AMD Radeon R9 M360 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Comparison

The AMD Radeon R9 M360 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti represent two distinct eras of mobile graphics, and the benchmark data reveals a fascinating split. In the two head-to-head tests available, each card claims one victory, but the magnitudes of those wins are wildly asymmetric. The GTX 1660 Ti crushes the R9 M360 in OpenCL compute by a staggering 83.9%, scoring 51,029 versus 8,211. Conversely, the older R9 M360 turns the tables in Vulkan, delivering 8,047 points against the GTX 1660 Ti's 5,827, a 38.1% advantage for the AMD part. This isn't a simple "newer is better" story; it's a tale of architectural priorities and driver maturity.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking data point is the Geekbench OpenCL result. The GTX 1660 Ti's score of 51,029 is more than six times higher than the R9 M360's 8,211, a delta of -83.9% from the AMD card's perspective. This is not a marginal improvement; it is a generational chasm. The GTX 1660 Ti's raw compute throughput, measured at 5.437 TFLOPS FP32, dwarfs the R9 M360's 947.2 GFLOPS. When a workload scales well across shading units, the NVIDIA card has an insurmountable lead. The 1536 shading units on the GTX 1660 Ti versus 512 on the R9 M360 explain this outcome, but the sheer scale of the difference suggests the AMD architecture is simply outclassed in this metric.

The Vulkan result, however, flips the script. Here, the R9 M360 scores 8,047, which is 38.1% higher than the GTX 1660 Ti's 5,827. This is a surprising outcome given the hardware disparity. The R9 M360's GCN 1.0 architecture, with its older design, manages to outperform the newer Turing-based card in this specific API test. The data suggests that the GTX 1660 Ti's Vulkan driver path may not be fully optimized, or that the R9 M360's lower overhead in this particular workload gives it an edge. The deltaPct of 38.1% is significant, indicating that the NVIDIA card is not universally faster.

Looking at the broader benchmark averages, the picture becomes murkier. The GTX 1660 Ti has an average benchmark score of 7,723, while the R9 M360 sits at 8,129. This means the R9 M360 actually has a higher average across all its recorded tests, despite being far older. The GTX 1660 Ti's average is dragged down by its Vulkan score and other low results like the Passmark DirectX 9 score of 190, which is surprisingly low for a card of its caliber. The R9 M360's consistency across its two benchmarks (8,211 and 8,047) gives it a higher mean, even though the GTX 1660 Ti's peak performance is vastly superior. This illustrates why single-metric comparisons can be misleading.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is enormous. The R9 M360 is built on GCN 1.0, a 2012-era design, using a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.2M per mm². In contrast, the GTX 1660 Ti uses the Turing architecture, fabricated on a 12 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 6,600 million transistors on a 284 mm² die, with a density of 23.2M per mm². The GTX 1660 Ti has more than four times the transistor count and nearly double the die area, which directly translates to its massive compute advantage. The 12 nm process also allows for higher clock speeds, with the GTX 1660 Ti boosting to 1770 MHz versus the R9 M360's 925 MHz.

Memory is another differentiator. The R9 M360 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 72.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 1660 Ti uses 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, achieving 288.0 GB/s. This four-fold increase in bandwidth is critical for modern games and compute workloads that are memory-bound. The GTX 1660 Ti also supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the R9 M360 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. The newer API support on the NVIDIA card allows for more efficient draw calls and better utilization of modern hardware features, though the Vulkan benchmark result suggests this doesn't always translate to real-world wins.

The feature sets also diverge. The GTX 1660 Ti has a TDP of 120 W, a dual-slot cooler, and requires a 1x 8-pin power connector with a suggested 300 W PSU. The R9 M360 has no listed TDP or power requirements, indicating it is a lower-power part designed for thinner laptops. The NVIDIA card also lists specific display outputs (1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a) and physical dimensions (229 mm length), while the AMD card omits these details. The GTX 1660 Ti supports FP16 at a 2:1 ratio (10.87 TFLOPS), a feature absent from the R9 M360's spec sheet, which matters for AI and certain compute tasks.

Where Each One Wins

The R9 M360 wins in the Vulkan API test, and its higher average benchmark score (8,129 vs 7,723) suggests it may be more consistent in legacy or less demanding workloads. For users running Vulkan-based applications that don't heavily utilize raw compute, the R9 M360 could provide a smoother experience. Its lower power draw, implied by the lack of a TDP spec, also makes it suitable for ultra-portable devices where battery life is paramount. The data shows it is within 0.1% of the GeForce GTX 950M and 0.4% ahead of the GeForce 945M, placing it in a competitive bracket for older mid-range mobile GPUs.

