GeForce GTX 280 vs GTX 1660 Ti

Place in the ranking	165	746
Place by popularity	27	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	42.62	0.12
Power efficiency	19.31	0.98
Architecture	Turing (2018−2022)	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code name	TU116	GT200
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Release date	22 February 2019 (5 years ago)	16 June 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$279	$649

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

GTX 1660 Ti has 35417% better value for money than GTX 280.

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	1536	240
Core clock speed	1500 MHz	602 MHz
Boost clock speed	1770 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	6,600 million	1,400 million
Manufacturing process technology	12 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	120 Watt	236 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	no data	105 °C
Texture fill rate	169.9	48.16
Floating-point processing power	5.437 TFLOPS	0.6221 TFLOPS
ROPs	48	32
TMUs	96	80

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 2.0 x16
Length	229 mm	267 mm
Height	no data	4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)
Width	2-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1x 8-pin	1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin
SLI options	-	+

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	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	6 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	192 Bit	512 Bit
Memory clock speed	1500 MHz	1107 MHz
Memory bandwidth	288.0 GB/s	141.7 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	HDTVDual Link DVI
Multi monitor support	no data	+
HDMI	+	-
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	2048x1536
Audio input for HDMI	no data	S/PDIF

API and SDK compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12 (12_1)	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	6.5	4.0
OpenGL	4.6	2.1
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	1.2.131	N/A
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.

GTX 1660 Ti 32.42
+904%

GTX 280 3.23

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.

GTX 1660 Ti 12906
+904%

GTX 280 1285

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	103 +930%	10−12 −930%
1440p	60 +1100%	5−6 −1100%
4K	39 +1200%	3−4 −1200%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	2.71 +2296%	64.90 −2296%
1440p	4.65 +2691%	129.80 −2691%
4K	7.15 +2924%	216.33 −2924%

GTX 1660 Ti has 2296% lower cost per frame in 1080p
GTX 1660 Ti has 2691% lower cost per frame in 1440p
GTX 1660 Ti has 2924% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	65−70 +1000%	6−7 −1000%
Cyberpunk 2077	78 +1014%	7−8 −1014%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	90 +1025%	8−9 −1025%
Counter-Strike 2	65−70 +1000%	6−7 −1000%
Cyberpunk 2077	36 +1100%	3−4 −1100%
Forza Horizon 4	156 +1014%	14−16 −1014%
Forza Horizon 5	94 +944%	9−10 −944%
Metro Exodus	98 +989%	9−10 −989%
Red Dead Redemption 2	119 +1090%	10−11 −1090%
Valorant	161 +906%	16−18 −906%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	123 +925%	12−14 −925%
Counter-Strike 2	65−70 +1000%	6−7 −1000%
Cyberpunk 2077	28 +1300%	2−3 −1300%
Dota 2	140 +1067%	12−14 −1067%
Far Cry 5	118 +1080%	10−11 −1080%
Fortnite	134 +1017%	12−14 −1017%
Forza Horizon 4	127 +958%	12−14 −958%
Forza Horizon 5	72 +929%	7−8 −929%
Grand Theft Auto V	119 +1090%	10−11 −1090%
Metro Exodus	68 +1033%	6−7 −1033%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	180−190 +939%	18−20 −939%
Red Dead Redemption 2	45 +1025%	4−5 −1025%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	110−120 +1050%	10−11 −1050%
Valorant	82 +925%	8−9 −925%
World of Tanks	270−280 +930%	27−30 −930%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	78 +1014%	7−8 −1014%
Counter-Strike 2	65−70 +1000%	6−7 −1000%
Cyberpunk 2077	23 +1050%	2−3 −1050%
Dota 2	168 +950%	16−18 −950%
Far Cry 5	90−95 +1025%	8−9 −1025%
Forza Horizon 4	110 +1000%	10−11 −1000%
Forza Horizon 5	66 +1000%	6−7 −1000%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	98 +989%	9−10 −989%
Valorant	118 +1080%	10−11 −1080%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +1300%	2−3 −1300%
Dota 2	62 +933%	6−7 −933%
Grand Theft Auto V	62 +933%	6−7 −933%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +994%	16−18 −994%
Red Dead Redemption 2	28 +1300%	2−3 −1300%
World of Tanks	210−220 +924%	21−24 −924%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	63 +950%	6−7 −950%
Cyberpunk 2077	13 +1200%	1−2 −1200%
Far Cry 5	100−110 +960%	10−11 −960%
Forza Horizon 4	78 +1014%	7−8 −1014%
Forza Horizon 5	47 +1075%	4−5 −1075%
Metro Exodus	65 +983%	6−7 −983%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	55−60 +1000%	5−6 −1000%
Valorant	82 +925%	8−9 −925%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +1400%	1−2 −1400%
Dota 2	56 +1020%	5−6 −1020%
Grand Theft Auto V	56 +1020%	5−6 −1020%
Metro Exodus	21 +950%	2−3 −950%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 +960%	10−11 −960%
Red Dead Redemption 2	19 +1800%	1−2 −1800%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	56 +1020%	5−6 −1020%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	31 +933%	3−4 −933%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +1400%	1−2 −1400%
Cyberpunk 2077	6	0−1
Dota 2	94 +944%	9−10 −944%
Far Cry 5	45−50 +1075%	4−5 −1075%
Fortnite	45−50 +1025%	4−5 −1025%
Forza Horizon 4	43 +975%	4−5 −975%
Forza Horizon 5	24 +1100%	2−3 −1100%
Valorant	41 +925%	4−5 −925%

This is how GTX 1660 Ti and GTX 280 compete in popular games:

GTX 1660 Ti is 930% faster in 1080p
GTX 1660 Ti is 1100% faster in 1440p
GTX 1660 Ti is 1200% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	32.42	3.23
Recency	22 February 2019	16 June 2008
Maximum RAM amount	6 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	12 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	120 Watt	236 Watt

GTX 1660 Ti has a 903.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 441.7% more advanced lithography process, and 96.7% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 280 in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.