GeForce GTX 560 vs GTX 1660 Ti Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile with GeForce GTX 560, including specs and performance data.
GTX 1660 Ti Mobile outperforms GTX 560 by a whopping 303% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 197 | 547 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 100.00 | 1.85 |
| Power efficiency | 24.87 | 3.30 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | TU116 | GF114 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 23 April 2019 (5 years ago) | 17 May 2011 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $229 | $199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GTX 1660 Ti Mobile has 5305% better value for money than GTX 560.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 1536 | 336 |
| Core clock speed | 1455 MHz | 810 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1590 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 6,600 million | 1,950 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 150 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 99 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 152.6 | 45.36 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.884 TFLOPS | 1.089 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 32 |
| TMUs | 96 | 56 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Bus support | no data | 16x PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 210 mm |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (11.1 cm) |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 2x 6-pin |
| SLI options | - | + |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 288.0 GB/s | 128.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | Two Dual Link DVI, Mini HDMI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| HDCP | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Blu-Ray | - | + |
| 3D Gaming | - | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| CUDA | 7.5 | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 89
+324%
| 21−24
−324%
|
| 1440p | 57
+307%
| 14−16
−307%
|
| 4K | 36
+350%
| 8−9
−350%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.57
+268%
| 9.48
−268%
|
| 1440p | 4.02
+254%
| 14.21
−254%
|
| 4K | 6.36
+291%
| 24.88
−291%
|
- GTX 1660 Ti Mobile has 268% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GTX 1660 Ti Mobile has 254% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- GTX 1660 Ti Mobile has 291% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 63
+350%
|
14−16
−350%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 86
+310%
|
21−24
−310%
|
| Elden Ring | 95−100
+304%
|
24−27
−304%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 89
+324%
|
21−24
−324%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 54
+350%
|
12−14
−350%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 63
+350%
|
14−16
−350%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 147
+320%
|
35−40
−320%
|
| Metro Exodus | 88
+319%
|
21−24
−319%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 99
+313%
|
24−27
−313%
|
| Valorant | 148
+323%
|
35−40
−323%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 112
+315%
|
27−30
−315%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 49
+308%
|
12−14
−308%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50
+317%
|
12−14
−317%
|
| Dota 2 | 111
+311%
|
27−30
−311%
|
| Elden Ring | 102
+325%
|
24−27
−325%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75
+317%
|
18−20
−317%
|
| Fortnite | 130−140
+363%
|
30−33
−363%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 118
+337%
|
27−30
−337%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 105
+338%
|
24−27
−338%
|
| Metro Exodus | 63
+350%
|
14−16
−350%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 232
+322%
|
55−60
−322%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 41
+310%
|
10−11
−310%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 95−100
+357%
|
21−24
−357%
|
| Valorant | 71
+344%
|
16−18
−344%
|
| World of Tanks | 270−280
+317%
|
65−70
−317%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 78
+333%
|
18−20
−333%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+367%
|
12−14
−367%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45
+350%
|
10−11
−350%
|
| Dota 2 | 116
+330%
|
27−30
−330%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 119
+341%
|
27−30
−341%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 101
+321%
|
24−27
−321%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+330%
|
40−45
−330%
|
| Valorant | 125
+317%
|
30−33
−317%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 50−55
+317%
|
12−14
−317%
|
| Elden Ring | 54
+350%
|
12−14
−350%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 50−55
+317%
|
12−14
−317%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+338%
|
40−45
−338%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 26
+333%
|
6−7
−333%
|
| World of Tanks | 180−190
+318%
|
45−50
−318%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 55
+358%
|
12−14
−358%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+333%
|
6−7
−333%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 25
+317%
|
6−7
−317%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 85−90
+319%
|
21−24
−319%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
+339%
|
18−20
−339%
|
| Metro Exodus | 60
+329%
|
14−16
−329%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
+340%
|
10−11
−340%
|
| Valorant | 81
+350%
|
18−20
−350%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+350%
|
6−7
−350%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
+333%
|
12−14
−333%
|
| Elden Ring | 26
+333%
|
6−7
−333%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 50−55
+333%
|
12−14
−333%
|
| Metro Exodus | 19
+375%
|
4−5
−375%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90
+329%
|
21−24
−329%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 17
+325%
|
4−5
−325%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50−55
+333%
|
12−14
−333%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27
+350%
|
6−7
−350%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+350%
|
6−7
−350%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Dota 2 | 85
+305%
|
21−24
−305%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+333%
|
9−10
−333%
|
| Fortnite | 37
+311%
|
9−10
−311%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+350%
|
10−11
−350%
|
| Valorant | 39
+333%
|
9−10
−333%
|
This is how GTX 1660 Ti Mobile and GTX 560 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is 324% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is 307% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is 350% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 28.90 | 7.18 |
| Recency | 23 April 2019 | 17 May 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 150 Watt |
GTX 1660 Ti Mobile has a 302.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 233.3% more advanced lithography process, and 87.5% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 560 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is a notebook card while GeForce GTX 560 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
