GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER vs GeForce RTX 3050: specs and benchmark comparison
Short verdict
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 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 +109.4%NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 leads in this scenario (up to 109.4% 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 better1
Memory bus 64 bit more192 bit vs 128 bit
Where GeForce RTX 3050 is better2
Blender Benchmark 4.5.0 79.1% faster1,350 samples/min vs 754 samples/min
Video memory 2 GB more8 GB vs 6 GB
Benchmarks
Results are compared within one benchmark, one version and the same conditions.
- B ahead by 79.1%
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 RTX 30501,350.2 samples/minPosition among tested models (67, OptiX)
A · 754B · 1,35005,00010,00015,000Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, samples/min. NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 is ahead by 79.1% in this benchmark.
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 RTX 3050
1,350.2 samples/min · community measurement, sample 142 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 142 submissions (3 outliers excluded), interquartile range 1198.64–1450.25; submissions 2025-07-17 to 2026-07-20; 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 4.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 754.8 | 1,379.4 | B +82.8% |
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 700.4 | 1,223.8 | B +74.7% |
| Blender Benchmark 5.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 679.1 | 1,127.9 | B +66.1% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 825.9 | 1,616.5 | B +95.7% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 809.1 | 1,584.8 | B +95.9% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 820.6 | 1,587.8 | B +93.5% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 779.4 | 1,600.7 | B +105.4% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 818.7 | 1,714.1 | B +109.4% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.6.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 831.8 | 1,656 | B +99.1% |
| Blender Benchmark 4.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 751.9 | 1,497.2 | B +99.1% |
| Blender Benchmark 4.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 768.9 | 1,428.1 | B +85.7% |
| Blender Benchmark 4.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 750.8 | 1,387.3 | B +84.8% |
| Blender Benchmark 4.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 735.9 | 1,382.6 | B +87.9% |
Each benchmark version has its own scale: numbers are compared only within a row.
Reference results (89)
| 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 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 88.6 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 88.3 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 89.6 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 90.6 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 94.8 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 93.6 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 95.3 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 81.6 | 66.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 77 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 77.4 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 76.9 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 79.7 | 40.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 333.9 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, classroom (CUDA) | 336.8 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 322.1 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 331.8 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 331.9 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 330.7 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 336.4 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 351.8 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 308.4 | 310.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 309.9 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 307 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 315.3 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 311.6 | 134.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 153.9 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 165.4 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 171.9 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 177.3 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 180.5 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 167.5 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 194.3 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 176 | 142.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 154.1 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 153.7 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 173.8 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 152.6 | 80.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, koro (CUDA) | 287.5 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, koro (CUDA) | 287.3 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, koro (CUDA) | 287.8 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, koro (CUDA) | 302.8 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, koro (CUDA) | 288.3 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, koro (CUDA) | 271.1 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, koro (CUDA) | 293 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, koro (CUDA) | 280.1 | 227.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 191.4 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 192.1 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 192.9 | 159.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 546.3 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 543 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 546.3 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 543.6 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 564.4 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 527.6 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 555.9 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 499.7 | 411 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 439.1 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 443.9 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 431.2 | 187.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, victor (CUDA) | 704.3 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, victor (CUDA) | 702 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, victor (CUDA) | 696.3 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, victor (CUDA) | 714.8 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, victor (CUDA) | 690.9 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, victor (CUDA) | 686.4 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, victor (CUDA) | 845.4 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, victor (CUDA) | 757 | 600.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 604.1 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 605.4 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 1,041 | 251.4 | 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 | — | no pair |
| 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 | 909.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.6.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 945.9 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 4.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 650.6 | 823.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 834.7 | 851.8 | reference |
| 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 | 789.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.0.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 850.6 | 1,629.3 | 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 | 1,594.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 616.7 | 1,198.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 692 | 1,185.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | — | 803.4 | 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 RTX 3050 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chip | |||
| GPU chip | TU116-300-A1 | no data | no data for B |
| Architecture | Turing | Ampere | differs |
| Shader unitsShader unit counts are comparable only within one architecture. | 1,408 (CUDA cores) | 2,560 (CUDA cores) | not directly comparable |
| Clocks | |||
| Base clock | 1,530 MHz | 1,550 MHz | B: 20 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 | 1,780 MHz | A: 5 MHz more |
| Memory | |||
| Video memory | 6 GB | 8 GB | B: 2 GB more |
| Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 | equal |
| Memory bus | 192 bit | 128 bit | A: 64 bit more |
| Memory bandwidthExcludes cache (Infinity Cache / L2), which affects effective bandwidth differently. | 336 GB/s | no data | no data for B |
| 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) | 130 W (board power) | not directly comparable |
| Recommended PSU | no data | 550 W | no data for A |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 4.0 | no data for A |
Chip
GPU chip
ATU116-300-A1
Bno data
no data for BArchitecture
ATuring
BAmpere
differsShader units
A1,408 (CUDA cores)
B2,560 (CUDA cores)
not directly comparableShader unit counts are comparable only within one architecture.
Clocks
Base clock
A1,530 MHz
B1,550 MHz
B: 20 MHz moreBoost clock
A1,785 MHz
B1,780 MHz
A: 5 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
B8 GB
B: 2 GB moreMemory type
AGDDR6
BGDDR6
equalMemory bus
A192 bit
B128 bit
A: 64 bit moreMemory bandwidth
A336 GB/s
Bno data
no data for BExcludes cache (Infinity Cache / L2), which affects effective bandwidth differently.
Power and dimensions
Board power
A125 W (TDP)
B130 W (board power)
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
Ano data
B550 W
no data for AInterface
Ano data
BPCIe 4.0
no data for A
“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 RTX 3050 have?
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER: 6 GB GDDR6, 192-bit bus. NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050: 8 GB GDDR6, 128-bit bus.
Which is faster: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER or NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050?
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 leads in every scenario with comparable benchmarks: rendering and compute. This does not imply an advantage in tasks without benchmarks.
See also
- ModelNVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER
- ModelNVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050
- ComparisonGeForce RTX 2060 vs GeForce RTX 3050
- ComparisonGeForce GTX 1660 vs GeForce RTX 3050
- ComparisonGeForce RTX 3050 vs GeForce RTX 3060
- ComparisonGeForce GTX 1650 vs GeForce RTX 3050
- ComparisonGeForce RTX 3050 vs Radeon RX 6600
- ComparisonGeForce GTX 1060 vs GeForce RTX 3050
Data sources (3)
- Wikipedia (English) — specifications of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER, release date and launch pricechecked November 14, 2026
- NVIDIA — specifications of NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050checked November 7, 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 4.4.0, 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 5.0.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.1.0checked November 14, 2026
How we compare: methodology. Where the data comes from: sources.