NVS 310 vs GeForce GTX 1660 Ti

Place in the ranking	160	1190
Place by popularity	31	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	44.24	0.03
Power efficiency	19.13	2.23
Architecture	Turing (2018−2022)	Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code name	TU116	GF119
Market segment	Desktop	Workstation
Release date	22 February 2019 (5 years ago)	26 June 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$279	$159

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 1660 Ti has 147367% better value for money than NVS 310.

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	48
Core clock speed	1500 MHz	523 MHz
Boost clock speed	1770 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	6,600 million	292 million
Manufacturing process technology	12 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	120 Watt	20 Watt
Texture fill rate	169.9	4.184
Floating-point processing power	5.437 TFLOPS	0.1004 TFLOPS
ROPs	48	4
TMUs	96	8

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).

Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	229 mm	156 mm
Width	2-slot	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1x 8-pin	None

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	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	6 GB	512 MB
Memory bus width	192 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	1500 MHz	875 MHz
Memory bandwidth	288.0 GB/s	14 GB/s
Shared memory	-	no data

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	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort	2x DisplayPort
HDMI	+	-

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	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	1.2.131	N/A
CUDA	7.5	2.1

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.

GTX 1660 Ti 33.50
+5054%

NVS 310 0.65

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

GTX 1660 Ti 12906
+5042%

NVS 310 251

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

GTX 1660 Ti 60773
+6806%

NVS 310 880

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	103 +10200%	1−2 −10200%
1440p	59 +5800%	1−2 −5800%
4K	37	0−1

Cost per frame, $

1080p	2.71	159.00
1440p	4.73	159.00
4K	7.54	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

78
+7700%

1−2

−7700%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	86 +8500%	1−2 −8500%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	74 +7300%	1−2 −7300%
Battlefield 5	130 +6400%	2−3 −6400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	95 +9400%	1−2 −9400%
Cyberpunk 2077	71 +7000%	1−2 −7000%
Far Cry 5	104 +5100%	2−3 −5100%
Far Cry New Dawn	112 +5500%	2−3 −5500%
Forza Horizon 4	231 +5675%	4−5 −5675%
Hitman 3	70−75 +6900%	1−2 −6900%
Horizon Zero Dawn	140−150 +7150%	2−3 −7150%
Metro Exodus	134 +6600%	2−3 −6600%
Red Dead Redemption 2	119 +5850%	2−3 −5850%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	171 +5600%	3−4 −5600%
Watch Dogs: Legion	120−130 +5900%	2−3 −5900%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	122 +6000%	2−3 −6000%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	55 +5400%	1−2 −5400%
Battlefield 5	121 +5950%	2−3 −5950%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	85 +8400%	1−2 −8400%
Cyberpunk 2077	57 +5600%	1−2 −5600%
Far Cry 5	82 +8100%	1−2 −8100%
Far Cry New Dawn	79 +7800%	1−2 −7800%
Forza Horizon 4	218 +5350%	4−5 −5350%
Hitman 3	70−75 +6900%	1−2 −6900%
Horizon Zero Dawn	140−150 +7150%	2−3 −7150%
Metro Exodus	114 +5600%	2−3 −5600%
Red Dead Redemption 2	89 +8800%	1−2 −8800%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	127 +6250%	2−3 −6250%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	70−75 +6900%	1−2 −6900%
Watch Dogs: Legion	120−130 +5900%	2−3 −5900%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	53 +5200%	1−2 −5200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	50	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	70 +6900%	1−2 −6900%
Cyberpunk 2077	46	0−1
Far Cry 5	61 +6000%	1−2 −6000%
Forza Horizon 4	97 +9600%	1−2 −9600%
Hitman 3	70−75 +6900%	1−2 −6900%
Horizon Zero Dawn	102 +10100%	1−2 −10100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	110 +5400%	2−3 −5400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	62 +6100%	1−2 −6100%
Watch Dogs: Legion	120−130 +5900%	2−3 −5900%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

97
+9600%

1−2

−9600%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	75 +7400%	1−2 −7400%
Far Cry New Dawn	54 +5300%	1−2 −5300%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	41	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	36	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	52 +5100%	1−2 −5100%
Cyberpunk 2077	27	0−1
Far Cry 5	41	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	202 +6633%	3−4 −6633%
Hitman 3	40−45	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	75 +7400%	1−2 −7400%
Metro Exodus	65 +6400%	1−2 −6400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	78 +7700%	1−2 −7700%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	45−50	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	170−180 +5700%	3−4 −5700%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

65
+6400%

1−2

−6400%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	36	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	29	0−1
Hitman 3	27−30	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	160−170 +5333%	3−4 −5333%
Metro Exodus	46	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	43	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	25	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	19	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	25	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	11	0−1
Far Cry 5	20	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	51	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	43	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	16−18	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

0−1

This is how GTX 1660 Ti and NVS 310 compete in popular games:

GTX 1660 Ti is 10200% faster in 1080p
GTX 1660 Ti is 5800% faster in 1440p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	33.50	0.65
Recency	22 February 2019	26 June 2012
Maximum RAM amount	6 GB	512 MB
Chip lithography	12 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	120 Watt	20 Watt

GTX 1660 Ti has a 5053.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 1100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 233.3% more advanced lithography process.

NVS 310, on the other hand, has 500% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 310 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is a desktop card while NVS 310 is a workstation one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.