The Radeon R7 250 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 $335.02 cheaper!
Advantages of the Radeon R7 250
- Up to 82% cheaper – $74.98 vs $410.00
- Consumes up to 54% less energy – 55 vs 120 Watts
Advantages of the GeForce GTX 1660 Ti
- At least 2x faster GPU for gaming
- A much better value for money for gaming
- Up to 500% more VRAM memory – 6 vs 1 GB
Radeon R7 250 vs GeForce GTX 1660 Ti for Gaming
The GPU's performance in selected game and settings
Radeon R7 250
Oct 8th, 2013
Average FPS
42
51%
Min 1% FPS
16
36%
Price, $
$74.98
100%
Value, $/FPS
$1.78/FPS
100%
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti
Feb 22nd, 2019
Average FPS
83
100%
Min 1% FPS
44
100%
Price, $
$410
18%
Value, $/FPS
$4.93/FPS
36%
Buy on Amazon
$410.00
In Stock
Buy on Amazon
$179.95
In Stock
Radeon R7 250 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 R7 250 vs GeForce GTX 1660 Ti in synthetic GPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Radeon R7 250 vs GeForce GTX 1660 Ti in core GPU performance specifications
Radeon R7 250
Oct 8th, 2013
Memory
1 GB
17%
Memory Bandwidth
28.8 GB/s
10%
Pixel Fillrate
14.8 GPixel/s
17%
Texture Fillrate
29.6 GTexel/s
17%
FP32
947.2 GFLOPS
17%
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 R7 250 | SpecificationsComparison of all specifications | GeForce GTX 1660 Ti |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Oct 8th, 2013 | Release Date | Feb 22nd, 2019 |
| Not Available | MSRP | $279.00 |
| Volcanic Islands | Generation | GeForce 16 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
55 W | Power Consumption | 120 W |
| Memory | ||
| 1 GB | Memory Size | 6 GB |
| DDR3 | Memory Type | GDDR6 |
| 128-bit | Memory Bus | 192-bit |
| 28.8 GB/s | Bandwidth | 288 GB/s |
| Theoretical Performance | ||
| 14.8 GPixel/s | Pixel Fillrate | 84.96 GPixel/s |
| 29.6 GTexel/s | Texture Fillrate | 169.9 GTexel/s |
| 947.2 GFLOPS | FP32 | 5.437 TFLOPS |
