GeForce GTX 1080 vs GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER: specs and benchmark comparison
Rendering and compute
depends on the taskBenchmark results disagree, so the choice depends on the specific task.
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 1080 is better5
Blender Benchmark 2.93.1 21.7% lower253 s vs 308 s
Blender Benchmark 2.92 9.6% lower177 s vs 194 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 7.4% lower525 s vs 564 s
Video memory 2 GB more8 GB vs 6 GB
Memory bus 64 bit more256 bit vs 192 bit
Where GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is better4
Blender Benchmark 2.90 13.3% lower77 s vs 87 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 7% lower288 s vs 309 s
Blender Benchmark 4.5.0 28.9% faster754 samples/min vs 585 samples/min
Board power 55 W lower125 W (TDP) vs 180 W (TDP)
Benchmarks
Results are compared within one benchmark, one version and the same conditions.
- 1.3% difference, within the threshold
Blender Benchmark 2.93.1
GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 108080.5 sGeForce GTX 1660 SUPER81.6 sPosition among tested models (31, CUDA)
A · 81B · 820100200300Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. The 1.3% difference is below the noticeable threshold (5%).
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080
80.5 s · community measurement, sample 62 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 62 submissions (13 outliers excluded), interquartile range 79.51–81.58; submissions 2021-07-15 to 2022-02-24; 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 13.3%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 108087.3 sGeForce GTX 1660 SUPER77 sPosition among tested models (17, OptiX)
B · 77A · 87050100150Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is ahead by 13.3% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080
87.3 s · community measurement, sample 59 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 59 submissions (3 outliers excluded), interquartile range 85.25–89.44; submissions 2020-09-03 to 2021-02-02; 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.
- A ahead by 21.7%
Blender Benchmark 2.93.1
GPU, classroom (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1080253.5 sGeForce GTX 1660 SUPER308.4 sPosition among tested models (26, CUDA)
A · 253B · 3080200400600800Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 is ahead by 21.7% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080
253.5 s · community measurement, sample 46 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 46 submissions (2 outliers excluded), interquartile range 247.41–262.04; submissions 2021-07-15 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.
- 1.9% difference, within the threshold
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, classroom (OPTIX) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1080304.2 sGeForce GTX 1660 SUPER309.9 sPosition among tested models (15, OptiX)
A · 304B · 3100100200300400Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. The 1.9% difference is below the noticeable threshold (5%).
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080
304.2 s · community measurement, sample 37 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 37 submissions (0 outliers excluded), interquartile range 288.99–319.36; submissions 2020-09-03 to 2021-03-30; 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.
- A ahead by 9.6%
Blender Benchmark 2.92
GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1080177.2 sGeForce GTX 1660 SUPER194.3 sPosition among tested models (13, CUDA)
A · 177B · 1940100200300Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 is ahead by 9.6% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080
177.2 s · community measurement, sample 26 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 26 submissions (1 outliers excluded), interquartile range 168.98–180.73; submissions 2021-03-22 to 2022-02-16; 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 7%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, koro (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1080308.6 sGeForce GTX 1660 SUPER288.3 sPosition among tested models (22, CUDA)
B · 288A · 3090200400600800Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is ahead by 7% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080
308.6 s · community measurement, sample 105 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 105 submissions (11 outliers excluded), interquartile range 303.03–314.18; submissions 2020-09-02 to 2021-01-30; 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.
- A ahead by 7.4%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1080525.5 sGeForce GTX 1660 SUPER564.4 sPosition among tested models (23, CUDA)
A · 525B · 56405001,0001,500Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 is ahead by 7.4% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080
525.5 s · community measurement, sample 114 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 114 submissions (10 outliers excluded), interquartile range 516.26–539.09; submissions 2020-09-02 to 2021-01-30; 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.
- 1.8% difference, within the threshold
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, victor (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1080703.6 sGeForce GTX 1660 SUPER690.9 sPosition among tested models (20, CUDA)
B · 691A · 70405001,0001,500Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. The 1.8% difference is below the noticeable threshold (5%).
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080
703.6 s · community measurement, sample 100 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 100 submissions (16 outliers excluded), interquartile range 690.88–715.17; submissions 2020-09-02 to 2021-01-30; 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 28.9%
Blender Benchmark 4.5.0
GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) · samples/min, higher is better
GeForce GTX 1080584.9 samples/minGeForce GTX 1660 SUPER753.8 samples/minPosition among tested models (67, OptiX)
A · 585B · 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 28.9% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080
584.9 samples/min · community measurement, sample 81 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 81 submissions (0 outliers excluded), interquartile range 570.45–627.62; submissions 2025-07-29 to 2026-08-29; 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 (29)
| Benchmark | A | B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 88.5 | 89.6 | A +1.2% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 90.7 | 90.6 | B +0.2% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 99 | 94.8 | B +4.4% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 92.5 | 93.6 | A +1.2% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 90.9 | 95.3 | A +4.8% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 280.3 | 322.1 | A +14.9% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 285.9 | 331.8 | A +16% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 290.2 | 331.9 | A +14.3% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 272.3 | 351.8 | A +29.2% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 182.1 | 171.9 | B +5.9% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 183.7 | 177.3 | B +3.6% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 189 | 180.5 | B +4.7% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, koro (CUDA) | 341.2 | 287.8 | B +18.5% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, koro (CUDA) | 328.4 | 302.8 | B +8.4% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 483.3 | 546.3 | A +13% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 491.9 | 543.6 | A +10.5% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, victor (CUDA) | 753.3 | 696.3 | B +8.2% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, victor (CUDA) | 707.2 | 714.8 | A +1.1% |
| Blender Benchmark 4.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 577.6 | 754.8 | B +30.7% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 614.9 | 825.9 | B +34.3% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 609.8 | 809.1 | B +32.7% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 613.3 | 820.6 | B +33.8% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 619.2 | 779.4 | B +25.9% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 624.9 | 818.7 | B +31% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.6.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 621.3 | 831.8 | B +33.9% |
| Blender Benchmark 4.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 577.8 | 751.9 | B +30.1% |
| Blender Benchmark 4.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 581.4 | 768.9 | B +32.3% |
| Blender Benchmark 4.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 567.9 | 750.8 | B +32.2% |
| Blender Benchmark 4.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 574.2 | 735.9 | B +28.2% |
Each benchmark version has its own scale: numbers are compared only within a row.
