GeForce GTX 1660 vs 310M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 310M with GeForce GTX 1660, including specs and performance data.
GTX 1660 outperforms 310M by a whopping 8890% 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 | 1400 | 232 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 48 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 31.23 |
| Power efficiency | 1.71 | 17.97 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | GT218 | TU116 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 10 January 2010 (16 years ago) | 14 March 2019 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $219 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 16 | 1408 |
| Core clock speed | 606 MHz | 1530 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1785 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 260 million | 6,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 14 Watt | 120 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 4.848 | 157.1 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.04896 TFLOPS | 5.027 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | 73 | no data |
| ROPs | 4 | 48 |
| TMUs | 8 | 88 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 1.4 MB |
| L2 Cache | 32 KB | 1536 KB |
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).
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 229 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | DDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | Up to 1 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | Up to 800 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz | 2001 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 10.67 GB/s | 192.1 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | DisplayPortHDMIVGADual Link DVISingle Link DVI | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Power management | 8.0 | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | 7.5 |
Synthetic benchmarks
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 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 | 0−1 | 83 |
| 1440p | 0−1 | 50 |
| 4K | -0−1 | 27 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 2.64 |
| 1440p | no data | 4.38 |
| 4K | no data | 8.11 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−7000%
|
71
+7000%
|
| Palworld | 3−4
−2633%
|
82
+2633%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−5700%
|
58
+5700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−4300%
|
132
+4300%
|
| Palworld | 3−4
−2167%
|
68
+2167%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−1514%
|
110−120
+1514%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−1124%
|
306
+1124%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 14−16
−1836%
|
270−280
+1836%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−4600%
|
47
+4600%
|
| Dota 2 | 9−10
−2333%
|
219
+2333%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−4000%
|
123
+4000%
|
| Palworld | 3−4
−1600%
|
51
+1600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−1514%
|
110−120
+1514%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−1600%
|
102
+1600%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−1048%
|
287
+1048%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−3900%
|
40
+3900%
|
| Dota 2 | 9−10
−2089%
|
197
+2089%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−3167%
|
98
+3167%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−1514%
|
110−120
+1514%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−850%
|
57
+850%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−360%
|
115
+360%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Palworld | 3−4
−1467%
|
47
+1467%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−3000%
|
62
+3000%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 0−1 | 190−200 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−4200%
|
129
+4200%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−7500%
|
76
+7500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−4700%
|
45−50
+4700%
|
1440p
Epic
| Palworld | 0−1 | 34 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−227%
|
49
+227%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−2400%
|
125
+2400%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−3100%
|
30−35
+3100%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−1550%
|
30−35
+1550%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 271
+0%
|
271
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 78
+0%
|
78
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 223
+0%
|
223
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 100
+0%
|
100
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 107
+0%
|
107
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 92
+0%
|
92
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 115
+0%
|
115
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 57
+0%
|
57
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 86
+0%
|
86
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 52
+0%
|
52
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| Valorant | 226
+0%
|
226
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24
+0%
|
24
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 59
+0%
|
59
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| Palworld | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35
+0%
|
35
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10
+0%
|
10
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 87
+0%
|
87
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30
+0%
|
30
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50
+0%
|
50
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Palworld | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 1660 is 7500% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 1660 performs better in 30 tests (48%)
- there's a draw in 33 tests (52%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.31 | 27.87 |
| Recency | 10 January 2010 | 14 March 2019 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 14 Watt | 120 Watt |
GeForce 310M has 757% lower power consumption.
GTX 1660, on the other hand, has a 8890% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, and a 233% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce GTX 1660 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 310M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce 310M is a notebook graphics card while GeForce GTX 1660 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
