GeForce GTX 1660 vs NVS 300

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared NVS 300 with GeForce GTX 1660, including specs and performance data.

NVS 300
2011
512 MB DDR3, 18 Watt
0.27

GTX 1660 outperforms NVS 300 by a whopping 9563% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking1337202
Place by popularitynot in top-10049
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.0142.28
Power efficiency1.1917.24
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameGT218TU116
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date8 January 2011 (14 years ago)14 March 2019 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$109 $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 422700% better value for money than NVS 300.

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 cores161408
Core clock speed520 MHz1530 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1785 MHz
Number of transistors260 million6,600 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)18 Watt120 Watt
Texture fill rate4.160157.1
Floating-point processing power0.03936 TFLOPS5.027 TFLOPS
ROPs448
TMUs888

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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length145 mm229 mm
Width1-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1x 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 typeDDR3GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount512 MB6 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit192 Bit
Memory clock speed790 MHz2001 MHz
Memory bandwidth12.64 GB/s192.1 GB/s
Shared memoryno data-

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 Connectors1x DMS-591x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
HDMI-+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model4.16.5
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.11.2
VulkanN/A1.2.131
CUDA1.27.5

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.

NVS 300 0.27
GTX 1660 26.09
+9563%

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.

NVS 300 121
GTX 1660 11657
+9534%

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 HD0−183
1440p0−150
4K-0−127

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data2.64
1440pno data4.38
4Kno data8.11

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 271
+0%
271
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 71
+0%
71
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 79
+0%
79
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 223
+0%
223
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 58
+0%
58
+0%
Far Cry 5 100
+0%
100
+0%
Fortnite 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 132
+0%
132
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 100
+0%
100
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 59
+0%
59
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Valorant 306
+0%
306
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 107
+0%
107
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 47
+0%
47
+0%
Dota 2 219
+0%
219
+0%
Far Cry 5 92
+0%
92
+0%
Fortnite 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 123
+0%
123
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 88
+0%
88
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 115
+0%
115
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 46
+0%
46
+0%
Metro Exodus 57
+0%
57
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 102
+0%
102
+0%
Valorant 287
+0%
287
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40
+0%
40
+0%
Dota 2 197
+0%
197
+0%
Far Cry 5 86
+0%
86
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 98
+0%
98
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 36
+0%
36
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 57
+0%
57
+0%
Valorant 115
+0%
115
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 62
+0%
62
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 52
+0%
52
+0%
Metro Exodus 33
+0%
33
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 129
+0%
129
+0%
Valorant 226
+0%
226
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 24
+0%
24
+0%
Far Cry 5 59
+0%
59
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 76
+0%
76
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 24
+0%
24
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 16
+0%
16
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 49
+0%
49
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Metro Exodus 20
+0%
20
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35
+0%
35
+0%
Valorant 125
+0%
125
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

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%
Hogwarts Legacy 13
+0%
13
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 66 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.27 26.09
Recency 8 January 2011 14 March 2019
Maximum RAM amount 512 MB 6 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 18 Watt 120 Watt

NVS 300 has 566.7% lower power consumption.

GTX 1660, on the other hand, has a 9563% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 1100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 233.3% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce GTX 1660 is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 300 in performance tests.

Be aware that NVS 300 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce GTX 1660 is a desktop one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA NVS 300
NVS 300
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660
GeForce GTX 1660

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.1 49 votes

Rate NVS 300 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 5728 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 1660 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about NVS 300 or GeForce GTX 1660, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.