GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER vs GeForce GTX 980 Ti: 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 1660 SUPER is better6
Blender Benchmark 2.90 8.3% lower181 s vs 195 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 27.7% lower288 s vs 368 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 47.4% lower691 s vs 1,018 s
Blender Benchmark 3.4.0 39.3% faster779 samples/min vs 560 samples/min
Board power 125 W lower125 W (TDP) vs 250 W (TDP)
Launch price $420 lower$229 vs $649
Where GeForce GTX 980 Ti is better4
Blender Benchmark 2.90 7.6% lower308 s vs 332 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 13.4% lower498 s vs 564 s
Memory bus 192 bit more384 bit vs 192 bit
Memory bandwidth 0.6 GB/s more336.6 GB/s vs 336 GB/s
Benchmarks
Results are compared within one benchmark, one version and the same conditions.
- 1.1% difference, within the threshold
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER94.8 sGeForce GTX 980 Ti95.8 sPosition among tested models (27, CUDA)
A · 95B · 960100200300400Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. The 1.1% difference is below the noticeable threshold (5%).
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER
94.8 s · community measurement, sample 161 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 161 submissions (46 outliers excluded), interquartile range 93.93–95.62; submissions 2020-09-02 to 2021-01-30; CUDA backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
- B · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti
95.8 s · community measurement, sample 38 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 38 submissions (6 outliers excluded), interquartile range 93.94–99.12; submissions 2020-09-06 to 2021-06-01; 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 7.6%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, classroom (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER331.9 sGeForce GTX 980 Ti308.5 sPosition among tested models (25, CUDA)
B · 308A · 3320200400600800Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti is ahead by 7.6% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER
331.9 s · community measurement, sample 142 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 142 submissions (8 outliers excluded), interquartile range 325.39–339.09; submissions 2020-09-02 to 2021-05-10; CUDA backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
- B · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti
308.5 s · community measurement, sample 33 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 33 submissions (4 outliers excluded), interquartile range 295.78–316.04; submissions 2020-09-06 to 2021-02-01; 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.
- A ahead by 8.3%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER180.5 sGeForce GTX 980 Ti195.4 sPosition among tested models (22, CUDA)
A · 181B · 1950200400600Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is ahead by 8.3% in this benchmark.
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 980 Ti
195.4 s · community measurement, sample 30 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 30 submissions (4 outliers excluded), interquartile range 193.05–203.58; submissions 2020-09-06 to 2021-02-01; 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.
- A ahead by 27.7%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, koro (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER288.3 sGeForce GTX 980 Ti368.1 sPosition among tested models (22, CUDA)
A · 288B · 3680200400600800Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is ahead by 27.7% in this benchmark.
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 980 Ti
368.1 s · community measurement, sample 27 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 27 submissions (3 outliers excluded), interquartile range 363.27–383.13; submissions 2020-09-06 to 2021-02-01; 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 13.4%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER564.4 sGeForce GTX 980 Ti497.8 sPosition among tested models (23, CUDA)
B · 498A · 56405001,0001,500Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti is ahead by 13.4% in this benchmark.
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 980 Ti
497.8 s · community measurement, sample 27 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 27 submissions (3 outliers excluded), interquartile range 483.58–510.64; submissions 2020-09-06 to 2021-02-01; 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.
- A ahead by 47.4%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, victor (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER690.9 sGeForce GTX 980 Ti1,018.5 sPosition among tested models (20, CUDA)
A · 691B · 1,01805001,0001,500Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is ahead by 47.4% in this benchmark.
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 980 Ti
1,018.5 s · community measurement, sample 24 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 24 submissions (4 outliers excluded), interquartile range 998.23–1095.03; submissions 2020-09-06 to 2021-02-01; 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.
- A ahead by 39.3%
Blender Benchmark 3.4.0
GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) · samples/min, higher is better
GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER779.4 samples/minGeForce GTX 980 Ti559.7 samples/minPosition among tested models (43, OptiX)
B · 560A · 77905,00010,00015,000Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, samples/min. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is ahead by 39.3% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER
779.4 samples/min · community measurement, sample 50 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 50 submissions (2 outliers excluded), interquartile range 757.15–812.22; submissions 2022-12-08 to 2023-11-22; OPTIX backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
- B · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti
559.7 samples/min · community measurement, sample 20 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 20 submissions (3 outliers excluded), interquartile range 520.75–576.54; submissions 2023-01-03 to 2023-03-19; 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 (4)
| Benchmark | A | B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 89.6 | 92.2 | A +2.9% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 90.6 | 94.2 | A +4% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 331.8 | 303.8 | B +9.2% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 825.9 | 545.1 | A +51.5% |
Each benchmark version has its own scale: numbers are compared only within a row.
