GeForce GTX 1650 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 +106.5%NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER leads in this scenario (up to 106.5% 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 better1
Launch price $80 lower$149 vs $229
Where GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is better11
Blender Benchmark 2.93.1 64.8% lower82 s vs 134 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 69.2% lower77 s vs 130 s
Blender Benchmark 2.93.1 60.1% lower308 s vs 494 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 67.3% lower181 s vs 302 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 68.3% lower288 s vs 485 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 67% lower564 s vs 943 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 106.5% lower691 s vs 1,427 s
Blender Benchmark 4.5.0 77.8% faster754 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 64.8%
Blender Benchmark 2.93.1
GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1650134.4 sGeForce GTX 1660 SUPER81.6 sPosition among tested models (31, CUDA)
B · 82A · 1340100200300Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is ahead by 64.8% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
134.4 s · community measurement, sample 76 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 76 submissions (5 outliers excluded), interquartile range 131.03–137.76; submissions 2021-07-13 to 2022-02-12; 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 69.2%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1650130.3 sGeForce GTX 1660 SUPER77 sPosition among tested models (17, OptiX)
B · 77A · 130050100150Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is ahead by 69.2% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
130.3 s · community measurement, sample 23 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 23 submissions (1 outliers excluded), interquartile range 125.32–131.5; submissions 2020-09-05 to 2021-08-24; 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.
- B ahead by 60.1%
Blender Benchmark 2.93.1
GPU, classroom (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1650493.7 sGeForce GTX 1660 SUPER308.4 sPosition among tested models (26, CUDA)
B · 308A · 4940200400600800Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is ahead by 60.1% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
493.7 s · community measurement, sample 46 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 46 submissions (5 outliers excluded), interquartile range 479.05–499.89; submissions 2021-07-13 to 2022-02-12; 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 67.3%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1650302 sGeForce GTX 1660 SUPER180.5 sPosition among tested models (22, CUDA)
B · 181A · 3020200400600Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is ahead by 67.3% 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 SUPER
180.5 s · community measurement, sample 106 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 106 submissions (24 outliers excluded), interquartile range 178.43–182.83; 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 68.3%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, koro (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1650485.1 sGeForce GTX 1660 SUPER288.3 sPosition among tested models (22, CUDA)
B · 288A · 4850200400600800Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is ahead by 68.3% 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 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 67%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1650942.6 sGeForce GTX 1660 SUPER564.4 sPosition among tested models (23, CUDA)
B · 564A · 94305001,0001,500Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is ahead by 67% 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 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 106.5%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, victor (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 16501,426.6 sGeForce GTX 1660 SUPER690.9 sPosition among tested models (20, CUDA)
B · 691A · 1,42705001,0001,500Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is ahead by 106.5% 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 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 77.8%
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 1660 SUPER753.8 samples/minPosition among tested models (67, OptiX)
A · 424B · 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 77.8% 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 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 (23)
| Benchmark | A | B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 149.1 | 89.6 | B +66.5% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 153.3 | 90.6 | B +69.2% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 158.3 | 94.8 | B +67% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 156.3 | 95.3 | B +64% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 516.2 | 322.1 | B +60.3% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 536.1 | 331.8 | B +61.6% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 540.8 | 331.9 | B +63% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 294.8 | 177.3 | B +66.3% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, koro (CUDA) | 472.3 | 287.8 | B +64.1% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 894.6 | 546.3 | B +63.8% |
| Blender Benchmark 4.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 438.5 | 754.8 | B +72.1% |
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 391.6 | 700.4 | B +78.9% |
| Blender Benchmark 5.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 364.1 | 679.1 | B +86.5% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 474.7 | 825.9 | B +74% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 448.8 | 809.1 | B +80.3% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 433.3 | 820.6 | B +89.4% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 429.7 | 779.4 | B +81.4% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 470 | 818.7 | B +74.2% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.6.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 476.8 | 831.8 | B +74.4% |
| Blender Benchmark 4.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 428.9 | 751.9 | B +75.3% |
| Blender Benchmark 4.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 429.3 | 768.9 | B +79.1% |
| Blender Benchmark 4.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 442.7 | 750.8 | B +69.6% |
| Blender Benchmark 4.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 428.4 | 735.9 | B +71.8% |
Each benchmark version has its own scale: numbers are compared only within a row.