Reference results (71)
| Benchmark | A | B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, barbershop_interior (CUDA) | 784.6 | 1,123.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, barbershop_interior (CUDA) | 787.8 | 1,096.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 88.5 | 88.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 89.4 | 88.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 87.3 | 77.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 86 | 76.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 88.3 | 79.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 279.9 | 333.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, classroom (CUDA) | 282.8 | 336.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 280.1 | 336.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 324.8 | 307 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 310.9 | 315.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 322.8 | 311.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 176.2 | 153.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 178 | 165.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 179.7 | 167.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 186.8 | 176 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 164.7 | 154.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 161.2 | 153.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 169.1 | 173.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 171.2 | 152.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, koro (CUDA) | 343.4 | 287.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, koro (CUDA) | 343.8 | 287.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, koro (CUDA) | 302.5 | 271.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, koro (CUDA) | 301.8 | 293 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, koro (CUDA) | 316.7 | 280.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 189.6 | 191.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 188.1 | 192.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 247.7 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 194.4 | 192.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 485.5 | 546.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 478.6 | 543 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 490.5 | 527.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 491.1 | 555.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 460.9 | 499.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 470.5 | 439.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 465 | 443.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 472.8 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 484.4 | 431.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, victor (CUDA) | 793.3 | 704.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, victor (CUDA) | 749 | 702 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, victor (CUDA) | 688.2 | 686.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, victor (CUDA) | 759.6 | 845.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, victor (CUDA) | 797.7 | 757 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 620.2 | 604.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 617 | 605.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 697.3 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 688.4 | 1,041 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.0.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 668 | 847.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 609.6 | 858.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 608.9 | 851 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 613.6 | 884.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 635.2 | 895.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 638 | 823.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 640.9 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.6.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 650.2 | 945.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 602.9 | 650.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 588.3 | 834.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 603.5 | 847.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 582.8 | 864.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 564.1 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 4.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 632.4 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 5.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 512.9 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 486.9 | 700.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 506.9 | 679.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.0.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 643 | 850.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.1.2GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 611 | 807 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 601.6 | 843.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 482.1 | 616.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 474 | 692 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, classroom (CUDA) | — | 330.7 | no pair |
Each benchmark version has its own scale: numbers are compared only within a row.
Specifications
| Specification | A · GeForce GTX 1080 | B · GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chip | |||
| GPU chip | no data | TU116-300-A1 | no data for A |
| Architecture | Pascal | Turing | differs |
| Shader unitsShader unit counts are comparable only within one architecture. | 2,560 (CUDA cores) | 1,408 (CUDA cores) | not directly comparable |
| Clocks | |||
| Base clock | 1,607 MHz | 1,530 MHz | A: 77 MHz more |
| Boost clockClocks of different architectures do not reflect performance directly. For laptop chips, the clock depends on the laptop’s power limit. | 1,733 MHz | 1,785 MHz | B: 52 MHz more |
| Memory | |||
| Video memory | 8 GB | 6 GB | A: 2 GB more |
| Memory type | GDDR5X | GDDR6 | differs |
| Memory bus | 256 bit | 192 bit | A: 64 bit more |
| Memory bandwidthExcludes cache (Infinity Cache / L2), which affects effective bandwidth differently. | no data | 336 GB/s | no data for A |
| 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. | 180 W (TDP) | 125 W (TDP) | A: 55 W higher |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | no data | no data for B |
Chip
GPU chip
Ano data
BTU116-300-A1
no data for AArchitecture
APascal
BTuring
differsShader units
A2,560 (CUDA cores)
B1,408 (CUDA cores)
not directly comparableShader unit counts are comparable only within one architecture.
Clocks
Base clock
A1,607 MHz
B1,530 MHz
A: 77 MHz moreBoost clock
A1,733 MHz
B1,785 MHz
B: 52 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
AGDDR5X
BGDDR6
differsMemory bus
A256 bit
B192 bit
A: 64 bit moreMemory bandwidth
Ano data
B336 GB/s
no data for AExcludes cache (Infinity Cache / L2), which affects effective bandwidth differently.
Power and dimensions
Board power
A180 W (TDP)
B125 W (TDP)
A: 55 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 1080 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER have?
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080: 8 GB GDDR5X, 256-bit bus. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER: 6 GB GDDR6, 192-bit bus.
Which is faster: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 or NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER?
It depends on the task: rendering and compute: results disagree.
See also
Data sources (2)
- Wikipedia (English) — specifications of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080, 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 4.4.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.5.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.2.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.1.1, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.1.2, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.0.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.1.0checked November 14, 2026
How we compare: methodology. Where the data comes from: sources.