GeForce GTX 1660 vs GeForce GTX 1660 Ti: specs and benchmark comparison
Short verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti 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%NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti leads in this scenario (up to 14% 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 $60 lower$219 vs $279
Where GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is better7
Blender Benchmark 2.90 5.4% lower99 s vs 104 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 8% lower186 s vs 201 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 10.5% lower298 s vs 329 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 5% lower578 s vs 607 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 10.2% lower709 s vs 782 s
Blender Benchmark 4.5.0 10.7% faster753 samples/min vs 680 samples/min
Shader units 128 more1,536 (CUDA cores) vs 1,408 (CUDA cores)
Benchmarks
Results are compared within one benchmark, one version and the same conditions.
- B ahead by 5.4%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1660103.8 sGeForce GTX 1660 Ti98.6 sPosition among tested models (27, CUDA)
B · 99A · 1040100200300400Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is ahead by 5.4% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660
103.8 s · community measurement, sample 68 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 68 submissions (8 outliers excluded), interquartile range 102.75–105.37; submissions 2020-09-02 to 2021-11-01; CUDA backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
- B · 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.
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.
- 3.3% difference, within the threshold
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, classroom (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1660344.5 sGeForce GTX 1660 Ti333.4 sPosition among tested models (25, CUDA)
B · 333A · 3440200400600800Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. The 3.3% 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 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.
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%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1660200.5 sGeForce GTX 1660 Ti185.6 sPosition among tested models (22, CUDA)
B · 186A · 2010200400600Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is ahead by 8% 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 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.
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 10.5%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, koro (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1660329.3 sGeForce GTX 1660 Ti298 sPosition among tested models (22, CUDA)
B · 298A · 3290200400600800Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is ahead by 10.5% 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 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.
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 5%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1660606.6 sGeForce GTX 1660 Ti577.5 sPosition among tested models (23, CUDA)
B · 578A · 60705001,0001,500Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is ahead by 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 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.
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 10.2%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, victor (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1660781.7 sGeForce GTX 1660 Ti709.3 sPosition among tested models (20, CUDA)
B · 709A · 78205001,0001,500Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is ahead by 10.2% 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 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.
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 10.7%
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 Ti752.7 samples/minPosition among tested models (67, OptiX)
A · 680B · 75305,00010,00015,000Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, samples/min. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is ahead by 10.7% 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 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.
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 (16)
| Benchmark | A | B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 97.7 | 91.7 | B +6.5% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 98.2 | 92.4 | B +6.3% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 337.8 | 322.2 | B +4.8% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 340.7 | 328 | B +3.9% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 194 | 177.1 | B +9.5% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, koro (CUDA) | 316.7 | 284.9 | B +11.2% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, koro (CUDA) | 330.3 | 302.4 | B +9.2% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 582.5 | 543.8 | B +7.1% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 580.9 | 546.7 | B +6.3% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, victor (CUDA) | 800.2 | 708.4 | B +12.9% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 744.3 | 820.5 | B +10.2% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 724.3 | 825.9 | B +14% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 726.6 | 825.2 | B +13.6% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.6.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 777.3 | 854.4 | B +9.9% |
| Blender Benchmark 4.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 700 | 781.6 | B +11.7% |
| Blender Benchmark 4.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 700.7 | 788.7 | B +12.6% |
Each benchmark version has its own scale: numbers are compared only within a row.
Reference results (85)
| Benchmark | A | B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, barbershop_interior (CUDA) | 1,138.5 | 1,104.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, barbershop_interior (CUDA) | 1,181.5 | 1,122.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 96.3 | 90.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 95.2 | 90.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 111.6 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 103 | 94.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 103.8 | 97.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 88.5 | 84.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 82.1 | 74.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 74.3 | 74.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 79.2 | 72.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 86 | 78 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 342 | 331 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, classroom (CUDA) | 345.9 | 333 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 385.9 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 347.4 | 338.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 361.4 | 341.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 316.4 | 300.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 319.1 | 298 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 313.8 | 302.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 328 | 307.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 186.7 | 166.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 186.4 | 168.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 188.1 | 173.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 261.8 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 188.6 | 169.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 201.5 | 183.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 198.1 | 169.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 159.5 | 146.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 159.4 | 148.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 170.1 | 165.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, koro (CUDA) | 320.4 | 286.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, koro (CUDA) | 316.5 | 288.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, koro (CUDA) | 402.1 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, koro (CUDA) | 286.5 | 275 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, koro (CUDA) | 313.5 | 286.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, koro (CUDA) | 334.9 | 269.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 199.4 | 182.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 196.8 | 182 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 211.1 | 230 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 580.6 | 548.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 584.7 | 546.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 874.8 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 551.6 | 528.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 592.3 | 538.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 518.7 | 481.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 458.8 | 429.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 455.5 | 427 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 471.8 | 454.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, victor (CUDA) | 806.9 | 712.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, victor (CUDA) | 798.7 | 718.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, victor (CUDA) | 789.6 | 704.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, victor (CUDA) | 980.8 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, victor (CUDA) | 764.3 | 684.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, victor (CUDA) | 919.3 | 805.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, victor (CUDA) | 860.9 | 706.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 646.9 | 585.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 688.9 | 598.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 702.8 | 690.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.0.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 808.8 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 707.9 | 851.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 764.5 | 883.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 791.7 | 907.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.6.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 616.3 | 971.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 754.9 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 4.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 744.5 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 4.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 775.6 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 4.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 689.2 | 763.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 595.5 | 702.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 617.6 | 685.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.0.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 798.6 | 888.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 644.9 | 813 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 753.3 | 810.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 754 | 862.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 686.4 | 765.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 676 | 753.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 490.6 | 698.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | — | 289.8 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | — | 158.6 | 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 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 3.1.2GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | — | 875.8 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 5.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | — | 686.9 | 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 Ti | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chip | |||
| GPU chip | no data | TU116-400-A1 | no data for A |
| Architecture | Turing | Turing | equal |
| Shader unitsShader unit counts are comparable only within one architecture. | 1,408 (CUDA cores) | 1,536 (CUDA cores) | B: 128 more |
| Clocks | |||
| Base clock | 1,530 MHz | 1,500 MHz | A: 30 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 | 1,770 MHz | A: 15 MHz more |
| 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 | 288 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) | 120 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
BTU116-400-A1
no data for AArchitecture
ATuring
BTuring
equalShader units
A1,408 (CUDA cores)
B1,536 (CUDA cores)
B: 128 moreShader unit counts are comparable only within one architecture.
Clocks
Base clock
A1,530 MHz
B1,500 MHz
A: 30 MHz moreBoost clock
A1,785 MHz
B1,770 MHz
A: 15 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
AGDDR5
BGDDR6
differsMemory bus
A192 bit
B192 bit
equalMemory bandwidth
Ano data
B288 GB/s
no data for AExcludes cache (Infinity Cache / L2), which affects effective bandwidth differently.
Power and dimensions
Board power
A120 W (board power)
B120 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 Ti have?
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660: 6 GB GDDR5, 192-bit bus. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti: 6 GB GDDR6, 192-bit bus.
Which is faster: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 or NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti?
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti 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 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 2.90.1, 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 3.3.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.4.0, 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 3.2.0, 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.