Reference results (93)
| Benchmark | A | B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, barbershop_interior (CUDA) | 1,123.5 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, barbershop_interior (CUDA) | 1,096.4 | 1,009.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 88.6 | 94.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 88.3 | 92.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 93.6 | 109.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 95.3 | 115.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 81.6 | 74.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 77 | 104.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 77.4 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 76.9 | 94.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 79.7 | 100.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 333.9 | 303.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, classroom (CUDA) | 336.8 | 299.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 322.1 | 295.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 330.7 | 339.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 336.4 | 291.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 351.8 | 296.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 308.4 | 257.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 309.9 | 347.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 307 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 315.3 | 400.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 311.6 | 469 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 153.9 | 199.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 165.4 | 204.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 171.9 | 202.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 177.3 | 201.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 167.5 | 233.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 194.3 | 280.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 176 | 243.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 154.1 | 214.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 153.7 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 173.8 | 222.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 152.6 | 273.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, koro (CUDA) | 287.5 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, koro (CUDA) | 287.3 | 452.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, koro (CUDA) | 287.8 | 441.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, koro (CUDA) | 302.8 | 448.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, koro (CUDA) | 271.1 | 433.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, koro (CUDA) | 293 | 704.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, koro (CUDA) | 280.1 | 432.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 191.4 | 218.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 192.1 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 192.9 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 546.3 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 543 | 501.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 546.3 | 482.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 543.6 | 498.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 527.6 | 553.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 555.9 | 622.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 499.7 | 424.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 439.1 | 504.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 443.9 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 431.2 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, victor (CUDA) | 704.3 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, victor (CUDA) | 702 | 1,256.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, victor (CUDA) | 696.3 | 1,235.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, victor (CUDA) | 714.8 | 1,105.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, victor (CUDA) | 686.4 | 997.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, victor (CUDA) | 845.4 | 1,290.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, victor (CUDA) | 757 | 1,351.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 604.1 | 898.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 605.4 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 1,041 | — | no pair |
| 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 | 597.2 | 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 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 895.9 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 823.1 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.6.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 945.9 | 706.5 | 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 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 4.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 864.9 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 4.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 754.8 | 533 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 753.8 | 504.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 700.4 | 404.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 679.1 | 443 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.0.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 850.6 | 592.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.1.2GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 807 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 843.2 | 553.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 809.1 | 542.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 820.6 | 526.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 818.7 | 549 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.6.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 831.8 | 576.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 751.9 | 533.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 768.9 | 501.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 750.8 | 504.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 735.9 | 483.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 616.7 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 692 | 449.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | — | 104.5 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 5.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | — | 189.4 | 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 980 Ti | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chip | |||
| GPU chip | TU116-300-A1 | GM200-310-A1 | differs |
| Architecture | Turing | Maxwell | differs |
| Shader unitsShader unit counts are comparable only within one architecture. | 1,408 (CUDA cores) | 2,816 (CUDA cores) | not directly comparable |
| Clocks | |||
| Base clock | 1,530 MHz | 1,000 MHz | A: 530 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 | 1,076 MHz | A: 709 MHz more |
| Memory | |||
| Video memory | 6 GB | 6 GB | equal |
| Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 | differs |
| Memory bus | 192 bit | 384 bit | B: 192 bit more |
| Memory bandwidthExcludes cache (Infinity Cache / L2), which affects effective bandwidth differently. | 336 GB/s | 336.6 GB/s | B: 0.6 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) | 250 W (TDP) | B: 125 W higher |
Chip
GPU chip
ATU116-300-A1
BGM200-310-A1
differsArchitecture
ATuring
BMaxwell
differsShader units
A1,408 (CUDA cores)
B2,816 (CUDA cores)
not directly comparableShader unit counts are comparable only within one architecture.
Clocks
Base clock
A1,530 MHz
B1,000 MHz
A: 530 MHz moreBoost clock
A1,785 MHz
B1,076 MHz
A: 709 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
BGDDR5
differsMemory bus
A192 bit
B384 bit
B: 192 bit moreMemory bandwidth
A336 GB/s
B336.6 GB/s
B: 0.6 GB/s moreExcludes cache (Infinity Cache / L2), which affects effective bandwidth differently.
Power and dimensions
Board power
A125 W (TDP)
B250 W (TDP)
B: 125 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 980 Ti have?
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER: 6 GB GDDR6, 192-bit bus. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti: 6 GB GDDR5, 384-bit bus.
Which is faster: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER or NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti?
It depends on the task: rendering and compute: results disagree.
See also
Data sources (2)
- Wikipedia (English) — specifications of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER, specifications of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 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 4.5.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.1.1, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.2.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.1.2, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.5.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.4.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.0.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.1.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.3.0checked November 14, 2026
How we compare: methodology. Where the data comes from: sources.