GeForce GTX 1660 vs GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER: specs and benchmark comparison
Short verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER 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 +14.2%NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER leads in this scenario (up to 14.2% 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 is better1
Launch price $10 lower$219 vs $229
Where GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is better6
Blender Benchmark 2.91.2 10.1% lower94 s vs 103 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 11.1% lower181 s vs 201 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 14.2% lower288 s vs 329 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 7.5% lower564 s vs 607 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 13.1% lower691 s vs 782 s
Blender Benchmark 4.5.0 10.9% faster754 samples/min vs 680 samples/min
Benchmarks
Results are compared within one benchmark, one version and the same conditions.
- B ahead by 10.1%
Blender Benchmark 2.91.2
GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1660103 sGeForce GTX 1660 SUPER93.6 sPosition among tested models (9, CUDA)
B · 94A · 103050100150Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is ahead by 10.1% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660
103 s · community measurement, sample 21 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 21 submissions (3 outliers excluded), interquartile range 100.54–103.45; submissions 2021-02-13 to 2021-03-11; CUDA backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
- B · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER
93.6 s · community measurement, sample 23 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 23 submissions (1 outliers excluded), interquartile range 91.5–97.95; submissions 2021-02-01 to 2021-03-11; 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.
- 3.8% difference, within the threshold
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, classroom (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1660344.5 sGeForce GTX 1660 SUPER331.9 sPosition among tested models (25, CUDA)
B · 332A · 3440200400600800Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. The 3.8% difference is below the noticeable threshold (5%).
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660
344.5 s · community measurement, sample 45 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 45 submissions (8 outliers excluded), interquartile range 341.82–356.75; submissions 2020-09-03 to 2021-01-20; CUDA backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
- B · 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.
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 11.1%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1660200.5 sGeForce GTX 1660 SUPER180.5 sPosition among tested models (22, CUDA)
B · 181A · 2010200400600Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is ahead by 11.1% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660
200.5 s · community measurement, sample 40 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 40 submissions (6 outliers excluded), interquartile range 199.05–204.92; submissions 2020-09-03 to 2021-01-09; CUDA backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
- B · 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.
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 14.2%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, koro (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1660329.3 sGeForce GTX 1660 SUPER288.3 sPosition among tested models (22, CUDA)
B · 288A · 3290200400600800Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is ahead by 14.2% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660
329.3 s · community measurement, sample 38 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 38 submissions (7 outliers excluded), interquartile range 326.4–336.55; submissions 2020-09-03 to 2021-01-09; CUDA backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
- B · 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.
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 7.5%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1660606.6 sGeForce GTX 1660 SUPER564.4 sPosition among tested models (23, CUDA)
B · 564A · 60705001,0001,500Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is ahead by 7.5% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660
606.6 s · community measurement, sample 38 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 38 submissions (6 outliers excluded), interquartile range 602.24–614.64; submissions 2020-09-03 to 2021-01-09; CUDA backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
- B · 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.
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 13.1%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, victor (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1660781.7 sGeForce GTX 1660 SUPER690.9 sPosition among tested models (20, CUDA)
B · 691A · 78205001,0001,500Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is ahead by 13.1% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660
781.7 s · community measurement, sample 36 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 36 submissions (7 outliers excluded), interquartile range 768.8–797.89; submissions 2020-09-03 to 2021-01-09; CUDA backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
- B · 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.
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 10.9%
Blender Benchmark 4.5.0
GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) · samples/min, higher is better
GeForce GTX 1660679.7 samples/minGeForce GTX 1660 SUPER753.8 samples/minPosition among tested models (67, OptiX)
A · 680B · 75405,00010,00015,000Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, samples/min. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is ahead by 10.9% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660
679.7 samples/min · community measurement, sample 22 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 22 submissions (0 outliers excluded), interquartile range 623.88–697.87; submissions 2025-07-17 to 2026-03-26; OPTIX backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
- B · 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.
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 (17)
| Benchmark | A | B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 97.7 | 89.6 | B +9.1% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 98.2 | 90.6 | B +8.4% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 103.8 | 94.8 | B +9.5% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 337.8 | 322.1 | B +4.9% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 340.7 | 331.8 | B +2.7% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 194 | 177.3 | B +9.4% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, koro (CUDA) | 316.7 | 287.8 | B +10% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, koro (CUDA) | 330.3 | 302.8 | B +9.1% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 582.5 | 546.3 | B +6.6% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 580.9 | 543.6 | B +6.9% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, victor (CUDA) | 800.2 | 714.8 | B +11.9% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 744.3 | 825.9 | B +11% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 724.3 | 820.6 | B +13.3% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 726.6 | 779.4 | B +7.3% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.6.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 777.3 | 831.8 | B +7% |
| Blender Benchmark 4.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 700 | 751.9 | B +7.4% |
| Blender Benchmark 4.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 700.7 | 768.9 | B +9.7% |
Each benchmark version has its own scale: numbers are compared only within a row.
