GeForce GTX 1660 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 is better4
Blender Benchmark 2.90 11.8% lower329 s vs 368 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 30.3% lower782 s vs 1,018 s
Blender Benchmark 3.4.0 29.8% faster727 samples/min vs 560 samples/min
Launch price $430 lower$219 vs $649
Where GeForce GTX 980 Ti is better4
Blender Benchmark 2.90 8.4% lower96 s vs 104 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 11.7% lower308 s vs 344 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 21.9% lower498 s vs 607 s
Memory bus 192 bit more384 bit vs 192 bit
Benchmarks
Results are compared within one benchmark, one version and the same conditions.
- B ahead by 8.4%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1660103.8 sGeForce GTX 980 Ti95.8 sPosition among tested models (27, CUDA)
B · 96A · 1040100200300400Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti is ahead by 8.4% 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 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 11.7%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, classroom (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1660344.5 sGeForce GTX 980 Ti308.5 sPosition among tested models (25, CUDA)
B · 308A · 3440200400600800Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti is ahead by 11.7% in this benchmark.
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 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.
- 2.6% difference, within the threshold
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1660200.5 sGeForce GTX 980 Ti195.4 sPosition among tested models (22, CUDA)
B · 195A · 2010200400600Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. The 2.6% difference is below the noticeable threshold (5%).
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 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 11.8%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, koro (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1660329.3 sGeForce GTX 980 Ti368.1 sPosition among tested models (22, CUDA)
A · 329B · 3680200400600800Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 is ahead by 11.8% 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 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 21.9%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1660606.6 sGeForce GTX 980 Ti497.8 sPosition among tested models (23, CUDA)
B · 498A · 60705001,0001,500Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti is ahead by 21.9% 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 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 30.3%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, victor (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1660781.7 sGeForce GTX 980 Ti1,018.5 sPosition among tested models (20, CUDA)
A · 782B · 1,01805001,0001,500Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 is ahead by 30.3% 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 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 29.8%
Blender Benchmark 3.4.0
GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) · samples/min, higher is better
GeForce GTX 1660726.6 samples/minGeForce GTX 980 Ti559.7 samples/minPosition among tested models (43, OptiX)
B · 560A · 72705,00010,00015,000Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, samples/min. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 is ahead by 29.8% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660
726.6 samples/min · community measurement, sample 28 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 28 submissions (2 outliers excluded), interquartile range 675.3–745.68; submissions 2022-12-13 to 2024-09-15; 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) | 97.7 | 92.2 | B +5.9% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 98.2 | 94.2 | B +4.3% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 340.7 | 303.8 | B +12.2% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 744.3 | 545.1 | A +36.5% |
Each benchmark version has its own scale: numbers are compared only within a row.
Reference results (92)
| Benchmark | A | B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, barbershop_interior (CUDA) | 1,138.5 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, barbershop_interior (CUDA) | 1,181.5 | 1,009.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 96.3 | 94.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 95.2 | 92.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 111.6 | 104.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 103 | 109.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 103.8 | 115.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 88.5 | 74.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 82.1 | 104.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 74.3 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 79.2 | 94.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 86 | 100.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 342 | 303.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, classroom (CUDA) | 345.9 | 299.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 337.8 | 295.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 385.9 | 339.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 347.4 | 291.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 361.4 | 296.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 316.4 | 257.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 319.1 | 347.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 313.8 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 328 | 469 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 186.7 | 199.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 186.4 | 204.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 188.1 | 202.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 194 | 201.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 261.8 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 188.6 | 233.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 201.5 | 280.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 198.1 | 243.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 159.5 | 214.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 159.4 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 170.1 | 273.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, koro (CUDA) | 320.4 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, koro (CUDA) | 316.5 | 452.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, koro (CUDA) | 316.7 | 441.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, koro (CUDA) | 330.3 | 448.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, koro (CUDA) | 402.1 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, koro (CUDA) | 286.5 | 433.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, koro (CUDA) | 313.5 | 704.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, koro (CUDA) | 334.9 | 432.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 199.4 | 218.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 196.8 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 211.1 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 580.6 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 584.7 | 501.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 582.5 | 482.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 580.9 | 498.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 874.8 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 551.6 | 553.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 592.3 | 622.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 518.7 | 424.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 458.8 | 504.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 455.5 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 471.8 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, victor (CUDA) | 806.9 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, victor (CUDA) | 798.7 | 1,256.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, victor (CUDA) | 789.6 | 1,235.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, victor (CUDA) | 800.2 | 1,105.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, victor (CUDA) | 980.8 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, victor (CUDA) | 764.3 | 997.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, victor (CUDA) | 919.3 | 1,290.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, victor (CUDA) | 860.9 | 1,351.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 646.9 | 898.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 688.9 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 702.8 | — | no pair |
| 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 | 597.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 764.5 | — | no pair |
| 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 | 706.5 | 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 | 533 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 679.7 | 504.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 595.5 | 404.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 617.6 | 443 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.0.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 798.6 | 592.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 644.9 | 553.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 753.3 | 542.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 724.3 | 526.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 754 | 549 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.6.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 777.3 | 576.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 700 | 533.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 700.7 | 501.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 686.4 | 504.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 676 | 483.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 490.6 | 449.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | — | 400.9 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | — | 222.7 | 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 | B · GeForce GTX 980 Ti | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chip | |||
| GPU chip | no data | GM200-310-A1 | no data for A |
| Architecture | Turing | Maxwell | differs |
| Shader unitsShader unit counts are comparable only within one architecture. | 1,408 (CUDA cores) | 2,816 (CUDA cores) | not directly comparable |
| Clocks | |||
| Base clock | 1,530 MHz | 1,000 MHz | A: 530 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 | 1,076 MHz | A: 709 MHz more |
| Memory | |||
| Video memory | 6 GB | 6 GB | equal |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 | equal |
| Memory bus | 192 bit | 384 bit | B: 192 bit more |
| Memory bandwidthExcludes cache (Infinity Cache / L2), which affects effective bandwidth differently. | no data | 336.6 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) | 250 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
BGM200-310-A1
no data for AArchitecture
ATuring
BMaxwell
differsShader units
A1,408 (CUDA cores)
B2,816 (CUDA cores)
not directly comparableShader unit counts are comparable only within one architecture.
Clocks
Base clock
A1,530 MHz
B1,000 MHz
A: 530 MHz moreBoost clock
A1,785 MHz
B1,076 MHz
A: 709 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
BGDDR5
equalMemory bus
A192 bit
B384 bit
B: 192 bit moreMemory bandwidth
Ano data
B336.6 GB/s
no data for AExcludes cache (Infinity Cache / L2), which affects effective bandwidth differently.
Power and dimensions
Board power
A120 W (board power)
B250 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 980 Ti have?
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660: 6 GB GDDR5, 192-bit bus. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti: 6 GB GDDR5, 384-bit bus.
Which is faster: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 or NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti?
It depends on the task: rendering and compute: results disagree.
See also
Data sources (3)
- NVIDIA — specifications of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660checked November 7, 2026
- Wikipedia (English) — 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 2.90.1, 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 4.2.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.5.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.1.1, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.2.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.2.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.3.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.4.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.4.0, 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.