GeForce GTX 1650 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 +82.5%NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 leads in this scenario (up to 82.5% 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 1650 is better2
Board power 45 W lower75 W (board power) vs 120 W (board power)
Launch price $70 lower$149 vs $219
Where GeForce GTX 1660 is better10
Blender Benchmark 2.90 52.4% lower104 s vs 158 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 57% lower344 s vs 541 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 50.6% lower201 s vs 302 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 47.3% lower329 s vs 485 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 55.4% lower607 s vs 943 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 82.5% lower782 s vs 1,427 s
Blender Benchmark 4.5.0 60.3% faster680 samples/min vs 424 samples/min
Shader units 512 more1,408 (CUDA cores) vs 896 (CUDA cores)
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 52.4%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1650158.3 sGeForce GTX 1660103.8 sPosition among tested models (27, CUDA)
B · 104A · 1580100200300400Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 is ahead by 52.4% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
158.3 s · community measurement, sample 89 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 89 submissions (7 outliers excluded), interquartile range 154.87–163.22; submissions 2020-09-03 to 2021-12-13; 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 57%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, classroom (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1650540.8 sGeForce GTX 1660344.5 sPosition among tested models (25, CUDA)
B · 344A · 5410200400600800Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 is ahead by 57% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
540.8 s · community measurement, sample 63 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 63 submissions (9 outliers excluded), interquartile range 528.23–552.69; submissions 2020-09-03 to 2021-08-24; 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 50.6%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1650302 sGeForce GTX 1660200.5 sPosition among tested models (22, CUDA)
B · 201A · 3020200400600Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 is ahead by 50.6% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
302 s · community measurement, sample 56 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 56 submissions (5 outliers excluded), interquartile range 292.2–311.17; submissions 2020-09-03 to 2022-01-14; 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 47.3%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, koro (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1650485.1 sGeForce GTX 1660329.3 sPosition among tested models (22, CUDA)
B · 329A · 4850200400600800Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 is ahead by 47.3% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
485.1 s · community measurement, sample 56 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 56 submissions (2 outliers excluded), interquartile range 467.43–502.01; submissions 2020-09-03 to 2021-08-24; 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 55.4%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1650942.6 sGeForce GTX 1660606.6 sPosition among tested models (23, CUDA)
B · 607A · 94305001,0001,500Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 is ahead by 55.4% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
942.6 s · community measurement, sample 59 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 59 submissions (4 outliers excluded), interquartile range 916.59–971.11; submissions 2020-09-03 to 2021-08-24; 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 82.5%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, victor (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 16501,426.6 sGeForce GTX 1660781.7 sPosition among tested models (20, CUDA)
B · 782A · 1,42705001,0001,500Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 is ahead by 82.5% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
1,426.6 s · community measurement, sample 49 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 49 submissions (7 outliers excluded), interquartile range 1314.64–1802.53; submissions 2020-09-03 to 2021-08-24; CUDA backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
- B · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660
781.7 s · community measurement, sample 36 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 36 submissions (7 outliers excluded), interquartile range 768.8–797.89; 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 60.3%
Blender Benchmark 4.5.0
GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) · samples/min, higher is better
GeForce GTX 1650424 samples/minGeForce GTX 1660679.7 samples/minPosition among tested models (67, OptiX)
A · 424B · 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 60.3% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
424 samples/min · community measurement, sample 143 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 143 submissions (3 outliers excluded), interquartile range 388.63–450.69; submissions 2025-07-19 to 2026-10-11; 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 (13)
| Benchmark | A | B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 149.1 | 97.7 | B +52.6% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 153.3 | 98.2 | B +56% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 516.2 | 337.8 | B +52.8% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 536.1 | 340.7 | B +57.4% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 294.8 | 194 | B +52% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, koro (CUDA) | 472.3 | 316.7 | B +49.1% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 894.6 | 582.5 | B +53.6% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 474.7 | 744.3 | B +56.8% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 433.3 | 724.3 | B +67.1% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 429.7 | 726.6 | B +69.1% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.6.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 476.8 | 777.3 | B +63% |
| Blender Benchmark 4.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 428.9 | 700 | B +63.2% |
| Blender Benchmark 4.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 429.3 | 700.7 | B +63.2% |
Each benchmark version has its own scale: numbers are compared only within a row.
