GeForce GTX 1050 Ti vs GeForce GTX 1660: specs and benchmark comparison
Short verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 leads in every scenario with comparable benchmarks: rendering and compute. This does not imply an advantage in tasks without benchmarks.
Compare with AIRendering and compute
B +240.4%NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 leads in this scenario (up to 240.4% in comparable benchmarks).
No comparable benchmarks yet: gaming: rasterization, gaming: ray tracing, power efficiency.
Advantages
Only measured and rated values: a noticeable benchmark gap and specs where more is better.
Where GeForce GTX 1050 Ti is better1
Launch price $80 lower$139 vs $219
Where GeForce GTX 1660 is better8
Blender Benchmark 2.90 152.5% lower104 s vs 262 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 117.8% lower344 s vs 750 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 156.1% lower201 s vs 514 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 130.9% lower329 s vs 760 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 121.3% lower607 s vs 1,342 s
Blender Benchmark 4.5.0 224.9% faster680 samples/min vs 209 samples/min
Video memory 2 GB more6 GB vs 4 GB
Memory bus 64 bit more192 bit vs 128 bit
Benchmarks
Results are compared within one benchmark, one version and the same conditions.
- B ahead by 152.5%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti262.2 sGeForce GTX 1660103.8 sPosition among tested models (27, CUDA)
B · 104A · 2620100200300400Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 is ahead by 152.5% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti
262.2 s · community measurement, sample 65 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 65 submissions (8 outliers excluded), interquartile range 259.23–265.74; submissions 2020-09-02 to 2021-02-03; CUDA backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
- B · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660
103.8 s · community measurement, sample 68 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 68 submissions (8 outliers excluded), interquartile range 102.75–105.37; submissions 2020-09-02 to 2021-11-01; CUDA backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
difference = |A − B| ÷ the smaller value × 100%. The 5% noticeable threshold is a UX heuristic, not statistical significance.
Render time of a single Cycles scene without synchronization. Median of submissions after filtering.
- B ahead by 117.8%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, classroom (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti750.3 sGeForce GTX 1660344.5 sPosition among tested models (25, CUDA)
B · 344A · 7500200400600800Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 is ahead by 117.8% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti
750.3 s · community measurement, sample 42 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 42 submissions (2 outliers excluded), interquartile range 729.86–762.18; submissions 2020-09-04 to 2021-01-28; CUDA backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
- B · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660
344.5 s · community measurement, sample 45 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 45 submissions (8 outliers excluded), interquartile range 341.82–356.75; submissions 2020-09-03 to 2021-01-20; CUDA backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
difference = |A − B| ÷ the smaller value × 100%. The 5% noticeable threshold is a UX heuristic, not statistical significance.
Render time of a single Cycles scene without synchronization. Median of submissions after filtering.
- B ahead by 156.1%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti513.6 sGeForce GTX 1660200.5 sPosition among tested models (22, CUDA)
B · 201A · 5140200400600Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 is ahead by 156.1% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti
513.6 s · community measurement, sample 28 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 28 submissions (2 outliers excluded), interquartile range 507.94–520.93; submissions 2020-09-03 to 2021-01-26; CUDA backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
- B · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660
200.5 s · community measurement, sample 40 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 40 submissions (6 outliers excluded), interquartile range 199.05–204.92; submissions 2020-09-03 to 2021-01-09; CUDA backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
difference = |A − B| ÷ the smaller value × 100%. The 5% noticeable threshold is a UX heuristic, not statistical significance.
Render time of a single Cycles scene without synchronization. Median of submissions after filtering.
- B ahead by 130.9%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, koro (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti760.2 sGeForce GTX 1660329.3 sPosition among tested models (22, CUDA)
B · 329A · 7600200400600800Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 is ahead by 130.9% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti
760.2 s · community measurement, sample 26 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 26 submissions (3 outliers excluded), interquartile range 746.79–768.74; submissions 2020-09-02 to 2021-01-26; CUDA backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
- B · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660
329.3 s · community measurement, sample 38 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 38 submissions (7 outliers excluded), interquartile range 326.4–336.55; submissions 2020-09-03 to 2021-01-09; CUDA backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
difference = |A − B| ÷ the smaller value × 100%. The 5% noticeable threshold is a UX heuristic, not statistical significance.
Render time of a single Cycles scene without synchronization. Median of submissions after filtering.
- B ahead by 121.3%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti1,342.2 sGeForce GTX 1660606.6 sPosition among tested models (23, CUDA)
B · 607A · 1,34205001,0001,500Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 is ahead by 121.3% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti
1,342.2 s · community measurement, sample 24 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 24 submissions (3 outliers excluded), interquartile range 1328.71–1356.78; submissions 2020-09-03 to 2021-01-26; CUDA backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
- B · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660
606.6 s · community measurement, sample 38 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 38 submissions (6 outliers excluded), interquartile range 602.24–614.64; submissions 2020-09-03 to 2021-01-09; CUDA backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
difference = |A − B| ÷ the smaller value × 100%. The 5% noticeable threshold is a UX heuristic, not statistical significance.
