GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB vs GTX 1660 Super
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1660 Super and GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTX 1660 Super outperforms GTX 1060 3 GB by a substantial 33% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 168 | 227 |
| Place by popularity | 7 | 21 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 57.24 | 22.68 |
| Power efficiency | 18.11 | 14.23 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | TU116 | GP106 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 29 October 2019 (5 years ago) | 18 August 2016 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $229 | $199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
GTX 1660 Super has 152% better value for money than GTX 1060 3 GB.
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 | 1408 | 1152 |
| Core clock speed | 1530 MHz | 1506 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1785 MHz | 1708 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 6,600 million | 4,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 16 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 120 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 157.1 | 123.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 5.027 TFLOPS | 3.935 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 48 |
| TMUs | 88 | 72 |
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 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 229 mm | 250 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | 1x 6-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 | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 3 GB |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | 2002 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 336.0 GB/s | 192.2 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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | + | + |
| HDCP | + | - |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| NVENC | + | no data |
| Ansel | + | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | + |
| CUDA | 7.5 | 6.1 |
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.
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.
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 | 92
+41.5%
| 65−70
−41.5%
|
| 1440p | 57
+42.5%
| 40−45
−42.5%
|
| 4K | 31
+47.6%
| 21−24
−47.6%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.49
+23%
| 3.06
−23%
|
| 1440p | 4.02
+23.8%
| 4.98
−23.8%
|
| 4K | 7.39
+28.3%
| 9.48
−28.3%
|
- GTX 1660 Super has 23% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GTX 1660 Super has 24% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- GTX 1660 Super has 28% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 124
+37.8%
|
90−95
−37.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 90
+38.5%
|
65−70
−38.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 76
+38.2%
|
55−60
−38.2%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 91
+40%
|
65−70
−40%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 97
+38.6%
|
70−75
−38.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 62
+37.8%
|
45−50
−37.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 63
+40%
|
45−50
−40%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 112
+40%
|
80−85
−40%
|
| Fortnite | 140−150
+41%
|
100−105
−41%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 144
+44%
|
100−105
−44%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 96
+37.1%
|
70−75
−37.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120−130
+36.7%
|
90−95
−36.7%
|
| Valorant | 321
+33.8%
|
240−250
−33.8%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 52
+48.6%
|
35−40
−48.6%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 83
+38.3%
|
60−65
−38.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 52
+48.6%
|
35−40
−48.6%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+37.5%
|
200−210
−37.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 52
+48.6%
|
35−40
−48.6%
|
| Dota 2 | 231
+35.9%
|
170−180
−35.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 103
+37.3%
|
75−80
−37.3%
|
| Fortnite | 140−150
+41%
|
100−105
−41%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 135
+35%
|
100−105
−35%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 67
+34%
|
50−55
−34%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 133
+33%
|
100−105
−33%
|
| Metro Exodus | 56
+40%
|
40−45
−40%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 139
+39%
|
100−105
−39%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 113
+32.9%
|
85−90
−32.9%
|
| Valorant | 290
+38.1%
|
210−220
−38.1%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 77
+40%
|
55−60
−40%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 48
+37.1%
|
35−40
−37.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 49
+40%
|
35−40
−40%
|
| Dota 2 | 211
+40.7%
|
150−160
−40.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 95
+35.7%
|
70−75
−35.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 107
+33.8%
|
80−85
−33.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 67
+34%
|
50−55
−34%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 104
+38.7%
|
75−80
−38.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 61
+35.6%
|
45−50
−35.6%
|
| Valorant | 122
+35.6%
|
90−95
−35.6%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 140−150
+41%
|
100−105
−41%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+50%
|
18−20
−50%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 210−220
+33.1%
|
160−170
−33.1%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 62
+37.8%
|
45−50
−37.8%
|
| Metro Exodus | 36
+33.3%
|
27−30
−33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 162
+35%
|
120−130
−35%
|
| Valorant | 262
+37.9%
|
190−200
−37.9%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 60
+33.3%
|
45−50
−33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 26
+44.4%
|
18−20
−44.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65
+44.4%
|
45−50
−44.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 84
+40%
|
60−65
−40%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 39
+44.4%
|
27−30
−44.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50−55
+35%
|
40−45
−35%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 75−80
+40%
|
55−60
−40%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 24−27
+38.9%
|
18−20
−38.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+50%
|
10−11
−50%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 60
+33.3%
|
45−50
−33.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 22
+37.5%
|
16−18
−37.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40
+33.3%
|
30−33
−33.3%
|
| Valorant | 132
+38.9%
|
95−100
−38.9%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 36
+33.3%
|
27−30
−33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 11
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| Dota 2 | 95
+35.7%
|
70−75
−35.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 33
+37.5%
|
24−27
−37.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 54
+35%
|
40−45
−35%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 22
+37.5%
|
16−18
−37.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 36
+33.3%
|
27−30
−33.3%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 35−40
+37%
|
27−30
−37%
|
This is how GTX 1660 Super and GTX 1060 3 GB compete in popular games:
- GTX 1660 Super is 42% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1660 Super is 43% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1660 Super is 48% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 33.01 | 24.89 |
| Recency | 29 October 2019 | 18 August 2016 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 3 GB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 16 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 120 Watt |
GTX 1660 Super has a 32.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 33.3% more advanced lithography process.
GTX 1060 3 GB, on the other hand, has 4.2% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 1660 Super is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB 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.
