NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database records only two shared tests between the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER, and the results are decisive. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 1660 SUPER scores 52,490 against the GTX TITAN's 24,873. That is a delta of -52.6% from the TITAN's perspective, meaning the newer card more than doubles the older one's compute output. In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap is even wider: the GTX 1660 SUPER posts 57,102 while the GTX TITAN manages only 10,027, a delta of -82.4%. The GTX TITAN wins no shared benchmarks in this comparison; the GTX 1660 SUPER takes both.

These are not close calls. The Vulkan result is particularly stark, since the TITAN's score is less than one-fifth of the SUPER's. Even the OpenCL result, which is the more favorable shared test for the TITAN, still leaves it far behind. The data shows that in raw API-level compute workloads, the GTX 1660 SUPER is in a different performance class entirely, despite the TITAN's much larger die and higher transistor count.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded benchmarks, the GTX 1660 SUPER wins every workload where both cards were measured. That includes OpenCL compute and Vulkan graphics. The GTX TITAN has no benchmark wins in this comparison, which means there is no shared test where it comes out ahead.

However, the TITAN does have a higher average benchmark score across all tests in the database: 14,373 versus 12,986 for the SUPER. That average includes tests that were not run on both cards, such as Geekbench Metal (8,218 for the TITAN) and various Passmark tests for the SUPER (DirectX 9 at 189, DirectX 11 at 104, G3D at 12,699, and GPU Compute at 5,076). So while the SUPER wins the head-to-head, the TITAN's overall database profile is slightly stronger, likely because its older API tests (like Metal) pull its average up relative to the SUPER's broader test suite.

In practical terms, the SUPER is the pick for modern compute and graphics workloads that use OpenCL or Vulkan. The TITAN's strengths, if any, would have to come from legacy workloads or specific older API paths not covered in the shared benchmark set. The recorded data offers no evidence of a TITAN win in any contemporary test.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different eras and architectures. The GTX TITAN uses the GK110 chip on the Kepler architecture, built at TSMC's 28 nm process. It packs 7,080 million transistors into a 561 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.6M per mm². The GTX 1660 SUPER uses the TU116 chip on the Turing architecture, fabricated at TSMC's 12 nm node. It has 6,600 million transistors on a 284 mm² die, with a density of 23.2M per mm². The TITAN is far larger physically, but the SUPER's denser process allows it to fit more compute per area.

Memory configuration differs significantly. The TITAN has 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, yielding 288.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The SUPER also has 6 GB, but it is GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 336.0 GB/s. The SUPER achieves higher bandwidth with half the bus width, thanks to faster memory clocks. The TITAN's memory runs at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective), while the SUPER's runs at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective).

Compute resources tell a nuanced story. The TITAN has 2,688 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The SUPER has 1,408 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The TITAN has nearly double the shading units and more than double the TMUs, yet it loses in FP32 throughput: 4.709 TFLOPS versus 5.027 TFLOPS for the SUPER. Clock speeds explain this. The TITAN runs at 836 MHz base and 876 MHz boost, while the SUPER runs at 1530 MHz base and 1785 MHz boost. The SUPER's much higher clocks overcome the TITAN's raw unit count.

Pixel and texture rates follow the same pattern. The TITAN achieves 49.06 GPixel/s and 196.2 GTexel/s. The SUPER achieves 85.68 GPixel/s and 157.1 GTexel/s. The SUPER wins pixel fill due to its higher clocks, but the TITAN wins texture fill due to its massive TMU count. The SUPER also supports FP16 at 10.05 TFLOPS (2:1), a feature the TITAN lacks entirely.

API support differs as well. The TITAN supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The SUPER supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The SUPER's newer DirectX and Vulkan versions reflect its later release and architecture generation. Both use PCIe 3.0 x16, but the SUPER has a newer display output set: 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a, versus the TITAN's 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2.

Power and physical specs diverge sharply. The TITAN has a 250 W TDP, requires a 600 W suggested PSU, and uses 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin connectors. The SUPER has a 125 W TDP, requires a 300 W suggested PSU, and uses a single 8-pin connector. The SUPER is also shorter: 229 mm (9 inches) versus 267 mm (10.5 inches), with the same 111 mm height but a slightly narrower 35 mm width versus 38 mm. Both are dual-slot cards.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute throughput in FP32?

A: The GTX 1660 SUPER, at 5.027 TFLOPS, versus the GTX TITAN's 4.709 TFLOPS, despite the TITAN having more shading units.

Q: Do both cards have the same amount of memory?

A: Yes, both have 6 GB, but the SUPER uses GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 336.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the TITAN uses GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 288.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The GTX 1660 SUPER supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX TITAN supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The TITAN has a 250 W TDP and needs a 600 W PSU, while the SUPER has a 125 W TDP and needs a 300 W PSU.

Q: Is the GTX TITAN faster in any benchmark from the database?

A: No, the TITAN wins no shared benchmarks. Its average benchmark score is higher (14,373) than the SUPER's (12,986), but that average includes different tests.

Q: What are the physical size differences?

A: The TITAN is 267 mm long, 111 mm tall, and 38 mm wide. The SUPER is 229 mm long, 111 mm tall, and 35 mm wide. Both are dual-slot.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: for any modern workload covered by the shared benchmarks, the GTX 1660 SUPER is the superior card. It dominates in OpenCL and Vulkan, with deltas of -52.6% and -82.4% respectively. It also does so with half the TDP (125 W versus 250 W), a lower PSU requirement (300 W versus 600 W), and a smaller physical footprint. The SUPER's higher clock speeds, faster memory, and newer architecture more than compensate for the TITAN's larger die and higher shading unit count.

The TITAN's only claim to relevance in this comparison is its higher average benchmark score across all database tests, but that figure comes from a different test mix and does not reflect any head-to-head advantage. Its texture fill rate (196.2 GTexel/s) is also higher than the SUPER's (157.1 GTexel/s), but that single metric does not translate into a win in any recorded benchmark.

For a builder choosing between these two in the current market, the GTX 1660 SUPER is the clear pick. It offers better compute performance, modern API support, lower power draw, and a more practical card length. The TITAN, with its 2013 release date and end-of-life status, is a historical artifact. The SUPER, despite also being end-of-life, is a far more capable and efficient option in every measurable shared test.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER |

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

| Architecture | Kepler | Turing |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 12 nm |

| Transistors | 7,080 million | 6,600 million |

| Die Size | 561 mm² | 284 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.6M / mm² | 23.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 836 MHz | 1530 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 876 MHz | 1785 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) | 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 384 bit | 192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 288.4 GB/s | 336.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2688 | 1408 |

| TMUs | 224 | 88 |

| ROPs | 48 | 48 |

| Pixel Rate | 49.06 GPixel/s | 85.68 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 196.2 GTexel/s | 157.1 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 4.709 TFLOPS | 5.027 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | Not available | 10.05 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 250 W | 125 W |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 600 W | 300 W |

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

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.175 | 1.4 |

| Display Outputs | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Length | 267 mm (10.5 inches) | 229 mm (9 inches) |

| Width | 38 mm (1.5 inches) | 35 mm (1.4 inches) |

| Release Date | 2013-02-18 | 2019-10-28 |

| Launch MSRP | 999 USD | 229 USD |