NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded comparison between the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti is limited to a single shared benchmark: Geekbench OpenCL. The result is decisive. The GTX 1660 SUPER scores 52,490 points, while the GTX 560 Ti scores 10,690 points. That is a 391% advantage for the newer card. In practical terms, the GTX 1660 SUPER delivers roughly five times the compute throughput in this OpenCL workload, a gap that reflects the eight years of architectural evolution between the two parts.

Looking at the database's broader benchmark coverage, the GTX 1660 SUPER has ten recorded tests, including Passmark DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12 scores, plus G2D, G3D, and GPU compute results. Its average benchmark score across all tests is 12,986. The GTX 560 Ti, by contrast, has only the single Geekbench OpenCL entry, which also serves as its average score of 10,690. The absence of DirectX-era tests for the older card makes a full multi-metric comparison impossible, but the one overlapping data point is unambiguous.

The GTX 1660 SUPER's percentile ranking among all GPUs in the database is 53, placing it just above the median. Its nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile at an average score of 12,940 (a 0.4% delta), the AMD Radeon RX 580 at 12,928 (also 0.4%), the NVIDIA Tesla M2090 at 13,075 (a -0.7% delta), and the AMD Radeon 740M at 12,870 (0.9%). These deltas are small, indicating that the GTX 1660 SUPER sits in a tightly contested performance band. The GTX 560 Ti, at percentile 49, is just below the median. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon RX 6600S at 10,629 (0.6% delta), the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 at 10,761 (-0.7%), the AMD Radeon R9 M275X at 10,582 (1%), and the AMD Radeon Pro 450 at 10,804 (-1.1%). Again, the deltas are narrow, meaning the GTX 560 Ti's single score is representative of its class position.

Benchmark results indicate that the GTX 1660 SUPER is not merely faster; it is in a completely different performance tier. The 391% delta in the head-to-head test dwarfs the small percentage differences seen among each card's nearest rivals. For context, the GTX 1660 SUPER's nearest rival deltas range from -0.7% to 0.9%, while the GTX 560 Ti's range from -1.1% to 1%. The cross-generational gap between these two cards is roughly 390 percentage points, which is over 400 times larger than the typical spread within their respective peer groups.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different hardware generations. The GTX 1660 SUPER is built on the Turing architecture, specifically the TU116 chip, and belongs to the GeForce 16 series. The GTX 560 Ti uses the Fermi 2.0 architecture with the GF114 chip, part of the GeForce 500 series. The manufacturing process tells a large part of the story: the GTX 1660 SUPER is fabricated on a 12 nm process at TSMC, while the GTX 560 Ti uses a 40 nm process, also at TSMC. This process shrink allows the newer card to pack 6,600 million transistors into a 284 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 23.2 million per square millimeter. The older card contains 1,950 million transistors on a larger 332 mm² die, with a density of only 5.9 million per square millimeter. That is a density ratio of roughly 4:1 in favor of the GTX 1660 SUPER.

Memory configuration differs substantially. The GTX 1660 SUPER carries 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 336.0 GB/s and an effective memory clock of 14 Gbps. The GTX 560 Ti has 1024 MB (1 GB) of GDDR5 memory on a wider 256-bit bus, but its bandwidth is only 128.3 GB/s, with an effective clock of 4 Gbps. Despite the narrower bus, the GDDR6 memory's higher clock speed gives the GTX 1660 SUPER more than 2.6 times the bandwidth. The memory size advantage is also significant: 6 GB versus 1 GB, a sixfold difference.

Compute resources are heavily skewed toward the newer card. The GTX 1660 SUPER has 1,408 shading units, 88 texture mapping units, and 48 raster output units. The GTX 560 Ti has 384 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This means the GTX 1660 SUPER has roughly 3.7 times the shading units, 1.4 times the TMUs, and 1.5 times the ROPs. Pixel fill rate on the GTX 1660 SUPER is 85.68 GPixel/s versus 13.17 GPixel/s on the GTX 560 Ti. Texture fill rate is 157.1 GTexel/s versus 52.67 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute throughput is 5.027 TFLOPS for the newer card versus 1,263.4 GFLOPS (1.263 TFLOPS) for the older one, a factor of about 4. The GTX 1660 SUPER also supports FP16 at 10.05 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the GTX 560 Ti has no FP16 capability listed.

Feature support also diverges. The GTX 1660 SUPER supports DirectX 12 with feature level 12_1, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The GTX 560 Ti supports DirectX 12 but only with feature level 11_0, and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan support listed. Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores. The bus interface differs as well: PCIe 3.0 x16 for the GTX 1660 SUPER versus PCIe 2.0 x16 for the GTX 560 Ti. Display outputs are also different, with the newer card offering one DVI, one HDMI 2.0, and one DisplayPort 1.4a, while the older card has two DVI ports and one mini-HDMI 1.3a.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 1660 SUPER wins in every measurable category where data exists. In the single head-to-head benchmark, it beats the GTX 560 Ti by 391%. In architectural terms, it wins on process node, transistor count, memory size, memory bandwidth, shading units, texture units, ROPs, pixel rate, texture rate, FP32 throughput, FP16 support, API support (especially Vulkan and higher DirectX feature level), and bus interface generation. It also has a lower TDP at 125 W versus 170 W, and requires a less powerful PSU (300 W suggested versus 450 W). The GTX 1660 SUPER uses a single 8-pin power connector, while the GTX 560 Ti needs two 6-pin connectors.

