GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER vs GeForce RTX 3050 Laptop GPU: specs and benchmark comparison
Short verdict
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Laptop GPU 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 +60.2%NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Laptop GPU leads in this scenario (up to 60.2% 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 better0
No advantages found in our data.
Where GeForce RTX 3050 Laptop GPU is better1
Blender Benchmark 4.5.0 52.4% faster1,148 samples/min vs 754 samples/min
Benchmarks
Results are compared within one benchmark, one version and the same conditions. Laptop chip results depend on the laptop model: its maker sets the power limit and cooling.
- 4.7% difference, within the threshold
Blender Benchmark 2.93.1
GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER81.6 sGeForce RTX 3050 Laptop GPU77.9 sPosition among tested models (31, CUDA)
B · 78A · 820100200300Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. The 4.7% 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 RTX 3050 Laptop GPU
77.9 s · community measurement, sample 23 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 23 submissions (1 outliers excluded), interquartile range 72.49–86.4; submissions 2021-07-13 to 2022-02-28; 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 52.4%
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 3050 Laptop GPU1,148.5 samples/minPosition among tested models (67, OptiX)
A · 754B · 1,14805,00010,00015,000Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, samples/min. NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Laptop GPU is ahead by 52.4% 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 Laptop GPU
1,148.5 samples/min · community measurement, sample 191 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 191 submissions (7 outliers excluded), interquartile range 994.91–1201.19; submissions 2025-07-17 to 2026-06-03; 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 | 1,157.3 | B +53.3% |
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 700.4 | 1,122.4 | B +60.2% |
| Blender Benchmark 5.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 679.1 | 980 | B +44.3% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 825.9 | 1,244.2 | B +50.7% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 809.1 | 1,244.3 | B +53.8% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 820.6 | 1,230.2 | B +49.9% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 779.4 | 1,203.7 | B +54.4% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 818.7 | 1,307.8 | B +59.7% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.6.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 831.8 | 1,326.6 | B +59.5% |
| Blender Benchmark 4.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 751.9 | 1,150.6 | B +53% |
| Blender Benchmark 4.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 768.9 | 1,184.9 | B +54.1% |
| Blender Benchmark 4.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 750.8 | 1,115.1 | B +48.5% |
| Blender Benchmark 4.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 735.9 | 1,145.3 | B +55.6% |
Each benchmark version has its own scale: numbers are compared only within a row.
Reference results (90)
| 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 | 75.8 | 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 | 49.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 79.7 | 46.1 | 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 | 343.8 | 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 | 153.2 | 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 | 165.7 | 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 | 95.6 | 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 | 285.8 | 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 | 196.1 | 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 | 482.8 | 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 | 216.6 | 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 | 4,335.8 | 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 | 313.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.0.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 847.7 | 553.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 858.5 | 647.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 851 | 740.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 884.3 | 599.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 895.9 | 720.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 823.1 | 730.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.6.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 945.9 | 469 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 650.6 | 539.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 834.7 | 723.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 847.8 | 516.8 | 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 | 1,261.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.1.2GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 807 | 1,123.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 843.2 | 1,237.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 616.7 | 837.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 692 | 1,101.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | — | 688.3 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 4.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | — | 690.5 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 5.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | — | 1,074.3 | no pair |
Each benchmark version has its own scale: numbers are compared only within a row.
Specifications
Chip maker values. The laptop maker sets the power limit and clocks in each laptop.
| Specification | A · GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER | B · GeForce RTX 3050 Laptop GPU | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chip | |||
| GPU chip | TU116-300-A1 | GA107 | differs |
| Architecture | Turing | Ampere | differs |
| Shader unitsShader unit counts are comparable only within one architecture. | 1,408 (CUDA cores) | no data | no data for B |
| Clocks | |||
| Base clock | 1,530 MHz | no data | no data for B |
| 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 | 990–1,740 MHz | not directly comparable |
| Memory | |||
| Video memory | 6 GB | no data | no data for B |
| Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 | equal |
| Memory bus | 192 bit | no data | no data for B |
| 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) | no data | no data for B |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 4.0 x8 | no data for A |
Chip
GPU chip
ATU116-300-A1
BGA107
differsArchitecture
ATuring
BAmpere
differsShader units
A1,408 (CUDA cores)
Bno data
no data for BShader unit counts are comparable only within one architecture.
Clocks
Base clock
A1,530 MHz
Bno data
no data for BBoost clock
A1,785 MHz
B990–1,740 MHz
not directly comparableClocks 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
Bno data
no data for BMemory type
AGDDR6
BGDDR6
equalMemory bus
A192 bit
Bno data
no data for BMemory 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)
Bno data
no data for BTGP (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.
Interface
Ano data
BPCIe 4.0 x8
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
Which is faster: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER or NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Laptop GPU?
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Laptop GPU 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)
- Wikipedia (English) — specifications of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER, release date and launch pricechecked November 14, 2026
- NVIDIA — specifications of NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Laptop GPUchecked 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 3.5.0, 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 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.