AMD Radeon R7 250 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti and AMD Radeon R7 250 represent two very different eras of GPU design, separated by over five years of architectural evolution. The benchmark data reveals a stark performance chasm, with the GTX 1660 Ti dominating the single shared test, yet both cards occupy the same 41st percentile among all GPUs, a statistical oddity driven by their respective benchmark pools.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark between the two cards is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is a landslide. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti scores 51,029, while the AMD Radeon R7 250 manages just 7,557. This translates to a delta of 575.3% in favor of the NVIDIA card. In plain terms, the GTX 1660 Ti delivers over six times the compute throughput of the R7 250 in this OpenCL workload, a margin that underscores the generational gulf in raw processing power.

Expanding the comparison to their average benchmark scores paints a similar, though slightly less extreme, picture. The GTX 1660 Ti holds an average benchmark score of 7,723, while the R7 250 sits at 7,557. The delta here is a modest 2.2%, but this figure is heavily skewed by the fact that the R7 250 has only a single benchmark result (Geekbench OpenCL), whereas the GTX 1660 Ti is tested across a broader suite including 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, Passmark G3D, and Passmark GPU Compute.

Looking at the GTX 1660 Ti’s broader benchmark portfolio, its strengths are evident. In Passmark G3D, it scores 12,871, and in Geekbench Vulkan it reaches 5,827. Its Passmark GPU Compute score is 5,226. These figures show a card capable of handling modern DirectX 12 titles (evidenced by its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,061) and compute-heavy workloads. The R7 250, with only its single OpenCL result, offers no comparable data points in these other APIs, leaving its performance in gaming and modern compute tasks largely undefined in this dataset.

The nearest rival data for each card provides additional context. For the GTX 1660 Ti, its closest competitor is the AMD Radeon 540 with an average score of 7,673, a mere 0.7% behind. The AMD Radeon R7 250 itself is listed as the third-nearest rival, with its 7,557 average score trailing by 2.2%. For the R7 250, its own nearest rival list shows the Intel Arc A310 at 7,550 (0.1% behind) and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 at 7,580 (0.3% ahead), indicating that the R7 250 is clustered tightly with other low-end or legacy parts in aggregate scoring.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher peak performance in the shared benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is vastly superior, scoring 51,029 in Geekbench OpenCL compared to the AMD Radeon R7 250’s 7,557. That is a 575.3% advantage for the NVIDIA card.

Q: Are these two cards comparable in overall average performance?

A: Based on average benchmark scores, they appear close, with the GTX 1660 Ti at 7,723 and the R7 250 at 7,557 (a 2.2% delta). However, this is misleading, as the R7 250’s average is derived from a single OpenCL test, while the GTX 1660 Ti’s average includes results from multiple, more demanding benchmarks.

Q: What is the performance gap between the GTX 1660 Ti and its closest rival?

A: The GTX 1660 Ti is 0.7% ahead of the AMD Radeon 540, which has an average score of 7,673. It is also 1.9% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 and 2.3% ahead of the Intel Arc A310.

Q: How does the R7 250 compare to its immediate competitors?

A: The R7 250’s average score of 7,557 places it 0.1% ahead of the Intel Arc A310 (7,550), but 0.3% behind the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 (7,580) and 1.1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7,472).

Q: Does the R7 250 have any benchmark wins over the GTX 1660 Ti?

A: No. In the head-to-head data, the GTX 1660 Ti wins the only shared test (Geekbench OpenCL). The win count is 1 for the NVIDIA card and 0 for the AMD card.

Q: Which card has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: Both cards share the same percentile ranking of 41, despite their massive performance difference in OpenCL, due to the different composition of their respective benchmark score sets.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is fundamental. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is built on the Turing architecture, specifically using the TU116 chip, fabricated on a 12 nm process at TSMC. This chip contains 6,600 million transistors on a die size of 284 mm², resulting in a transistor density of 23.2 million per mm². In contrast, the AMD Radeon R7 250 uses the older GCN 1.0 architecture with the Cape Verde chip, manufactured on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. This chip houses just 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, yielding a density of 12.2 million per mm².

The implications of these architectural differences are profound. The Turing architecture supports modern features and higher efficiency, while GCN 1.0 is a much older design. This is reflected in their API support: the GTX 1660 Ti supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the R7 250 supports a more limited DirectX 12 (11_1) and an older Vulkan 1.2.170. The GTX 1660 Ti also features a 2:1 FP16 ratio, delivering 10.87 TFLOPS in half-precision, whereas the R7 250 has no listed FP16 capability. The GTX 1660 Ti’s FP32 performance is 5.437 TFLOPS, dwarfing the R7 250’s 947.2 GFLOPS.

