GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER vs GeForce GTX 1660 Ti: specs and benchmark comparison
Short verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti 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 +5.9%NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti leads in this scenario (up to 5.9% 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 1660 SUPER is better2
Memory bandwidth 48 GB/s more336 GB/s vs 288 GB/s
Launch price $50 lower$229 vs $279
Where GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is better2
Shader units 128 more1,536 (CUDA cores) vs 1,408 (CUDA cores)
Board power 5 W lower120 W (TDP) vs 125 W (TDP)
Benchmarks
Results are compared within one benchmark, one version and the same conditions.
- 3.2% difference, within the threshold
Blender Benchmark 2.93.1
GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER81.6 sGeForce GTX 1660 Ti84.2 sPosition among tested models (31, CUDA)
A · 82B · 840100200300Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. The 3.2% difference is below the noticeable threshold (5%).
About the measurement and source
- A · 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.
- B · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti
84.2 s · community measurement, sample 43 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 43 submissions (0 outliers excluded), interquartile range 80.69–88.8; submissions 2021-07-14 to 2022-02-26; 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.
- 3.8% difference, within the threshold
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER77 sGeForce GTX 1660 Ti74.2 sPosition among tested models (17, OptiX)
B · 74A · 77050100150Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. The 3.8% difference is below the noticeable threshold (5%).
About the measurement and source
- A · 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.
- B · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti
74.2 s · community measurement, sample 25 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 25 submissions (3 outliers excluded), interquartile range 72.18–76.22; submissions 2020-09-04 to 2021-02-04; 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.
- 2.7% difference, within the threshold
Blender Benchmark 2.93.1
GPU, classroom (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER308.4 sGeForce GTX 1660 Ti300.4 sPosition among tested models (26, CUDA)
B · 300A · 3080200400600800Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. The 2.7% difference is below the noticeable threshold (5%).
About the measurement and source
- A · 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.
- B · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti
300.4 s · community measurement, sample 22 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 22 submissions (3 outliers excluded), interquartile range 296.02–316.53; submissions 2021-07-11 to 2022-01-31; 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.
- 2.8% difference, within the threshold
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER180.5 sGeForce GTX 1660 Ti185.6 sPosition among tested models (22, CUDA)
A · 181B · 1860200400600Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. The 2.8% difference is below the noticeable threshold (5%).
About the measurement and source
- A · 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.
- B · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti
185.6 s · community measurement, sample 84 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 84 submissions (4 outliers excluded), interquartile range 182.06–195.79; submissions 2020-09-04 to 2021-02-04; 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.
- 3.4% difference, within the threshold
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, koro (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER288.3 sGeForce GTX 1660 Ti298 sPosition among tested models (22, CUDA)
A · 288B · 2980200400600800Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. The 3.4% difference is below the noticeable threshold (5%).
About the measurement and source
- A · 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.
- B · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti
298 s · community measurement, sample 77 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 77 submissions (6 outliers excluded), interquartile range 292.89–312.81; submissions 2020-09-04 to 2021-02-04; 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.
- 2.3% difference, within the threshold
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER564.4 sGeForce GTX 1660 Ti577.5 sPosition among tested models (23, CUDA)
A · 564B · 57805001,0001,500Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. The 2.3% difference is below the noticeable threshold (5%).
About the measurement and source
- A · 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.
- B · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti
577.5 s · community measurement, sample 82 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 82 submissions (5 outliers excluded), interquartile range 564.82–600.01; submissions 2020-09-04 to 2021-02-04; 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.
- 2.7% difference, within the threshold
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, victor (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER690.9 sGeForce GTX 1660 Ti709.3 sPosition among tested models (20, CUDA)
A · 691B · 70905001,0001,500Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. The 2.7% difference is below the noticeable threshold (5%).
About the measurement and source
- A · 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.
- B · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti
709.3 s · community measurement, sample 77 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 77 submissions (7 outliers excluded), interquartile range 693.39–748.04; submissions 2020-09-04 to 2021-02-04; 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.
- 0.1% difference, within the threshold
Blender Benchmark 4.5.0
GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) · samples/min, higher is better
GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER753.8 samples/minGeForce GTX 1660 Ti752.7 samples/minPosition among tested models (67, OptiX)
B · 753A · 75405,00010,00015,000Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, samples/min. The 0.1% difference is below the noticeable threshold (5%).
About the measurement and source
- A · 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.
- B · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti
752.7 samples/min · community measurement, sample 58 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 58 submissions (4 outliers excluded), interquartile range 713.01–780.43; submissions 2025-07-17 to 2026-07-24; 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) | 89.6 | 91.7 | A +2.4% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 90.6 | 92.4 | A +2% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 94.8 | 98.6 | A +4% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 95.3 | 97.3 | A +2% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 322.1 | 322.2 | A +0% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 331.8 | 328 | B +1.1% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 331.9 | 333.4 | A +0.5% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 351.8 | 341.5 | B +3% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 171.9 | 173.3 | A +0.8% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 177.3 | 177.1 | B +0.1% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, koro (CUDA) | 287.8 | 284.9 | B +1% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, koro (CUDA) | 302.8 | 302.4 | B +0.1% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 546.3 | 543.8 | B +0.4% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 543.6 | 546.7 | A +0.6% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, victor (CUDA) | 696.3 | 704.2 | A +1.1% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, victor (CUDA) | 714.8 | 708.4 | B +0.9% |
| Blender Benchmark 4.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 754.8 | 763.4 | B +1.1% |
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 700.4 | 702.6 | B +0.3% |
| Blender Benchmark 5.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 679.1 | 685.6 | B +1% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 825.9 | 820.5 | A +0.7% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 809.1 | 810.8 | B +0.2% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 820.6 | 825.9 | B +0.6% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 779.4 | 825.2 | B +5.9% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 818.7 | 862.4 | B +5.3% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.6.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 831.8 | 854.4 | B +2.7% |
| Blender Benchmark 4.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 751.9 | 781.6 | B +4% |
| Blender Benchmark 4.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 768.9 | 788.7 | B +2.6% |
| Blender Benchmark 4.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 750.8 | 765.6 | B +2% |
| Blender Benchmark 4.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 735.9 | 753.9 | B +2.4% |
Each benchmark version has its own scale: numbers are compared only within a row.