Reference results (91)
| Benchmark | A | B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, barbershop_interior (CUDA) | 1,732.3 | 1,181.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 147.7 | 96.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 147.5 | 95.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 156.1 | 111.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 157.6 | 103 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 156.3 | 103.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 134.4 | 88.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 130.3 | 82.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 137.3 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 126.2 | 74.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 127.4 | 79.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 133.9 | 86 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, classroom (CUDA) | 538.9 | 345.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 571.1 | 385.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 549.2 | 347.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 572 | 361.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 493.7 | 316.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 499.4 | 319.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 486.7 | 313.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 472.9 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 517.5 | 328 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 324.2 | 186.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 277.5 | 186.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 283.1 | 188.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 294.8 | 261.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 289.1 | 188.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 307.4 | 201.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 282.2 | 198.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 253.8 | 159.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 240.2 | 159.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 258.8 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 271.6 | 170.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, koro (CUDA) | 483 | 316.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, koro (CUDA) | 499.5 | 330.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, koro (CUDA) | 472.8 | 402.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, koro (CUDA) | 457.8 | 286.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, koro (CUDA) | 502.7 | 313.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, koro (CUDA) | 437.8 | 334.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 319.9 | 199.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 298 | 196.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 389.5 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 336.3 | 211.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 867.5 | 580.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 924.5 | 584.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 905.8 | 580.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 915.7 | 874.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 891.3 | 551.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 911 | 592.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 796.1 | 518.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 722.4 | 458.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 702.6 | 455.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 750.6 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 753.6 | 471.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, victor (CUDA) | 1,360.8 | 798.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, victor (CUDA) | 1,373 | 789.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, victor (CUDA) | 1,376.7 | 800.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, victor (CUDA) | 1,215.8 | 980.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, victor (CUDA) | 1,885.3 | 764.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, victor (CUDA) | 1,640 | 919.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, victor (CUDA) | 1,565.5 | 860.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 1,073.5 | 646.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 1,068 | 688.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 1,437.1 | 702.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.0.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 467.7 | 808.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 457.1 | 707.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 454.8 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 530.9 | 764.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 497.2 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 489.7 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 419.7 | 791.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.6.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 528.8 | 616.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 522.7 | 754.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 439.3 | 744.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 501.2 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 4.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 513.4 | 775.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 498.5 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 4.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 438.5 | 689.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 391.6 | 595.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 364.1 | 617.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.0.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 508.8 | 798.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 488.5 | 644.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 448.8 | 753.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 470 | 754 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 442.7 | 686.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 428.4 | 676 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 417 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 356.4 | 490.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, barbershop_interior (CUDA) | — | 1,138.5 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, classroom (CUDA) | — | 342 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, koro (CUDA) | — | 320.4 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, victor (CUDA) | — | 806.9 | no pair |
Each benchmark version has its own scale: numbers are compared only within a row.
Specifications
| Specification | A · GeForce GTX 1650 | B · GeForce GTX 1660 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chip | |||
| Architecture | Turing | Turing | equal |
| Shader unitsShader unit counts are comparable only within one architecture. | 896 (CUDA cores) | 1,408 (CUDA cores) | B: 512 more |
| Clocks | |||
| Base clock | 1,485 MHz | 1,530 MHz | B: 45 MHz more |
| Boost clockClocks of different architectures do not reflect performance directly. For laptop chips, the clock depends on the laptop’s power limit. | 1,665 MHz | 1,785 MHz | B: 120 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 |
| 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 (board power) | 120 W (board power) | B: 45 W higher |
| Recommended PSU | 300 W | 450 W | B: 150 W higher |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 | PCIe 3.0 | equal |
| Length (reference / Founders Edition)Partner cards have different dimensions; check the specific SKU. | 130 mm | 145 mm | B: 15 mm higher |
| Thickness (slots) | 2 | 2 | equal |
| Power connectors (reference) | 1x 6-pin | 1x 8-pin | differs |
Chip
Architecture
ATuring
BTuring
equalShader units
A896 (CUDA cores)
B1,408 (CUDA cores)
B: 512 moreShader unit counts are comparable only within one architecture.
Clocks
Base clock
A1,485 MHz
B1,530 MHz
B: 45 MHz moreBoost clock
A1,665 MHz
B1,785 MHz
B: 120 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 more
Power and dimensions
Board power
A75 W (board power)
B120 W (board power)
B: 45 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.
Recommended PSU
A300 W
B450 W
B: 150 W higherInterface
APCIe 3.0
BPCIe 3.0
equalLength (reference / Founders Edition)
A130 mm
B145 mm
B: 15 mm higherPartner cards have different dimensions; check the specific SKU.
Thickness (slots)
A2
B2
equalPower connectors (reference)
A1x 6-pin
B1x 8-pin
differs
“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 1650 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 have?
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650: 4 GB GDDR5, 128-bit bus. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660: 6 GB GDDR5, 192-bit bus.
What power supply does the manufacturer recommend?
For NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650, 300 W or more; for NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660, 450 W or more. This is a recommendation for a typical system; also check the power connectors of the specific card model.
Which PCIe interface do the cards use?
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650: PCIe 3.0. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660: PCIe 3.0.
Which is faster: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 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)
- NVIDIA — specifications of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650, specifications of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660checked November 7, 2026
- Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation) — benchmark Blender Benchmark 2.81a, benchmark Blender Benchmark 2.81, benchmark Blender Benchmark 2.82, benchmark Blender Benchmark 2.83, benchmark Blender Benchmark 2.90, benchmark Blender Benchmark 2.90.1, benchmark Blender Benchmark 2.91.2, benchmark Blender Benchmark 2.92, benchmark Blender Benchmark 2.93.1, 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 5.0.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.1.0checked November 14, 2026
- Wikipedia (English) — release date and launch pricechecked November 14, 2026
How we compare: methodology. Where the data comes from: sources.