GeForce GTX 1660 Ti vs GeForce RTX 2070: specs and benchmark comparison
Short verdict
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 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 +186.8%NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 leads in this scenario (up to 186.8% 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 Ti is better2
Board power 55 W lower120 W (TDP) vs 175 W (TDP)
Launch price $220 lower$279 vs $499
Where GeForce RTX 2070 is better12
Blender Benchmark 2.93.1 43.1% lower59 s vs 84 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 143.4% lower30 s vs 74 s
Blender Benchmark 2.93.1 6.4% lower282 s vs 300 s
Blender Benchmark 2.93.1 51.9% lower112 s vs 170 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 52.8% lower195 s vs 298 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 22.2% lower473 s vs 578 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 33.3% lower532 s vs 709 s
Blender Benchmark 4.5.0 180.1% faster2,109 samples/min vs 753 samples/min
Shader units 768 more2,304 (CUDA cores) vs 1,536 (CUDA cores)
Video memory 2 GB more8 GB vs 6 GB
Memory bus 64 bit more256 bit vs 192 bit
Memory bandwidth 160 GB/s more448 GB/s vs 288 GB/s
Benchmarks
Results are compared within one benchmark, one version and the same conditions.
- B ahead by 43.1%
Blender Benchmark 2.93.1
GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti84.2 sGeForce RTX 207058.8 sPosition among tested models (31, CUDA)
B · 59A · 840100200300Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 is ahead by 43.1% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · 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.
- B · NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070
58.8 s · community measurement, sample 42 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 42 submissions (1 outliers excluded), interquartile range 57.49–61.43; submissions 2021-07-12 to 2022-02-10; 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 143.4%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti74.2 sGeForce RTX 207030.5 sPosition among tested models (17, OptiX)
B · 30A · 74050100150Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 is ahead by 143.4% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · 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.
- B · NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070
30.5 s · community measurement, sample 92 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 92 submissions (1 outliers excluded), interquartile range 29.31–31.63; submissions 2020-09-02 to 2022-01-09; 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.
- B ahead by 6.4%
Blender Benchmark 2.93.1
GPU, classroom (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti300.4 sGeForce RTX 2070282.3 sPosition among tested models (26, CUDA)
B · 282A · 3000200400600800Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 is ahead by 6.4% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · 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.
- B · NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070
282.3 s · community measurement, sample 28 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 28 submissions (2 outliers excluded), interquartile range 276.74–290.98; submissions 2021-07-12 to 2022-02-03; 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 51.9%
Blender Benchmark 2.93.1
GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti169.5 sGeForce RTX 2070111.6 sPosition among tested models (21, CUDA)
B · 112A · 1700100200300Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 is ahead by 51.9% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti
169.5 s · community measurement, sample 21 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 21 submissions (0 outliers excluded), interquartile range 166.86–181.87; submissions 2021-07-12 to 2022-01-31; CUDA backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
- B · NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070
111.6 s · community measurement, sample 27 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 27 submissions (2 outliers excluded), interquartile range 108.46–119.84; submissions 2021-07-12 to 2022-02-03; 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 52.8%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, koro (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti298 sGeForce RTX 2070195 sPosition among tested models (22, CUDA)
B · 195A · 2980200400600800Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 is ahead by 52.8% 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 RTX 2070
195 s · community measurement, sample 117 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 117 submissions (14 outliers excluded), interquartile range 191.09–199.46; submissions 2020-09-03 to 2021-09-12; 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 22.2%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti577.5 sGeForce RTX 2070472.6 sPosition among tested models (23, CUDA)
B · 473A · 57805001,0001,500Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 is ahead by 22.2% 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 RTX 2070
472.6 s · community measurement, sample 127 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 127 submissions (10 outliers excluded), interquartile range 460.59–488.31; submissions 2020-09-03 to 2022-01-09; 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 33.3%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, victor (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti709.3 sGeForce RTX 2070532.1 sPosition among tested models (20, CUDA)
B · 532A · 70905001,0001,500Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 is ahead by 33.3% 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 RTX 2070
532.1 s · community measurement, sample 120 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 120 submissions (9 outliers excluded), interquartile range 512.02–553.12; submissions 2020-09-03 to 2021-09-12; 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 180.1%
Blender Benchmark 4.5.0
GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) · samples/min, higher is better
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti752.7 samples/minGeForce RTX 20702,108.7 samples/minPosition among tested models (67, OptiX)
A · 753B · 2,10905,00010,00015,000Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, samples/min. NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 is ahead by 180.1% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · 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.
