming GPU than the GeForce GTX 1660 Ti and it's also a much worse value for money, as it's only $118.02 cheaper!
Advantages of the Radeon R9 270X
- Up to 32% cheaper – $251.35 vs $369.37
Advantages of the GeForce GTX 1660 Ti
- At least 2x faster GPU for gaming
- A much better value for money for gaming
- Consumes up to 33% less energy – 120 vs 180 Watts
- Up to 200% more VRAM memory – 6 vs 2 GB
Radeon R9 270X vs GeForce GTX 1660 Ti for Gaming
The GPU's performance in selected game and settings
Radeon R9 270X
Oct 8th, 2013
Average FPS
51
61%
Min 1% FPS
23
52%
Price, €
€251.35
100%
Value, €/FPS
€4.92/FPS
90%
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti
Feb 22nd, 2019
Average FPS
83
100%
Min 1% FPS
44
100%
Price, €
€369.37
68%
Value, €/FPS
€4.45/FPS
100%
Buy on Amazon
€369.37
In Stock
Buy on Amazon
€162.12
In Stock
Radeon R9 270X vs GeForce GTX 1660 Ti in My Games
The FPS you'll get in saved games
The FPS you'll get in saved games
Add a Game
Select Settings
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Radeon R9 270X vs GeForce GTX 1660 Ti in synthetic GPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Radeon R9 270X vs GeForce GTX 1660 Ti in core GPU performance specifications
Radeon R9 270X
Oct 8th, 2013
Memory
2 GB
33%
Memory Bandwidth
179.2 GB/s
62%
Pixel Fillrate
33.6 GPixel/s
40%
Texture Fillrate
84 GTexel/s
49%
FP32
2.688 TFLOPS
49%
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti
Feb 22nd, 2019
Memory
6 GB
100%
Memory Bandwidth
288 GB/s
100%
Pixel Fillrate
84.96 GPixel/s
100%
Texture Fillrate
169.9 GTexel/s
100%
FP32
5.437 TFLOPS
100%
Specifications
Comparison of all specifications
Radeon R9 270X | SpecificationsComparison of all specifications | GeForce GTX 1660 Ti |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Oct 8th, 2013 | Release Date | Feb 22nd, 2019 |
$199.00 | MSRP | $279.00 |
| Volcanic Islands | Generation | GeForce 16 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| 180 W | Power Consumption | 120 W |
| Memory | ||
| 2 GB | Memory Size | 6 GB |
| GDDR5 | Memory Type | GDDR6 |
| 256-bit | Memory Bus | 192-bit |
| 179.2 GB/s | Bandwidth | 288 GB/s |
| Theoretical Performance | ||
| 33.6 GPixel/s | Pixel Fillrate | 84.96 GPixel/s |
| 84 GTexel/s | Texture Fillrate | 169.9 GTexel/s |
| 2.688 TFLOPS | FP32 | 5.437 TFLOPS |