The GTX 560 Ti's wins are limited to a few non-performance fields. It has a higher transistor count per die area? No, that is the GTX 1660 SUPER. The GTX 560 Ti has a wider memory bus (256-bit versus 192-bit), but this does not translate into higher bandwidth. It has a lower power draw? No, the GTX 1660 SUPER draws less. The GTX 560 Ti's only advantages are its wider memory bus width and its smaller physical footprint in terms of height and width, as its dimensions list no height or width values, whereas the GTX 1660 SUPER is listed at 111 mm height and 35 mm width. The GTX 560 Ti is also shorter in length? No, both are listed at 229 mm or 9 inches. The GTX 560 Ti's launch MSRP was 249 USD, which is higher than the GTX 1660 SUPER's 229 USD, but pricing is not a performance metric.

For use cases, the data suggests the GTX 1660 SUPER is the appropriate choice for any modern workload that leverages DirectX 12, Vulkan, or high-bandwidth memory. Its 6 GB frame buffer is suitable for higher-resolution textures, and its FP16 support can accelerate certain compute tasks. The GTX 560 Ti, with its 1 GB memory and lack of Vulkan, is limited to older DirectX 11-era titles or basic 2D workloads. Its single benchmark score is competitive with the AMD Radeon RX 6600S and the NVIDIA Quadro K2200, but those are also older or lower-tier parts. In essence, the GTX 560 Ti wins only in legacy compatibility scenarios where its specific feature set matches ancient software requirements.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the GTX 1660 SUPER in the only shared benchmark?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 1660 SUPER scores 52,490 versus 10,690 for the GTX 560 Ti, a 391% advantage.

Q: Does the GTX 560 Ti have any performance advantage?

A: No. The database records zero benchmark wins for the GTX 560 Ti. Its only listed advantage is a wider 256-bit memory bus, but its bandwidth is still lower at 128.3 GB/s versus 336.0 GB/s.

Q: What memory configurations do the two cards use?

A: The GTX 1660 SUPER uses 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 336.0 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 560 Ti uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 128.3 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has better API support?

A: The GTX 1660 SUPER supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The GTX 560 Ti supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support.

Q: How do the power requirements compare?

A: The GTX 1660 SUPER has a TDP of 125 W and a suggested PSU of 300 W with a single 8-pin connector. The GTX 560 Ti has a TDP of 170 W, a suggested PSU of 450 W, and requires two 6-pin connectors.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each card in the database?

A: For the GTX 1660 SUPER, the nearest rivals are the RTX 3050 Ti Mobile (delta 0.4%), RX 580 (0.4%), Tesla M2090 (-0.7%), and Radeon 740M (0.9%). For the GTX 560 Ti, they are the RX 6600S (0.6%), Quadro K2200 (-0.7%), R9 M275X (1%), and Radeon Pro 450 (-1.1%).

Specification Differences

| Specification | GTX 1660 SUPER | GTX 560 Ti |

|---------------|----------------|------------|

| Architecture | Turing | Fermi 2.0 |

| Chip | TU116 | GF114 |

| Process node | 12 nm | 40 nm |

| Transistors | 6,600 million | 1,950 million |

| Die size | 284 mm² | 332 mm² |

| Transistor density | 23.2M / mm² | 5.9M / mm² |

| Memory size | 6 GB | 1024 MB |

| Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory bus width | 192 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 336.0 GB/s | 128.3 GB/s |

| Memory clock | 1750 MHz, 14 Gbps effective | 1002 MHz, 4 Gbps effective |

| Shading units | 1408 | 384 |

| TMUs | 88 | 64 |

| ROPs | 48 | 32 |

| Pixel rate | 85.68 GPixel/s | 13.17 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 157.1 GTexel/s | 52.67 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 5.027 TFLOPS | 1,263.4 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 10.05 TFLOPS (2:1) | null |

| TDP | 125 W | 170 W |

| Power connectors | 1x 8-pin | 2x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | 450 W |

| Bus interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | null |

| Display outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a |

| Dimensions (LxHxW) | 229 mm x 111 mm x 35 mm | 229 mm x null x null |

| Release date | 2019-10-28 | 2011-01-24 |

| Generation | GeForce 16 | GeForce 500 |

| Predecessor | GeForce 10 | GeForce 400 |

| Successor | GeForce 20 | GeForce 600 |

The Verdict

The data is clear: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER outperforms the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti in every recorded benchmark, with a 391% lead in the sole overlapping test. The newer card also wins on every architectural metric that matters for modern workloads: process node, transistor density, memory capacity and bandwidth, compute unit counts, fill rates, API support, and power efficiency. The GTX 560 Ti's only specification advantages are a wider memory bus and an unspecified height/width footprint, neither of which translates into a performance benefit.

For anyone choosing between these two cards, the GTX 1660 SUPER is the appropriate selection for contemporary gaming, DirectX 12 or Vulkan applications, and any task requiring more than 1 GB of video memory. Its 6 GB frame buffer and 336.0 GB/s bandwidth make it viable for higher-resolution textures and modern game assets. The GTX 560 Ti, by contrast, is a legacy part. Its 1 GB memory and lack of Vulkan support restrict it to older DirectX 11-era software or basic 2D workloads. The GTX 560 Ti's average benchmark score of 10,690 places it near the AMD Radeon RX 6600S and the NVIDIA Quadro K2200, but those are also dated parts in the database.

The percentile data reinforces the verdict. The GTX 1660 SUPER sits at percentile 53, just above the median, while the GTX 560 Ti sits at percentile 49, just below it. This might seem like a small gap, but the absolute score difference (12,986 versus 10,690) is about 21%, and the head-to-head delta is 391%. The percentile ranking reflects the entire database population, which includes many higher-end cards, so the GTX 560 Ti's near-median position confirms how far GPU performance has fallen relative to modern parts. The GTX 1660 SUPER, while not a high-end card by today's standards, is clearly a generation ahead of the GTX 560 Ti. The database records no scenario in which the older card wins, and the architectural evidence supports that outcome. The GTX 1660 SUPER is the only rational choice from this comparison.