GeForce GTX 1660 vs GTX 260M SLI
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 260M SLI with GeForce GTX 1660, including specs and performance data.
GTX 1660 outperforms GTX 260M SLI by a whopping 823% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 741 | 184 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 52 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 48.62 |
| Power efficiency | 1.52 | 17.54 |
| Architecture | G9x (2007−2010) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | NB9E-GTX | TU116 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 2 March 2009 (15 years ago) | 14 March 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $219 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 224 | 1408 |
| Core clock speed | 550 MHz | 1530 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1785 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1508 Million | 6,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 120 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 157.1 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 5.027 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 48 |
| TMUs | no data | 88 |
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 | large | no data |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 229 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 8-pin |
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 | GDDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 950 MHz | 2001 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 192.1 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 data | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | - | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10 | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.2.131 |
| 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 Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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 | 8−9
−938%
| 83
+938%
|
| 1440p | 5−6
−880%
| 49
+880%
|
| 4K | 2−3
−1200%
| 26
+1200%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 2.64 |
| 1440p | no data | 4.47 |
| 4K | no data | 8.42 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−1083%
|
71
+1083%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 10−11
−550%
|
65−70
+550%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−5800%
|
59
+5800%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
−1550%
|
95−100
+1550%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8
−943%
|
73
+943%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−867%
|
58
+867%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−1033%
|
65−70
+1033%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 9−10
−756%
|
75−80
+756%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−871%
|
160−170
+871%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
−763%
|
69
+763%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 21−24
−1230%
|
306
+1230%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−3500%
|
144
+3500%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
−1300%
|
112
+1300%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
−708%
|
100−110
+708%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 40−45
−468%
|
227
+468%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 10−11
−1130%
|
123
+1130%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−4100%
|
42
+4100%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
−1550%
|
95−100
+1550%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8
−857%
|
67
+857%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−683%
|
47
+683%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−1033%
|
65−70
+1033%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 9−10
−756%
|
75−80
+756%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−871%
|
160−170
+871%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
−738%
|
67
+738%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 21−24
−1148%
|
287
+1148%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−2725%
|
113
+2725%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
−888%
|
79
+888%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
−746%
|
110
+746%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−357%
|
60−65
+357%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 40−45
−435%
|
214
+435%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 10−11
−550%
|
65−70
+550%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−3600%
|
37
+3600%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8
−600%
|
49
+600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−567%
|
40
+567%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−1033%
|
65−70
+1033%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−476%
|
98
+476%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
−638%
|
59
+638%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 21−24
−304%
|
93
+304%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
−631%
|
95
+631%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−307%
|
57
+307%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 40−45
+37.9%
|
29
−37.9%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
−913%
|
81
+913%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
−1040%
|
55−60
+1040%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 5−6
−820%
|
45−50
+820%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
−967%
|
30−35
+967%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
−1600%
|
34
+1600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1100%
|
24
+1100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−775%
|
35−40
+775%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
−388%
|
39
+388%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
−738%
|
67
+738%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−1900%
|
40−45
+1900%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 18−20
−884%
|
187
+884%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
−657%
|
53
+657%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−2900%
|
30−33
+2900%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3
−1100%
|
24−27
+1100%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
−850%
|
18−20
+850%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−1400%
|
15
+1400%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 1−2
−1600%
|
17
+1600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−1600%
|
16−18
+1600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−4900%
|
50
+4900%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2
−1100%
|
12
+1100%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
−550%
|
26
+550%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 27
+0%
|
27
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 59
+0%
|
59
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 67
+0%
|
67
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Hitman 3 | 21
+0%
|
21
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 63
+0%
|
63
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 44
+0%
|
44
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35
+0%
|
35
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10
+0%
|
10
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 36
+0%
|
36
+0%
|
This is how GTX 260M SLI and GTX 1660 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1660 is 938% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1660 is 880% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1660 is 1200% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 260M SLI is 38% faster.
- in Assassin's Creed Valhalla, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 1660 is 5800% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 260M SLI is ahead in 1 test (1%)
- GTX 1660 is ahead in 61 test (85%)
- there's a draw in 10 tests (14%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.28 | 30.26 |
| Recency | 2 March 2009 | 14 March 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 120 Watt |
GTX 1660 has a 822.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 358.3% more advanced lithography process, and 25% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 1660 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 260M SLI in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 260M SLI is a notebook card while GeForce GTX 1660 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
