GeForce GTX 1070 vs GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER: specs and benchmark comparison
Short verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER 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 +45.6%NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER leads in this scenario (up to 45.6% 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 1070 is better2
Video memory 2 GB more8 GB vs 6 GB
Memory bus 64 bit more256 bit vs 192 bit
Where GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is better11
Blender Benchmark 2.93.1 10.6% lower82 s vs 90 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 40.9% lower77 s vs 108 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 28% lower310 s vs 397 s
Blender Benchmark 2.92 7.3% lower194 s vs 208 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 24.8% lower288 s vs 360 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 7.1% lower564 s vs 604 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 15.9% lower691 s vs 800 s
Blender Benchmark 4.5.0 44% faster754 samples/min vs 524 samples/min
Memory bandwidth 79.7 GB/s more336 GB/s vs 256.3 GB/s
Board power 25 W lower125 W (TDP) vs 150 W (TDP)
Launch price $150 lower$229 vs $379
Benchmarks
Results are compared within one benchmark, one version and the same conditions.
- B ahead by 10.6%
Blender Benchmark 2.93.1
GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 107090.2 sGeForce GTX 1660 SUPER81.6 sPosition among tested models (31, CUDA)
B · 82A · 900100200300Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is ahead by 10.6% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070
90.2 s · community measurement, sample 83 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 83 submissions (7 outliers excluded), interquartile range 88.16–91.66; submissions 2021-07-11 to 2022-02-28; CUDA backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
- B · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER
81.6 s · community measurement, sample 46 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 46 submissions (1 outliers excluded), interquartile range 80.4–87.83; submissions 2021-07-10 to 2022-02-24; 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 40.9%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1070108.5 sGeForce GTX 1660 SUPER77 sPosition among tested models (17, OptiX)
B · 77A · 108050100150Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is ahead by 40.9% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070
108.5 s · community measurement, sample 45 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 45 submissions (2 outliers excluded), interquartile range 105.64–112.73; submissions 2020-09-02 to 2021-01-30; OPTIX backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
- B · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER
77 s · community measurement, sample 43 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 43 submissions (4 outliers excluded), interquartile range 76.1–78.57; submissions 2020-09-04 to 2021-01-16; OPTIX 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.
- 3.1% difference, within the threshold
Blender Benchmark 2.93.1
GPU, classroom (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1070317.9 sGeForce GTX 1660 SUPER308.4 sPosition among tested models (26, CUDA)
B · 308A · 3180200400600800Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. The 3.1% difference is below the noticeable threshold (5%).
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070
317.9 s · community measurement, sample 54 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 54 submissions (8 outliers excluded), interquartile range 310.1–327.85; submissions 2021-07-09 to 2022-02-24; CUDA backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
- B · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER
308.4 s · community measurement, sample 22 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 22 submissions (2 outliers excluded), interquartile range 305.17–310.96; submissions 2021-07-16 to 2022-02-24; 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 28%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, classroom (OPTIX) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1070396.6 sGeForce GTX 1660 SUPER309.9 sPosition among tested models (15, OptiX)
B · 310A · 3970100200300400Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is ahead by 28% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070
396.6 s · community measurement, sample 35 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 35 submissions (0 outliers excluded), interquartile range 369.82–412.67; submissions 2020-09-02 to 2021-01-23; OPTIX backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
- B · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER
309.9 s · community measurement, sample 20 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 20 submissions (2 outliers excluded), interquartile range 305.49–311.77; submissions 2020-09-05 to 2021-01-16; OPTIX 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 7.3%
Blender Benchmark 2.92
GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1070208.4 sGeForce GTX 1660 SUPER194.3 sPosition among tested models (13, CUDA)
B · 194A · 2080100200300Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is ahead by 7.3% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070
208.4 s · community measurement, sample 24 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 24 submissions (3 outliers excluded), interquartile range 205.58–214.43; submissions 2021-03-15 to 2022-01-06; CUDA backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
- B · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER
194.3 s · community measurement, sample 20 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 20 submissions (0 outliers excluded), interquartile range 179.96–203.49; submissions 2021-03-21 to 2021-07-23; 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 24.8%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, koro (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1070359.7 sGeForce GTX 1660 SUPER288.3 sPosition among tested models (22, CUDA)
B · 288A · 3600200400600800Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is ahead by 24.8% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070