Reference results (67)
| Benchmark | A | B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, barbershop_interior (CUDA) | 1,123.5 | 1,104.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, barbershop_interior (CUDA) | 1,096.4 | 1,122.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 88.6 | 90.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 88.3 | 90.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 93.6 | 94.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 77.4 | 74.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 76.9 | 72.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 79.7 | 78 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 333.9 | 331 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, classroom (CUDA) | 336.8 | 333 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 330.7 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 336.4 | 338.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 309.9 | 298 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 307 | 302.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 315.3 | 289.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 311.6 | 307.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 153.9 | 166.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 165.4 | 168.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 167.5 | 169.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 194.3 | 183.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 176 | 169.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 154.1 | 146.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 153.7 | 148.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 173.8 | 158.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 152.6 | 165.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, koro (CUDA) | 287.5 | 286.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, koro (CUDA) | 287.3 | 288.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, koro (CUDA) | 271.1 | 275 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, koro (CUDA) | 293 | 286.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, koro (CUDA) | 280.1 | 269.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 191.4 | 182.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 192.1 | 182 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 192.9 | 230 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 546.3 | 548.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 543 | 546.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 527.6 | 528.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 555.9 | 538.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 499.7 | 481.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 439.1 | 429.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 443.9 | 427 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 431.2 | 454.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, victor (CUDA) | 704.3 | 712.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, victor (CUDA) | 702 | 718.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, victor (CUDA) | 686.4 | 684.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, victor (CUDA) | 845.4 | 805.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, victor (CUDA) | 757 | 706.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 604.1 | 585.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 605.4 | 598.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 1,041 | 690.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.0.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 847.7 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 858.5 | 851.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 851 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 884.3 | 883.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 895.9 | 898.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 823.1 | 849.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.6.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 945.9 | 971.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 650.6 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 4.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 834.7 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 4.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 847.8 | 773.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 864.9 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.0.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 850.6 | 888.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.1.2GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 807 | 875.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 843.2 | 813 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 616.7 | 686.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 692 | 698.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | — | 907.5 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 5.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | — | 777.5 | no pair |
Each benchmark version has its own scale: numbers are compared only within a row.
Specifications
| Specification | A · GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER | B · GeForce GTX 1660 Ti | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chip | |||
| GPU chip | TU116-300-A1 | TU116-400-A1 | differs |
| Architecture | Turing | Turing | equal |
| Shader unitsShader unit counts are comparable only within one architecture. | 1,408 (CUDA cores) | 1,536 (CUDA cores) | B: 128 more |
| Clocks | |||
| Base clock | 1,530 MHz | 1,500 MHz | A: 30 MHz more |
| Boost clockClocks of different architectures do not reflect performance directly. For laptop chips, the clock depends on the laptop’s power limit. | 1,785 MHz | 1,770 MHz | A: 15 MHz more |
| Memory | |||
| Video memory | 6 GB | 6 GB | equal |
| Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 | equal |
| Memory bus | 192 bit | 192 bit | equal |
| Memory bandwidthExcludes cache (Infinity Cache / L2), which affects effective bandwidth differently. | 336 GB/s | 288 GB/s | A: 48 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. | 125 W (TDP) | 120 W (TDP) | A: 5 W higher |
Chip
GPU chip
ATU116-300-A1
BTU116-400-A1
differsArchitecture
ATuring
BTuring
equalShader units
A1,408 (CUDA cores)
B1,536 (CUDA cores)
B: 128 moreShader unit counts are comparable only within one architecture.
Clocks
Base clock
A1,530 MHz
B1,500 MHz
A: 30 MHz moreBoost clock
A1,785 MHz
B1,770 MHz
A: 15 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
A6 GB
B6 GB
equalMemory type
AGDDR6
BGDDR6
equalMemory bus
A192 bit
B192 bit
equalMemory bandwidth
A336 GB/s
B288 GB/s
A: 48 GB/s moreExcludes cache (Infinity Cache / L2), which affects effective bandwidth differently.
Power and dimensions
Board power
A125 W (TDP)
B120 W (TDP)
A: 5 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.
“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 1660 SUPER and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti have?
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER: 6 GB GDDR6, 192-bit bus. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti: 6 GB GDDR6, 192-bit bus.
Which is faster: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER or NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti?
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti 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 1660 SUPER, specifications of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti, 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 3.6.0, 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 3.5.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.2.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.5.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.1.1, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.1.2, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.4.0, 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.