GeForce GTX 1660 vs GTX 560 Ti
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 560 Ti and GeForce GTX 1660, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTX 1660 outperforms GTX 560 Ti by a whopping 281% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 537 | 202 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 49 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.59 | 42.30 |
| Power efficiency | 3.19 | 17.26 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | GF114 | TU116 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 25 January 2011 (14 years ago) | 14 March 2019 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $249 | $219 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
GTX 1660 has 2560% better value for money than GTX 560 Ti.
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 | 384 | 1408 |
| Core clock speed | 823 MHz | 1530 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1785 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,950 million | 6,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 170 Watt | 120 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 52.67 | 157.1 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.263 TFLOPS | 5.027 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 48 |
| TMUs | 64 | 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).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 229 mm | 229 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1002 MHz | 2001 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 128.3 GB/s | 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 | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | + | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 2.1 | 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.
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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
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.
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.
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.
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:
| 900p | 63
−281%
| 240−250
+281%
|
| Full HD | 65
−27.7%
| 83
+27.7%
|
| 1440p | 12−14
−317%
| 50
+317%
|
| 4K | 7−8
−286%
| 27
+286%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.83
−45.2%
| 2.64
+45.2%
|
| 1440p | 20.75
−374%
| 4.38
+374%
|
| 4K | 35.57
−339%
| 8.11
+339%
|
- GTX 1660 has 45% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GTX 1660 has 374% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- GTX 1660 has 339% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
−632%
|
271
+632%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
−373%
|
71
+373%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 12−14
−508%
|
79
+508%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
−234%
|
100−110
+234%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
−503%
|
223
+503%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
−287%
|
58
+287%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
−317%
|
100
+317%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
−196%
|
130−140
+196%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
−300%
|
132
+300%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
−355%
|
100
+355%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 12−14
−354%
|
59
+354%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
−315%
|
110−120
+315%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
−292%
|
306
+292%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
−234%
|
100−110
+234%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
−189%
|
107
+189%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 110−120
−129%
|
270−280
+129%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
−213%
|
47
+213%
|
| Dota 2 | 55−60
−284%
|
219
+284%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
−283%
|
92
+283%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
−196%
|
130−140
+196%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
−273%
|
123
+273%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
−300%
|
88
+300%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
−326%
|
115
+326%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 12−14
−254%
|
46
+254%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
−307%
|
57
+307%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
−315%
|
110−120
+315%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20−22
−410%
|
102
+410%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
−268%
|
287
+268%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
−234%
|
100−110
+234%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
−167%
|
40
+167%
|
| Dota 2 | 55−60
−246%
|
197
+246%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
−258%
|
86
+258%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
−197%
|
98
+197%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 12−14
−177%
|
36
+177%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
−315%
|
110−120
+315%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20−22
−185%
|
57
+185%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
−47.4%
|
115
+47.4%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 45−50
−196%
|
130−140
+196%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−417%
|
62
+417%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 55−60
−246%
|
190−200
+246%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10−11
−420%
|
52
+420%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
−371%
|
33
+371%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
−223%
|
129
+223%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
−169%
|
226
+169%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
−413%
|
75−80
+413%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−300%
|
24
+300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
−293%
|
59
+293%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−322%
|
76
+322%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 8−9
−200%
|
24
+200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
−345%
|
45−50
+345%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 14−16
−367%
|
70−75
+367%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
−172%
|
49
+172%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 3−4
−533%
|
18−20
+533%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−900%
|
20
+900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−483%
|
35
+483%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−229%
|
125
+229%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
−529%
|
40−45
+529%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−400%
|
10
+400%
|
| Dota 2 | 27−30
−222%
|
87
+222%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−275%
|
30
+275%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−317%
|
50
+317%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 3−4
−333%
|
13
+333%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−357%
|
30−35
+357%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 7−8
−371%
|
30−35
+371%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
This is how GTX 560 Ti and GTX 1660 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1660 is 281% faster in 900p
- GTX 1660 is 28% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1660 is 317% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1660 is 286% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 1660 is 900% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 1660 is ahead in 64 tests (97%)
- there's a draw in 2 tests (3%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 6.84 | 26.09 |
| Recency | 25 January 2011 | 14 March 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 170 Watt | 120 Watt |
GTX 1660 has a 281.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 233.3% more advanced lithography process, and 41.7% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 1660 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 560 Ti in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