359.7 s · community measurement, sample 157 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 157 submissions (10 outliers excluded), interquartile range 350.81–370.44; submissions 2020-09-02 to 2021-10-14; CUDA backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
- B · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER
288.3 s · community measurement, sample 91 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 91 submissions (19 outliers excluded), interquartile range 284.81–290.84; submissions 2020-09-02 to 2021-01-30; 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 7.1%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1070604.4 sGeForce GTX 1660 SUPER564.4 sPosition among tested models (23, CUDA)
B · 564A · 60405001,0001,500Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is ahead by 7.1% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070
604.4 s · community measurement, sample 154 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 154 submissions (14 outliers excluded), interquartile range 591.84–621.3; submissions 2020-09-02 to 2021-10-14; CUDA backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
- B · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER
564.4 s · community measurement, sample 99 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 99 submissions (15 outliers excluded), interquartile range 555.7–572.24; submissions 2020-09-02 to 2021-01-30; 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 15.9%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, victor (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1070800.4 sGeForce GTX 1660 SUPER690.9 sPosition among tested models (20, CUDA)
B · 691A · 80005001,0001,500Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is ahead by 15.9% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070
800.4 s · community measurement, sample 138 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 138 submissions (22 outliers excluded), interquartile range 784.18–821.9; submissions 2020-09-02 to 2021-10-14; CUDA backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
- B · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER
690.9 s · community measurement, sample 91 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 91 submissions (15 outliers excluded), interquartile range 679.94–700.55; submissions 2020-09-02 to 2021-05-10; 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 44%
Blender Benchmark 4.5.0
GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) · samples/min, higher is better
GeForce GTX 1070523.6 samples/minGeForce GTX 1660 SUPER753.8 samples/minPosition among tested models (67, OptiX)
A · 524B · 75405,00010,00015,000Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, samples/min. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is ahead by 44% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070
523.6 samples/min · community measurement, sample 72 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 72 submissions (6 outliers excluded), interquartile range 509.18–537.94; submissions 2025-07-25 to 2026-03-05; OPTIX backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
- B · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER
753.8 samples/min · community measurement, sample 102 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 102 submissions (10 outliers excluded), interquartile range 722.53–764.51; submissions 2025-07-20 to 2026-04-11; 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 (30)
| Benchmark | A | B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 102.9 | 89.6 | B +14.9% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 105.6 | 90.6 | B +16.6% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 112.1 | 94.8 | B +18.2% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 105.4 | 93.6 | B +12.6% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 104.2 | 95.3 | B +9.4% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 353.4 | 322.1 | B +9.7% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 363.8 | 331.8 | B +9.7% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 365.3 | 331.9 | B +10.1% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 351.7 | 351.8 | A +0% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 211.7 | 171.9 | B +23.2% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 213 | 177.3 | B +20.2% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 217.2 | 180.5 | B +20.3% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, koro (CUDA) | 401 | 287.8 | B +39.3% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, koro (CUDA) | 393.7 | 302.8 | B +30% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 575.1 | 546.3 | B +5.3% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 588.2 | 543.6 | B +8.2% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, victor (CUDA) | 878.9 | 696.3 | B +26.2% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, victor (CUDA) | 807.6 | 714.8 | B +13% |
| Blender Benchmark 4.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 534.5 | 754.8 | B +41.2% |
| Blender Benchmark 5.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 474.2 | 679.1 | B +43.2% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 567.2 | 825.9 | B +45.6% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 572.3 | 809.1 | B +41.4% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 567.4 | 820.6 | B +44.6% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 567.6 | 779.4 | B +37.3% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 573.3 | 818.7 | B +42.8% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.6.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 574 | 831.8 | B +44.9% |
| Blender Benchmark 4.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 540.2 | 751.9 | B +39.2% |
| Blender Benchmark 4.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 548 | 768.9 | B +40.3% |
| Blender Benchmark 4.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 522.5 | 750.8 | B +43.7% |
| Blender Benchmark 4.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 527.1 | 735.9 | B +39.6% |
Each benchmark version has its own scale: numbers are compared only within a row.
