GeForce GT 520 vs GTX 1660 Ti
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1660 Ti and GeForce GT 520, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
1660 Ti outperforms GT 520 by a whopping 3768% 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 | 214 | 1226 |
| Place by popularity | 33 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 27.44 | 0.01 |
| Power efficiency | 19.47 | 2.08 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | TU116 | GF119 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 22 February 2019 (7 years ago) | 13 April 2011 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $279 | $59 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
GTX 1660 Ti has 274300% better value for money than GT 520.
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 | 1536 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 1500 MHz | 810 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 | 29 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 102 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 169.9 | 6.480 |
| Floating-point processing power | 5.437 TFLOPS | 0.1555 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 4 |
| TMUs | 96 | 8 |
| L1 Cache | 1.5 MB | 64 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1536 KB | 128 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 | no data | 16x PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 229 mm | 145 mm |
| Height | no data | 2.7" (6.9 cm) |
| 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 | 1 GB (DDR3) |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 900 MHz (DDR3) |
| Memory bandwidth | 288.0 GB/s | 14.4 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | Dual Link DVI-IHDMIVGA (optional) |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | + | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
API and SDK support
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 | 4.2 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| 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 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:
| Full HD | 104
+5100%
| 2−3
−5100%
|
| 1440p | 59
+5800%
| 1−2
−5800%
|
| 4K | 39
+3800%
| 1−2
−3800%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.68
+1000%
| 29.50
−1000%
|
| 1440p | 4.73
+1148%
| 59.00
−1148%
|
| 4K | 7.15
+725%
| 59.00
−725%
|
- GTX 1660 Ti has 1000% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GTX 1660 Ti has 1148% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- GTX 1660 Ti has 725% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 85−90
+4300%
|
2−3
−4300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 170−180
+4200%
|
4−5
−4200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 78
+3800%
|
2−3
−3800%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 85−90
+4300%
|
2−3
−4300%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 129
+4200%
|
3−4
−4200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 170−180
+4200%
|
4−5
−4200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 71
+7000%
|
1−2
−7000%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 109
+5350%
|
2−3
−5350%
|
| Fortnite | 247
+4017%
|
6−7
−4017%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 131
+4267%
|
3−4
−4267%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 107
+5250%
|
2−3
−5250%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 200
+3900%
|
5−6
−3900%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+3800%
|
5−6
−3800%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 85−90
+4300%
|
2−3
−4300%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 112
+5500%
|
2−3
−5500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 170−180
+4200%
|
4−5
−4200%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+3829%
|
7−8
−3829%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 57
+5600%
|
1−2
−5600%
|
| Dota 2 | 181
+4425%
|
4−5
−4425%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 99
+4850%
|
2−3
−4850%
|
| Fortnite | 143
+4667%
|
3−4
−4667%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 122
+3967%
|
3−4
−3967%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 94
+4600%
|
2−3
−4600%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 119
+3867%
|
3−4
−3867%
|
| Metro Exodus | 55
+5400%
|
1−2
−5400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150
+4900%
|
3−4
−4900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 116
+5700%
|
2−3
−5700%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+3800%
|
5−6
−3800%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 102
+5000%
|
2−3
−5000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 46
+4500%
|
1−2
−4500%
|
| Dota 2 | 168
+4100%
|
4−5
−4100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 94
+4600%
|
2−3
−4600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 97
+4750%
|
2−3
−4750%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 129
+4200%
|
3−4
−4200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 62
+6100%
|
1−2
−6100%
|
| Valorant | 118
+3833%
|
3−4
−3833%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 117
+3800%
|
3−4
−3800%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+7000%
|
1−2
−7000%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 210−220
+4200%
|
5−6
−4200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 62
+6100%
|
1−2
−6100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 33 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+4275%
|
4−5
−4275%
|
| Valorant | 220−230
+4420%
|
5−6
−4420%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 76
+7500%
|
1−2
−7500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 67
+6600%
|
1−2
−6600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 77
+7600%
|
1−2
−7600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50−55
+5200%
|
1−2
−5200%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 75
+7400%
|
1−2
−7400%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 56
+5500%
|
1−2
−5500%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 43
+4200%
|
1−2
−4200%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+4425%
|
4−5
−4425%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 43
+4200%
|
1−2
−4200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 11 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 94
+4600%
|
2−3
−4600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 51
+5000%
|
1−2
−5000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 39
+3800%
|
1−2
−3800%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 25 | 0−1 |
This is how GTX 1660 Ti and GT 520 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1660 Ti is 5100% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1660 Ti is 5800% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1660 Ti is 3800% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 30.17 | 0.78 |
| Recency | 22 February 2019 | 13 April 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 1 GB (DDR3) |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 29 Watt |
GTX 1660 Ti has a 3768% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 233% more advanced lithography process.
GT 520, on the other hand, has 314% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 520 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.