- B · NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070
2,108.7 samples/min · community measurement, sample 64 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 64 submissions (2 outliers excluded), interquartile range 1999.79–2175.31; submissions 2025-07-22 to 2026-07-07; 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 (32)
| Benchmark | A | B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 90.2 | 64.9 | B +38.9% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 91.7 | 64.2 | B +42.8% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 92.4 | 67.6 | B +36.6% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 98.6 | 67.8 | B +45.4% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 97.3 | 67.8 | B +43.5% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, classroom (CUDA) | 333 | 312.4 | B +6.6% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 322.2 | 297.9 | B +8.2% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 328 | 306.1 | B +7.2% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 333.4 | 310.5 | B +7.4% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 168.3 | 119.3 | B +41% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 173.3 | 119.9 | B +44.5% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 177.1 | 129.7 | B +36.5% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 185.6 | 126.2 | B +47% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, koro (CUDA) | 288.5 | 212.8 | B +35.6% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, koro (CUDA) | 284.9 | 211.6 | B +34.7% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, koro (CUDA) | 302.4 | 226.1 | B +33.7% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 546.1 | 457.8 | B +19.3% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 543.8 | 456.1 | B +19.2% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 546.7 | 461.6 | B +18.4% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, victor (CUDA) | 704.2 | 532.1 | B +32.4% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, victor (CUDA) | 708.4 | 560.2 | B +26.5% |
| Blender Benchmark 4.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 763.4 | 2,072.7 | B +171.5% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 820.5 | 2,282.5 | B +178.2% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 810.8 | 2,245.7 | B +177% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 825.9 | 2,322.6 | B +181.2% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 825.2 | 2,275.9 | B +175.8% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 862.4 | 2,452.8 | B +184.4% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.6.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 854.4 | 2,450.5 | B +186.8% |
| Blender Benchmark 4.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 781.6 | 2,159.9 | B +176.3% |
| Blender Benchmark 4.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 788.7 | 2,222.6 | B +181.8% |
| Blender Benchmark 4.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 765.6 | 2,085.9 | B +172.4% |
| Blender Benchmark 4.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 753.9 | 2,131.7 | B +182.8% |
Each benchmark version has its own scale: numbers are compared only within a row.
Reference results (96)
| Benchmark | A | B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, barbershop_interior (CUDA) | 1,104.2 | 1,086.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, barbershop_interior (CUDA) | 1,122.6 | 1,072.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 90.5 | 64 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 94.2 | 69.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 74.5 | 31.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 72.3 | 30 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 78 | 33 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 331 | 309.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 338.7 | 321.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 341.5 | 318.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 298 | 166.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 302.3 | 170.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 289.8 | 168.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 307.1 | 177.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 166.2 | 118.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 169.5 | 122.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 183.9 | 117.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 146.3 | 54.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 148.8 | 61.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 158.6 | 62.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 165.4 | 63.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, koro (CUDA) | 286.5 | 209.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, koro (CUDA) | 275 | 196.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, koro (CUDA) | 286.2 | 186.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, koro (CUDA) | 269.1 | 183.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 182.5 | 115.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 182 | 123 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 230 | 126.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 548.6 | 458.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 528.2 | 445.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 538.2 | 429.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 481.4 | 410.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 429.1 | 193.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 427 | 196.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 454.8 | 205.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, victor (CUDA) | 712.3 | 545.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, victor (CUDA) | 718.6 | 548.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, victor (CUDA) | 684.3 | 554.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, victor (CUDA) | 805.1 | 574.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, victor (CUDA) | 706.2 | 518.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 585.4 | 230.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 598.2 | 252.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 690.1 | 273.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 851.2 | 1,404.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 883.7 | 1,347.9 | reference |