Reference results (73)
| Benchmark | A | B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, barbershop_interior (CUDA) | 988.7 | 1,123.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, barbershop_interior (CUDA) | 1,012.7 | 1,096.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 103.4 | 88.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 104.1 | 88.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 162.3 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 107.8 | 77.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 109.1 | 76.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 108.3 | 79.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 351.4 | 333.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, classroom (CUDA) | 361.2 | 336.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 329.9 | 336.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 630.3 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 389.5 | 307 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 386.7 | 315.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 412.9 | 311.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 205.9 | 153.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 208.3 | 165.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 204 | 167.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 211.5 | 176 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 205.8 | 154.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 322.6 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 200.3 | 153.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 204.8 | 173.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 213.2 | 152.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, koro (CUDA) | 401.4 | 287.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, koro (CUDA) | 408.8 | 287.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, koro (CUDA) | 345.7 | 271.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, koro (CUDA) | 362.2 | 293 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, koro (CUDA) | 369 | 280.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 239.7 | 191.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 377.3 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 228.9 | 192.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 316.7 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 247.4 | 192.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 575.7 | 546.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 580.5 | 543 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 558.8 | 527.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 582.9 | 555.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 550.6 | 499.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 579 | 439.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 873.9 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 560.3 | 443.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 558.4 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 592.5 | 431.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, victor (CUDA) | 836.2 | 704.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, victor (CUDA) | 906.2 | 702 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, victor (CUDA) | 763.4 | 686.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, victor (CUDA) | 867.1 | 845.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, victor (CUDA) | 850.4 | 757 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 778.6 | 604.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 1,202.1 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 752.1 | 605.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 818.9 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 848.4 | 1,041 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.0.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 705.2 | 847.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 639.5 | 858.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 642.2 | 851 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 653.8 | 884.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 619.2 | 895.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 647.6 | 823.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 631.4 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.6.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 653 | 945.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 610.5 | 650.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 662.3 | 834.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 606.7 | 847.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 628.7 | 864.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 449.5 | 700.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.0.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 624.6 | 850.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 567.1 | 843.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 461.2 | 692 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, classroom (CUDA) | — | 330.7 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.1.2GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | — | 807 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 5.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | — | 616.7 | no pair |
Each benchmark version has its own scale: numbers are compared only within a row.
Specifications
| Specification | A · GeForce GTX 1070 | B · GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chip | |||
| GPU chip | GP104-200-A1 | TU116-300-A1 | differs |
| Architecture | Pascal | Turing | differs |
| Shader unitsShader unit counts are comparable only within one architecture. | 1,920 (CUDA cores) | 1,408 (CUDA cores) | not directly comparable |
| Clocks | |||
| Base clock | 1,506 MHz | 1,530 MHz | B: 24 MHz more |
| Boost clockClocks of different architectures do not reflect performance directly. For laptop chips, the clock depends on the laptop’s power limit. | 1,683 MHz | 1,785 MHz | B: 102 MHz more |
| Memory | |||
| Video memory | 8 GB | 6 GB | A: 2 GB more |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 | differs |
| Memory bus | 256 bit | 192 bit | A: 64 bit more |
| Memory bandwidthExcludes cache (Infinity Cache / L2), which affects effective bandwidth differently. | 256.3 GB/s | 336 GB/s | B: 79.7 GB/s more |
| 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. | 150 W (TDP) | 125 W (TDP) | A: 25 W higher |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | no data | no data for B |
Chip
GPU chip
AGP104-200-A1
BTU116-300-A1
differsArchitecture
APascal
BTuring
differsShader units
A1,920 (CUDA cores)
B1,408 (CUDA cores)
not directly comparableShader unit counts are comparable only within one architecture.
Clocks
Base clock
A1,506 MHz
B1,530 MHz
B: 24 MHz moreBoost clock
A1,683 MHz
B1,785 MHz
B: 102 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
A8 GB
B6 GB
A: 2 GB moreMemory type
AGDDR5
BGDDR6
differsMemory bus
A256 bit
B192 bit
A: 64 bit moreMemory bandwidth
A256.3 GB/s
B336 GB/s
B: 79.7 GB/s moreExcludes cache (Infinity Cache / L2), which affects effective bandwidth differently.
Power and dimensions
Board power
A150 W (TDP)
B125 W (TDP)
A: 25 W higherTGP (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.
Interface
APCIe 3.0 x16
Bno data
no data for B
“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 1070 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER have?
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070: 8 GB GDDR5, 256-bit bus. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER: 6 GB GDDR6, 192-bit bus.
Which is faster: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 or NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER?
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER leads in every scenario with comparable benchmarks: rendering and compute. This does not imply an advantage in tasks without benchmarks.
See also
Data sources (2)
- Wikipedia (English) — specifications of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070, specifications of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER, release date and launch pricechecked November 14, 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 4.5.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.1.1, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.2.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.4.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.1.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.1.2, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.0.0checked November 14, 2026
How we compare: methodology. Where the data comes from: sources.