The memory subsystems are equally divergent. The GTX 1660 Ti uses 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, providing 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 250 uses 1 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, offering just 28.80 GB/s. This is a 10x difference in bandwidth, which directly impacts texture fill and pixel throughput. The GTX 1660 Ti’s texture rate is 169.9 GTexel/s and its pixel rate is 84.96 GPixel/s, while the R7 250 manages only 29.60 GTexel/s and 14.80 GPixel/s, respectively.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal a comprehensive set of differences that explain the performance gap.

• Process Node: The GTX 1660 Ti uses a 12 nm process, while the R7 250 uses a 28 nm process.
• Transistors: The GTX 1660 Ti has 6,600 million, versus 1,500 million for the R7 250.
• Die Size: The GTX 1660 Ti’s die is 284 mm², compared to 123 mm² for the R7 250.
• Memory: The GTX 1660 Ti has 6 GB of GDDR6, while the R7 250 has 1024 MB of DDR3.
• Memory Bus: The GTX 1660 Ti uses a 192-bit bus; the R7 250 uses a 128-bit bus.
• Bandwidth: The GTX 1660 Ti offers 288.0 GB/s, versus 28.80 GB/s for the R7 250.
• Shading Units: The GTX 1660 Ti has 1,536, while the R7 250 has 512.
• TMUs: The GTX 1660 Ti has 96, compared to 32 for the R7 250.
• ROPs: The GTX 1660 Ti has 48, versus 16 for the R7 250.
• Base/Boost Clock: The GTX 1660 Ti has a base clock of 1500 MHz and a boost of 1770 MHz; the R7 250 has no listed base or boost clocks.
• Memory Clock: The GTX 1660 Ti runs at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective), while the R7 250 runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective).
• FP32 Performance: The GTX 1660 Ti delivers 5.437 TFLOPS, versus 947.2 GFLOPS for the R7 250.
• TDP: The GTX 1660 Ti has a 120 W TDP, while the R7 250 has a 55 W TDP.
• Slot Width: The GTX 1660 Ti is dual-slot; the R7 250 is single-slot.
• Power Connectors: The GTX 1660 Ti requires a 1x 8-pin connector; the R7 250 has none.
• Suggested PSU: The GTX 1660 Ti recommends a 300 W PSU, versus 250 W for the R7 250.
• Display Outputs: The GTX 1660 Ti supports 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a; the R7 250 has 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2.
• DirectX Support: The GTX 1660 Ti supports DirectX 12 (12_1); the R7 250 supports DirectX 12 (11_1).
• Vulkan Support: The GTX 1660 Ti supports Vulkan 1.4, while the R7 250 supports Vulkan 1.2.170.
• Release Date: The GTX 1660 Ti was released on 2019-02-21, while the R7 250 was released on 2013-10-07.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear hierarchy. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is in a completely different performance class than the AMD Radeon R7 250, as evidenced by its 575.3% lead in Geekbench OpenCL and its far superior specifications across every measurable metric, from shading units and memory bandwidth to pixel and texture rates. The GTX 1660 Ti is designed for modern gaming and compute workloads, with support for DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4, and it carries a launch MSRP of 279 USD.

The AMD Radeon R7 250, by contrast, is a legacy part from 2013, built on an older 28 nm process with a GCN 1.0 architecture. Its single benchmark result and limited API support (DirectX 12 11_1, Vulkan 1.2.170) place it firmly in the field of basic display output or very light, older workloads. Its only advantages are its lower power draw (55 W vs 120 W) and its single-slot, connector-free design, which may suit a low-profile or low-power system.

For any user seeking to play contemporary games or run modern GPU-accelerated applications, the GTX 1660 Ti is the only viable choice from this pairing. Its 6 GB of GDDR6 memory and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth provide a foundation that the R7 250’s 1 GB of DDR3 cannot approach. For a user with a legacy system requiring a basic, low-power card for non-demanding tasks, the R7 250’s lower TDP and physical footprint might be relevant, but the benchmark data offers no scenario where its performance is competitive. The verdict is unambiguous: the GTX 1660 Ti is the superior GPU by a massive margin, and the R7 250’s inclusion in the same benchmark database reflects its longevity rather than its capability.