Reference results (84)
| Benchmark | A | B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, barbershop_interior (CUDA) | 1,138.5 | 1,123.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, barbershop_interior (CUDA) | 1,181.5 | 1,096.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 96.3 | 88.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 95.2 | 88.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 111.6 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 103.8 | 95.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 88.5 | 81.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 82.1 | 77 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 74.3 | 77.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 79.2 | 76.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 86 | 79.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 342 | 333.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, classroom (CUDA) | 345.9 | 336.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 385.9 | 330.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 347.4 | 336.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 361.4 | 351.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 316.4 | 308.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 319.1 | 309.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 313.8 | 307 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 328 | 311.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 186.7 | 153.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 186.4 | 165.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 188.1 | 171.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 261.8 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 188.6 | 167.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 201.5 | 194.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 198.1 | 176 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 159.5 | 154.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 159.4 | 153.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 170.1 | 152.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, koro (CUDA) | 320.4 | 287.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, koro (CUDA) | 316.5 | 287.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, koro (CUDA) | 402.1 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, koro (CUDA) | 286.5 | 271.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, koro (CUDA) | 313.5 | 293 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, koro (CUDA) | 334.9 | 280.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 199.4 | 191.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 196.8 | 192.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 211.1 | 192.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 580.6 | 546.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 584.7 | 543 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 874.8 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 551.6 | 527.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 592.3 | 555.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 518.7 | 499.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 458.8 | 439.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 455.5 | 443.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 471.8 | 431.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, victor (CUDA) | 806.9 | 704.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, victor (CUDA) | 798.7 | 702 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, victor (CUDA) | 789.6 | 696.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, victor (CUDA) | 980.8 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, victor (CUDA) | 764.3 | 686.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, victor (CUDA) | 919.3 | 845.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, victor (CUDA) | 860.9 | 757 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 646.9 | 604.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 688.9 | 605.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 702.8 | 1,041 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.0.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 808.8 | 847.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 707.9 | 858.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 764.5 | 884.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 791.7 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.6.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 616.3 | 945.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 754.9 | 650.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 744.5 | 834.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 775.6 | 864.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 689.2 | 754.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 595.5 | 700.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 617.6 | 679.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.0.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 798.6 | 850.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 644.9 | 843.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 753.3 | 809.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 754 | 818.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 686.4 | 750.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 676 | 735.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 490.6 | 692 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | — | 315.3 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | — | 173.8 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | — | 851 | 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 4.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | — | 847.8 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.1.2GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | — | 807 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 5.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | — | 616.7 | no pair |
Each benchmark version has its own scale: numbers are compared only within a row.
Specifications
| Specification | A · GeForce GTX 1660 | B · GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chip | |||
| GPU chip | no data | TU116-300-A1 | no data for A |
| Architecture | Turing | Turing | equal |
| Shader unitsShader unit counts are comparable only within one architecture. | 1,408 (CUDA cores) | 1,408 (CUDA cores) | equal |
| Clocks | |||
| Base clock | 1,530 MHz | 1,530 MHz | equal |
| 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 | 1,785 MHz | equal |
| Memory | |||
| Video memory | 6 GB | 6 GB | equal |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 | differs |
| Memory bus | 192 bit | 192 bit | equal |
| Memory bandwidthExcludes cache (Infinity Cache / L2), which affects effective bandwidth differently. | no data | 336 GB/s | no data for A |
| 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 (board power) | 125 W (TDP) | not directly comparable |
| Recommended PSU | 450 W | no data | no data for B |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 | no data | no data for B |
| Length (reference / Founders Edition)Partner cards have different dimensions; check the specific SKU. | 145 mm | no data | no data for B |
| Thickness (slots) | 2 | no data | no data for B |
| Power connectors (reference) | 1x 8-pin | no data | no data for B |
Chip
GPU chip
Ano data
BTU116-300-A1
no data for AArchitecture
ATuring
BTuring
equalShader units
A1,408 (CUDA cores)
B1,408 (CUDA cores)
equalShader unit counts are comparable only within one architecture.
Clocks
Base clock
A1,530 MHz
B1,530 MHz
equalBoost clock
A1,785 MHz
B1,785 MHz
equalClocks 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
AGDDR5
BGDDR6
differsMemory bus
A192 bit
B192 bit
equalMemory bandwidth
Ano data
B336 GB/s
no data for AExcludes cache (Infinity Cache / L2), which affects effective bandwidth differently.
Power and dimensions
Board power
A120 W (board power)
B125 W (TDP)
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
A450 W
Bno data
no data for BInterface
APCIe 3.0
Bno data
no data for BLength (reference / Founders Edition)
A145 mm
Bno data
no data for BPartner cards have different dimensions; check the specific SKU.
Thickness (slots)
A2
Bno data
no data for BPower connectors (reference)
A1x 8-pin
Bno data
no data for B
“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 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER have?
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660: 6 GB GDDR5, 192-bit bus. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER: 6 GB GDDR6, 192-bit bus.
Which is faster: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 or NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER?
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER 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)
- NVIDIA — specifications of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660checked November 7, 2026
- Wikipedia (English) — specifications of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER, 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 2.90.1, benchmark Blender Benchmark 2.91.2, benchmark Blender Benchmark 2.92, benchmark Blender Benchmark 2.93.1, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.0.1, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.1.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.2.1, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.5.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.6.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.0.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.1.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.3.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.2.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.3.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.4.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.2.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.5.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.1.1, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.2.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.4.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.1.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.1.2, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.0.0checked November 14, 2026
How we compare: methodology. Where the data comes from: sources.