GeForce GTX 1660 Ti 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 Ti is better6
Blender Benchmark 2.90 5.3% lower186 s vs 195 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 23.5% lower298 s vs 368 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 43.6% lower709 s vs 1,018 s
Blender Benchmark 3.4.0 47.5% faster825 samples/min vs 560 samples/min
Board power 130 W lower120 W (TDP) vs 250 W (TDP)
Launch price $370 lower$279 vs $649
Where GeForce GTX 980 Ti is better4
Blender Benchmark 2.90 8.1% lower308 s vs 333 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 16% lower498 s vs 578 s
Memory bus 192 bit more384 bit vs 192 bit
Memory bandwidth 48.6 GB/s more336.6 GB/s vs 288 GB/s
Benchmarks
Results are compared within one benchmark, one version and the same conditions.
- 2.9% difference, within the threshold
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti98.6 sGeForce GTX 980 Ti95.8 sPosition among tested models (27, CUDA)
B · 96A · 990100200300400Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. The 2.9% difference is below the noticeable threshold (5%).
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti
98.6 s · community measurement, sample 133 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 133 submissions (11 outliers excluded), interquartile range 97.28–103.64; submissions 2020-09-03 to 2021-02-04; 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 8.1%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, classroom (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti333.4 sGeForce GTX 980 Ti308.5 sPosition among tested models (25, CUDA)
B · 308A · 3330200400600800Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti is ahead by 8.1% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti
333.4 s · community measurement, sample 105 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 105 submissions (8 outliers excluded), interquartile range 325.46–343.87; submissions 2020-09-02 to 2021-02-04; 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 5.3%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti185.6 sGeForce GTX 980 Ti195.4 sPosition among tested models (22, CUDA)
A · 186B · 1950200400600Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is ahead by 5.3% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · 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.
- 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 23.5%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, koro (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti298 sGeForce GTX 980 Ti368.1 sPosition among tested models (22, CUDA)
A · 298B · 3680200400600800Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is ahead by 23.5% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · 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.
- 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 16%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti577.5 sGeForce GTX 980 Ti497.8 sPosition among tested models (23, CUDA)
B · 498A · 57805001,0001,500Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti is ahead by 16% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · 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.
- 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 43.6%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, victor (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti709.3 sGeForce GTX 980 Ti1,018.5 sPosition among tested models (20, CUDA)
A · 709B · 1,01805001,0001,500Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is ahead by 43.6% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · 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.
- 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 47.5%
Blender Benchmark 3.4.0
GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) · samples/min, higher is better
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti825.2 samples/minGeForce GTX 980 Ti559.7 samples/minPosition among tested models (43, OptiX)
B · 560A · 82505,00010,00015,000Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, samples/min. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is ahead by 47.5% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti
825.2 samples/min · community measurement, sample 87 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 87 submissions (7 outliers excluded), interquartile range 795.21–849.16; submissions 2022-12-08 to 2023-07-21; 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) | 91.7 | 92.2 | A +0.5% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 92.4 | 94.2 | A +2% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 328 | 303.8 | B +8% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 820.5 | 545.1 | A +50.5% |
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) | 1,104.2 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, barbershop_interior (CUDA) | 1,122.6 | 1,009.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 90.5 | 94.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 90.2 | 92.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 94.2 | 109.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 97.3 | 115.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 84.2 | 74.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 74.2 | 104.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 74.5 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 72.3 | 94.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 78 | 100.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 331 | 303.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, classroom (CUDA) | 333 | 299.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 322.2 | 295.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 338.7 | 291.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 341.5 | 296.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 300.4 | 257.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 298 | 347.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 302.3 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 289.8 | 400.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 307.1 | 469 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 166.2 | 199.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 168.3 | 204.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 173.3 | 202.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 177.1 | 201.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 169.5 | 233.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 183.9 | 280.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 169.5 | 243.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 146.3 | 214.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 148.8 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 158.6 | 222.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 165.4 | 273.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, koro (CUDA) | 286.5 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, koro (CUDA) | 288.5 | 452.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, koro (CUDA) | 284.9 | 441.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, koro (CUDA) | 302.4 | 448.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, koro (CUDA) | 275 | 433.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, koro (CUDA) | 286.2 | 704.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, koro (CUDA) | 269.1 | 432.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 182.5 | 218.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 182 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 230 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 548.6 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 546.1 | 501.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 543.8 | 482.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 546.7 | 498.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 528.2 | 553.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 538.2 | 622.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 481.4 | 424.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 429.1 | 504.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 427 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 454.8 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, victor (CUDA) | 712.3 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, victor (CUDA) | 718.6 | 1,256.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, victor (CUDA) | 704.2 | 1,235.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, victor (CUDA) | 708.4 | 1,105.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, victor (CUDA) | 684.3 | 997.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, victor (CUDA) | 805.1 | 1,290.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, victor (CUDA) | 706.2 | 1,351.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 585.4 | 898.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 598.2 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 690.1 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 851.2 | 597.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 883.7 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 898.2 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 849.6 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 907.5 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.6.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 971.3 | 706.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 773.7 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 5.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 777.5 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 4.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 763.4 | 533 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 752.7 | 504.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 702.6 | 404.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 685.6 | 443 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.0.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 888.1 | 592.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.1.2GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 875.8 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 813 | 553.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 810.8 | 542.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 825.9 | 526.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 862.4 | 549 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.6.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 854.4 | 576.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 781.6 | 533.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 788.7 | 501.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 765.6 | 504.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 753.9 | 483.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 686.9 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 698.7 | 449.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | — | 104.5 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, classroom (CUDA) | — | 339.9 | 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 Ti | B · GeForce GTX 980 Ti | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chip | |||
| GPU chip | TU116-400-A1 | GM200-310-A1 | differs |
| Architecture | Turing | Maxwell | differs |
| Shader unitsShader unit counts are comparable only within one architecture. | 1,536 (CUDA cores) | 2,816 (CUDA cores) | not directly comparable |
| Clocks | |||
| Base clock | 1,500 MHz | 1,000 MHz | A: 500 MHz more |
| Boost clockClocks of different architectures do not reflect performance directly. For laptop chips, the clock depends on the laptop’s power limit. | 1,770 MHz | 1,076 MHz | A: 694 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. | 288 GB/s | 336.6 GB/s | B: 48.6 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. | 120 W (TDP) | 250 W (TDP) | B: 130 W higher |
Chip
GPU chip
ATU116-400-A1
BGM200-310-A1
differsArchitecture
ATuring
BMaxwell
differsShader units
A1,536 (CUDA cores)
B2,816 (CUDA cores)
not directly comparableShader unit counts are comparable only within one architecture.
Clocks
Base clock
A1,500 MHz
B1,000 MHz
A: 500 MHz moreBoost clock
A1,770 MHz
B1,076 MHz
A: 694 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
A288 GB/s
B336.6 GB/s
B: 48.6 GB/s moreExcludes cache (Infinity Cache / L2), which affects effective bandwidth differently.
Power and dimensions
Board power
A120 W (TDP)
B250 W (TDP)
B: 130 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 Ti and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti have?
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti: 6 GB GDDR6, 192-bit bus. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti: 6 GB GDDR5, 384-bit bus.
Which is faster: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti 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 Ti, 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 3.1.0, 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 4.2.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.2.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.5.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.1.1, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.0.1, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.1.2, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.2.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.0.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.1.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.3.0, 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.