Render time of a single Cycles scene without synchronization. Median of submissions after filtering.
- B ahead by 224.9%
Blender Benchmark 4.5.0
GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) · samples/min, higher is better
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti209.2 samples/minGeForce GTX 1660679.7 samples/minPosition among tested models (67, OptiX)
A · 209B · 68005,00010,00015,000Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, samples/min. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 is ahead by 224.9% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti
209.2 samples/min · community measurement, sample 70 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 70 submissions (3 outliers excluded), interquartile range 197.88–217.04; submissions 2025-07-18 to 2026-04-28; OPTIX backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
- B · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660
679.7 samples/min · community measurement, sample 22 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 22 submissions (0 outliers excluded), interquartile range 623.88–697.87; submissions 2025-07-17 to 2026-03-26; OPTIX backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
difference = |A − B| ÷ the smaller value × 100%. The 5% noticeable threshold is a UX heuristic, not statistical significance.
Cycles render in Blender Benchmark. Median of the sum of samples per minute over three scenes after removing outliers.
Other comparable benchmarks (9)
| Benchmark | A | B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 240.3 | 97.7 | B +146% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 246.7 | 98.2 | B +151.2% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 724.1 | 337.8 | B +114.4% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 736.9 | 340.7 | B +116.3% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 504.2 | 194 | B +159.9% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 224.2 | 744.3 | B +232% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 218.1 | 724.3 | B +232% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 213.5 | 726.6 | B +240.4% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.6.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 229.8 | 777.3 | B +238.3% |
Each benchmark version has its own scale: numbers are compared only within a row.
Reference results (98)
| Benchmark | A | B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, barbershop_interior (CUDA) | 2,202.7 | 1,138.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, barbershop_interior (CUDA) | 1,980.4 | 1,181.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 244.6 | 96.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 239.3 | 95.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 262.1 | 103 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 246.2 | 103.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 210.1 | 88.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 282 | 82.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 291.2 | 74.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 281 | 79.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 291 | 86 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 740.8 | 342 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, classroom (CUDA) | 714.7 | 345.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 765.4 | 347.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 713.6 | 361.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 649.9 | 316.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 889.8 | 319.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 927.7 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 948.2 | 328 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 499.3 | 186.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 484.7 | 186.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 496.8 | 188.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 493.1 | 201.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 497.5 | 198.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 528.7 | 159.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 566.2 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 613.6 | 170.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, koro (CUDA) | 863.8 | 320.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, koro (CUDA) | 830.5 | 316.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, koro (CUDA) | 830.1 | 316.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, koro (CUDA) | 807.5 | 330.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, koro (CUDA) | 760.2 | 313.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, koro (CUDA) | 773.5 | 334.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 635.9 | 199.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 905.2 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 1,414.9 | 580.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 1,228.3 | 584.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 1,252.9 | 582.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 1,278.6 | 580.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 1,271.1 | 592.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 1,168.2 | 518.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 1,443.6 | 458.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 1,483.2 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 1,577.2 | 471.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, victor (CUDA) | 14,116.7 | 806.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, victor (CUDA) | 9,729.6 | 798.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, victor (CUDA) | 7,575 | 789.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, victor (CUDA) | 8,373.1 | 800.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, victor (CUDA) | 9,266.8 | 781.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, victor (CUDA) | 7,320 | 764.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, victor (CUDA) | 6,327.4 | 919.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, victor (CUDA) | 5,837.1 | 860.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 3,441.1 | 646.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.0.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 261.7 | 808.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 226.7 | 707.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 229 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 218 | 764.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 275.9 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 218.6 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 262.3 | 791.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.6.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 279.4 | 616.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 235.7 | 754.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 238.8 | 744.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 252.3 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 4.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 273.9 | 775.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 303.3 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 4.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 277.8 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 232 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 217.1 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 4.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 214.1 | 689.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 182.3 | 595.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 177.4 | 617.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.0.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 238 | 798.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 226.7 | 644.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 223.8 | 753.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 204 | 754 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 208.3 | 700 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 211 | 700.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 215.3 | 686.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 209 | 676 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 179.9 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 194.6 | 490.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | — | 111.6 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, classroom (CUDA) | — | 385.9 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | — | 313.8 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | — | 261.8 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | — | 188.6 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | — | 159.4 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, koro (CUDA) | — | 402.1 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, koro (CUDA) | — | 286.5 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, koro (OPTIX) | — | 196.8 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, koro (OPTIX) | — | 211.1 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | — | 874.8 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | — | 551.6 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | — | 455.5 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, victor (CUDA) | — | 980.8 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, victor (OPTIX) | — | 688.9 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, victor (OPTIX) | — | 702.8 | no pair |
Each benchmark version has its own scale: numbers are compared only within a row.