Reference results (81)
| Benchmark | A | B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, barbershop_interior (CUDA) | 1,732.3 | 1,096.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 147.7 | 88.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 147.5 | 88.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 156.1 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 157.6 | 93.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 137.3 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 126.2 | 77.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 127.4 | 76.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 133.9 | 79.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, classroom (CUDA) | 538.9 | 336.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 571.1 | 330.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 549.2 | 336.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 572 | 351.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 499.4 | 309.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 486.7 | 307 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 472.9 | 315.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 517.5 | 311.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 324.2 | 153.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 277.5 | 165.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 283.1 | 171.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 294.8 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 289.1 | 167.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 307.4 | 194.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 282.2 | 176 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 253.8 | 154.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 240.2 | 153.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 258.8 | 173.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 271.6 | 152.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, koro (CUDA) | 483 | 287.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, koro (CUDA) | 499.5 | 302.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, koro (CUDA) | 472.8 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, koro (CUDA) | 457.8 | 271.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, koro (CUDA) | 502.7 | 293 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, koro (CUDA) | 437.8 | 280.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 319.9 | 191.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 298 | 192.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 389.5 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 336.3 | 192.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 867.5 | 546.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 924.5 | 543 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 905.8 | 543.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 915.7 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 891.3 | 527.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 911 | 555.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 796.1 | 499.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 722.4 | 439.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 702.6 | 443.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 750.6 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 753.6 | 431.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, victor (CUDA) | 1,360.8 | 702 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, victor (CUDA) | 1,373 | 696.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, victor (CUDA) | 1,376.7 | 714.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, victor (CUDA) | 1,215.8 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, victor (CUDA) | 1,885.3 | 686.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, victor (CUDA) | 1,640 | 845.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, victor (CUDA) | 1,565.5 | 757 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 1,073.5 | 604.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 1,068 | 605.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 1,437.1 | 1,041 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.0.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 467.7 | 847.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 457.1 | 858.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 454.8 | 851 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 530.9 | 884.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 497.2 | 895.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 489.7 | 823.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 419.7 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.6.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 528.8 | 945.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 522.7 | 650.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 439.3 | 834.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 501.2 | 847.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 513.4 | 864.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 498.5 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.0.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 508.8 | 850.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 488.5 | 843.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 417 | 616.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 356.4 | 692 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, barbershop_interior (CUDA) | — | 1,123.5 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, classroom (CUDA) | — | 333.9 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, koro (CUDA) | — | 287.5 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, victor (CUDA) | — | 704.3 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.1.2GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | — | 807 | 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 SUPER | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chip | |||
| GPU chip | no data | TU116-300-A1 | no data for A |
| 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 | GDDR6 | differs |
| Memory bus | 128 bit | 192 bit | B: 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. | 75 W (board power) | 125 W (TDP) | not directly comparable |
| Recommended PSU | 300 W | no data | no data for B |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 | no data | no data for B |
| Length (reference / Founders Edition)Partner cards have different dimensions; check the specific SKU. | 130 mm | no data | no data for B |
| Thickness (slots) | 2 | no data | no data for B |
| Power connectors (reference) | 1x 6-pin | no data | no data for B |
Chip
GPU chip
Ano data
BTU116-300-A1
no data for AArchitecture
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
BGDDR6
differsMemory bus
A128 bit
B192 bit
B: 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
A75 W (board power)
B125 W (TDP)
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
A300 W
Bno data
no data for BInterface
APCIe 3.0
Bno data
no data for BLength (reference / Founders Edition)
A130 mm
Bno data
no data for BPartner cards have different dimensions; check the specific SKU.
Thickness (slots)
A2
Bno data
no data for BPower connectors (reference)
A1x 6-pin
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 1650 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER have?
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650: 4 GB GDDR5, 128-bit bus. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER: 6 GB GDDR6, 192-bit bus.
Which is faster: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 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 (3)
- NVIDIA — specifications of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650checked November 7, 2026
- Wikipedia (English) — specifications of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER, release date and launch pricechecked November 14, 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 5.1.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.1.2checked November 14, 2026
How we compare: methodology. Where the data comes from: sources.