The GTX 1660 Ti is the clear winner in OpenCL compute, and its specifications suggest dominance in gaming and content creation. The 288.0 GB/s bandwidth and 5.437 TFLOPS FP32 performance are in a different league. Its Passmark G3D score of 12,871 is overwhelmingly higher than anything the R9 M360 could produce (the AMD card has no such test recorded). For DirectX 11 and 12 gaming, the GTX 1660 Ti's architecture is designed to excel, and its 48 ROPs and 96 TMUs provide the pixel and texture throughput needed for high-resolution rendering. The GTX 1660 Ti is also 0.7% ahead of the AMD Radeon 540 and 2.3% ahead of the Intel Arc A310 in its nearest rival list, showing it holds its own against contemporary budget parts.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M360 has a higher average benchmark score of 8,129, compared to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti's 7,723. This is due to the R9 M360's consistent performance across its two recorded tests, while the GTX 1660 Ti's average is lowered by a weak Vulkan score.

Q: How much faster is the GTX 1660 Ti in OpenCL?

A: The GTX 1660 Ti scores 51,029 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 83.9% higher than the R9 M360's 8,211. This represents a massive computational advantage for the NVIDIA card.

Q: Does the R9 M360 beat the GTX 1660 Ti in any test?

A: Yes, the R9 M360 wins the Geekbench Vulkan test with a score of 8,047, which is 38.1% higher than the GTX 1660 Ti's 5,827. This is the only head-to-head test the AMD card wins.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth differences?

A: The GTX 1660 Ti has 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth from 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus. The R9 M360 has 72.00 GB/s from 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. The NVIDIA card has four times the memory bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The GTX 1660 Ti has a transistor density of 23.2M per mm², while the R9 M360 has 12.2M per mm². This is due to the GTX 1660 Ti's more advanced 12 nm process versus the R9 M360's 28 nm process.

Q: What is the release date gap between the two?

A: The R9 M360 was released on 2015-05-04, while the GTX 1660 Ti was released on 2019-02-21. The GTX 1660 Ti is nearly four years newer.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R9 M360 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Turing |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 12 nm |

| Transistors | 1,500 million | 6,600 million |

| Die Size | 123 mm² | 284 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.2M / mm² | 23.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 900 MHz | 1500 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 925 MHz | 1770 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective) | 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 6 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 72.00 GB/s | 288.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 512 | 1536 |

| TMUs | 32 | 96 |

| ROPs | 16 | 48 |

| Pixel Rate | 14.80 GPixel/s | 84.96 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 29.60 GTexel/s | 169.9 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 947.2 GFLOPS | 5.437 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | null | 10.87 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | null | 120 W |

| Slot Width | null | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | null | 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | null | 300 W |

| Display Outputs | null | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (12_1) |

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2015-05-04 | 2019-02-21 |

| Launch MSRP | null | 279 USD |

The Verdict

The data presents a clear split. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is the obvious choice for any workload that leverages raw compute power, modern APIs, or high memory bandwidth. Its OpenCL score is 83.9% higher, and its specifications—5.437 TFLOPS, 288.0 GB/s, and 1536 cores—are categorically superior. Anyone running compute-heavy tasks, modern DirectX 12 games, or content creation applications should pick the GTX 1660 Ti without hesitation. Its launch MSRP was 279 USD, and it offers a level of performance that the R9 M360 cannot approach.

The AMD Radeon R9 M360, however, is not without merit based on the data. Its 38.1% victory in Vulkan is notable, and its higher average benchmark score (8,129 vs 7,723) suggests it may be a more stable performer in specific, less demanding scenarios. For users constrained to Vulkan-based applications or those seeking a lower-power solution for basic tasks, the R9 M360 holds up. The data also shows it is competitive with the GeForce GTX 950M and GeForce 945M, making it a viable option in its own vintage class. However, the GTX 1660 Ti's peak performance is so far beyond the R9 M360's that the AMD card's niche is narrow. For gaming, compute, or future-proofing, the GTX 1660 Ti wins decisively; for legacy Vulkan workloads, the R9 M360 shows a surprising edge.