| 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 | 1,375.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 907.5 | 1,467.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.6.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 971.3 | — | no pair |
| 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 | 1,246.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 702.6 | 1,829.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 685.6 | 1,926.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.0.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 888.1 | 2,300.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.1.2GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 875.8 | 2,178.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 813 | 2,266 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 686.9 | 1,896.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 698.7 | 2,031.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, barbershop_interior (OPTIX) | — | 1,907.1 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, barbershop_interior (OPTIX) | — | 1,721.5 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | — | 70.1 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | — | 30.9 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | — | 30.5 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | — | 30.8 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | — | 30.6 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, classroom (CUDA) | — | 340.3 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | — | 159.4 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, classroom (OPTIX) | — | 164.5 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | — | 165 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | — | 168.2 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | — | 131.1 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | — | 55.1 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | — | 56.3 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | — | 58.2 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | — | 59.1 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, koro (CUDA) | — | 213.3 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, koro (OPTIX) | — | 102.4 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, koro (OPTIX) | — | 105.6 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, koro (OPTIX) | — | 103.5 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, koro (OPTIX) | — | 105.7 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, koro (OPTIX) | — | 133.3 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | — | 505.9 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | — | 192.5 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | — | 194.8 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | — | 196.2 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | — | 194.8 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | — | 197.3 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, victor (CUDA) | — | 528.8 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, victor (OPTIX) | — | 255.7 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, victor (OPTIX) | — | 261.9 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, victor (OPTIX) | — | 258.5 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, victor (OPTIX) | — | 260.1 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, victor (OPTIX) | — | 268.9 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.0.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | — | 1,401.3 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 4.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | — | 1,433.1 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 4.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | — | 1,406.2 | 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 RTX 2070 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chip | |||
| GPU chip | TU116-400-A1 | TU106-400A-A1 | differs |
| Architecture | Turing | Turing | equal |
| Shader unitsShader unit counts are comparable only within one architecture. | 1,536 (CUDA cores) | 2,304 (CUDA cores) | B: 768 more |
| Clocks | |||
| Base clock | 1,500 MHz | 1,410 MHz | A: 90 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 | 1,620 MHz | A: 150 MHz more |
| Memory | |||
| Video memory | 6 GB | 8 GB | B: 2 GB more |
| Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 | equal |
| Memory bus | 192 bit | 256 bit | B: 64 bit more |
| Memory bandwidthExcludes cache (Infinity Cache / L2), which affects effective bandwidth differently. | 288 GB/s | 448 GB/s | B: 160 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) | 175 W (TDP) | B: 55 W higher |
Chip
GPU chip
ATU116-400-A1
BTU106-400A-A1
differsArchitecture
ATuring
BTuring
equalShader units
A1,536 (CUDA cores)
B2,304 (CUDA cores)
B: 768 moreShader unit counts are comparable only within one architecture.
Clocks
Base clock
A1,500 MHz
B1,410 MHz
A: 90 MHz moreBoost clock
A1,770 MHz
B1,620 MHz
A: 150 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
B256 bit
B: 64 bit moreMemory bandwidth
A288 GB/s
B448 GB/s
B: 160 GB/s moreExcludes cache (Infinity Cache / L2), which affects effective bandwidth differently.
Power and dimensions
Board power
A120 W (TDP)
B175 W (TDP)
B: 55 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 RTX 2070 have?
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti: 6 GB GDDR6, 192-bit bus. NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070: 8 GB GDDR6, 256-bit bus.
Which is faster: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti or NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070?
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 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 Ti, specifications of NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070, 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 3.0.1, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.0.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.5.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.1.1, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.1.2, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.2.0, 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 5.1.0checked November 14, 2026
How we compare: methodology. Where the data comes from: sources.