Specifications
| Specification | A · GeForce GTX 1050 Ti | B · GeForce GTX 1660 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chip | |||
| GPU chip | GP107-400-A1 | no data | no data for B |
| Architecture | Pascal | Turing | differs |
| Shader unitsShader unit counts are comparable only within one architecture. | 768 (CUDA cores) | 1,408 (CUDA cores) | not directly comparable |
| Clocks | |||
| Base clock | 1,291 MHz | 1,530 MHz | B: 239 MHz more |
| Boost clockClocks of different architectures do not reflect performance directly. For laptop chips, the clock depends on the laptop’s power limit. | 1,392 MHz | 1,785 MHz | B: 393 MHz more |
| Memory | |||
| Video memory | 4 GB | 6 GB | B: 2 GB more |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 | equal |
| Memory bus | 128 bit | 192 bit | B: 64 bit more |
| Memory bandwidthExcludes cache (Infinity Cache / L2), which affects effective bandwidth differently. | 112.1 GB/s | no data | no data for B |
| Power and dimensions | |||
| Board powerTGP (NVIDIA) and TBP (AMD/Intel) are calculated differently; higher is not better. For laptops, the chip maker sets the range and the laptop maker picks the value, so the same chip behaves differently in different laptops. | 75 W (TDP) | 120 W (board power) | not directly comparable |
| Recommended PSU | no data | 450 W | no data for A |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 | differs |
| Length (reference / Founders Edition)Partner cards have different dimensions; check the specific SKU. | no data | 145 mm | no data for A |
| Thickness (slots) | no data | 2 | no data for A |
| Power connectors (reference) | no data | 1x 8-pin | no data for A |
Chip
GPU chip
AGP107-400-A1
Bno data
no data for BArchitecture
APascal
BTuring
differsShader units
A768 (CUDA cores)
B1,408 (CUDA cores)
not directly comparableShader unit counts are comparable only within one architecture.
Clocks
Base clock
A1,291 MHz
B1,530 MHz
B: 239 MHz moreBoost clock
A1,392 MHz
B1,785 MHz
B: 393 MHz moreClocks of different architectures do not reflect performance directly. For laptop chips, the clock depends on the laptop’s power limit.
Memory
Video memory
A4 GB
B6 GB
B: 2 GB moreMemory type
AGDDR5
BGDDR5
equalMemory bus
A128 bit
B192 bit
B: 64 bit moreMemory bandwidth
A112.1 GB/s
Bno data
no data for BExcludes cache (Infinity Cache / L2), which affects effective bandwidth differently.
Power and dimensions
Board power
A75 W (TDP)
B120 W (board power)
not directly comparableTGP (NVIDIA) and TBP (AMD/Intel) are calculated differently; higher is not better. For laptops, the chip maker sets the range and the laptop maker picks the value, so the same chip behaves differently in different laptops.
Recommended PSU
Ano data
B450 W
no data for AInterface
APCIe 3.0 x16
BPCIe 3.0
differsLength (reference / Founders Edition)
Ano data
B145 mm
no data for APartner cards have different dimensions; check the specific SKU.
Thickness (slots)
Ano data
B2
no data for APower connectors (reference)
Ano data
B1x 8-pin
no data for A
“More” does not always mean “better”: higher power draw or size is a system requirement, not an advantage (such bars are dimmed).
Compare with AI
An AI model reviews the specs and benchmarks of this pair and gives a plain-language verdict on who each model suits.
Questions and answers
How much video memory do NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 have?
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti: 4 GB GDDR5, 128-bit bus. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660: 6 GB GDDR5, 192-bit bus.
Which PCIe interface do the cards use?
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti: PCIe 3.0 x16. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660: PCIe 3.0.
Which is faster: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti or NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660?
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 leads in every scenario with comparable benchmarks: rendering and compute. This does not imply an advantage in tasks without benchmarks.
See also
Data sources (3)
- Wikipedia (English) — specifications of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti, release date and launch pricechecked November 14, 2026
- NVIDIA — specifications of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660checked November 7, 2026
- Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation) — benchmark Blender Benchmark 2.81, benchmark Blender Benchmark 2.81a, benchmark Blender Benchmark 2.82, benchmark Blender Benchmark 2.83, benchmark Blender Benchmark 2.90, benchmark Blender Benchmark 2.91.2, benchmark Blender Benchmark 2.92, benchmark Blender Benchmark 2.93.1, benchmark Blender Benchmark 2.90.1, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.0.1, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.1.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.2.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.2.1, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.3.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.4.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.5.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.6.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.0.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.1.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.2.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.3.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.4.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.5.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.1.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.1.1, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.2.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.0.0checked November 14, 2026
How we compare: methodology. Where the data comes from: sources.