NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER vs NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile Comparison

The NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER are two very different GPUs separated by architecture, target market, and physical design. The data shows a clear split in performance characteristics: the GTX 1660 SUPER dominates in legacy and standard rasterization workloads, while the RTX A2000 Mobile claims a single, albeit notable, victory in compute-oriented OpenCL testing. This analysis walks through the benchmark results, specification differences, and architectural choices to determine which GPU holds the advantage in specific scenarios.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark comparison is decisively lopsided in favor of the GTX 1660 SUPER, with the desktop card winning 8 out of 9 head-to-head tests. The most significant margin is in the PassMark DirectX 9 test, where the GTX 1660 SUPER scores 189 against the RTX A2000 Mobile’s 115, a 39.2% advantage. This pattern continues in the PassMark DirectX 11 test, with the GTX 1660 SUPER posting 104 versus 68, a 34.6% lead. These results indicate that for older DirectX APIs, the GTX 1660 SUPER has a substantial performance edge, likely due to its higher base and boost clocks.

The gap narrows considerably in more modern workloads. In the PassMark DirectX 12 test, the GTX 1660 SUPER only leads by 6% (50 versus 47), suggesting that the RTX A2000 Mobile’s newer architecture helps it close the distance in API-level overhead. The PassMark G3D test shows a 24.3% deficit for the mobile card (9611 versus 12699), while the PassMark GPU Compute test has the GTX 1660 SUPER ahead by 14.6% (5076 versus 4334). The GTX 1660 SUPER also wins the PassMark G2D test by 39% (805 versus 491), indicating a strong advantage in 2D and desktop composition workloads.

The single win for the RTX A2000 Mobile comes in the Geekbench OpenCL test, where it scores 56518 against 52490, a 7.7% advantage. This is a significant result because it demonstrates that the mobile Ampere GPU can outperform the older Turing card in raw compute throughput, despite its lower overall clock speeds. The Geekbench Vulkan test, however, goes the other way: the GTX 1660 SUPER scores 57102 versus 53146, a 6.9% lead. This suggests that while the RTX A2000 Mobile has superior compute capabilities in some APIs, the GTX 1660 SUPER retains an edge in graphics-oriented Vulkan workloads.

Looking at the broader context, the RTX A2000 Mobile’s average benchmark score is 13821, placing it at the 55th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival is the AMD Radeon 660M, which scores 13812, a mere 0.1% difference. The GTX 1660 SUPER has an average score of 12986, placing it at the 53rd percentile, with its closest competitor being the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile at 12940 (0.4% ahead). Interestingly, the RTX A2000 Mobile’s average score is actually higher than the GTX 1660 SUPER’s, despite losing most head-to-head tests, which highlights the variability in benchmark methodologies.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the most benchmark tests?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER wins 8 out of 9 head-to-head benchmarks, while the NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile wins only 1. The GTX 1660 SUPER's victories include PassMark DirectX 9, 10, 11, 12, G2D, G3D, GPU Compute, and Geekbench Vulkan.

Q: Is there any test where the RTX A2000 Mobile performs better?

A: Yes, the RTX A2000 Mobile wins the Geekbench OpenCL test, scoring 56518 compared to the GTX 1660 SUPER's 52490, a 7.7% margin. This indicates a compute advantage for the mobile Ampere GPU in that specific API.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the most extreme case?

A: The largest delta is in the PassMark DirectX 9 test, where the GTX 1660 SUPER scores 189 versus 115, a 39.2% advantage. The PassMark DirectX 11 test is close behind with a 34.6% lead for the GTX 1660 SUPER.

Q: Does the RTX A2000 Mobile have a higher average benchmark score?

A: Yes, the RTX A2000 Mobile has an average benchmark score of 13821, while the GTX 1660 SUPER averages 12986. This places the RTX A2000 Mobile at the 55th percentile of all GPUs, compared to the 53rd percentile for the GTX 1660 SUPER.

Q: What are the closest rivals to each GPU based on average score?

A: The RTX A2000 Mobile's nearest rival is the AMD Radeon 660M with a score of 13812, a 0.1% delta. The GTX 1660 SUPER's nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile with a score of 12940, a 0.4% delta.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The GTX 1660 SUPER has a higher boost clock of 1785 MHz compared to the RTX A2000 Mobile's 1687 MHz. The GTX 1660 SUPER also has a higher base clock of 1530 MHz versus 1215 MHz.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is the clear winner for raw graphics performance in most scenarios. Its decisive victories in DirectX 9, DirectX 11, and G3D tests (39.2%, 34.6%, and 24.3% respectively) make it the stronger choice for gaming and legacy application support. The GTX 1660 SUPER also holds a 6.9% lead in Vulkan, which is relevant for modern cross-platform titles.

However, the NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile is not without merit. Its 7.7% win in Geekbench OpenCL shows that it has superior compute throughput in certain workloads, which could be valuable for professional applications like machine learning inference or scientific computing that leverage OpenCL. The RTX A2000 Mobile also has a higher average benchmark score (13821 versus 12986) and a higher percentile ranking (55th versus 53rd), suggesting that its overall performance profile is more balanced across different types of tests.

For a user prioritizing gaming or general-purpose graphics acceleration, the GTX 1660 SUPER is the data-driven choice. For a user who needs compute performance in OpenCL and can tolerate lower performance in DirectX-based tasks, the RTX A2000 Mobile offers a compelling alternative. The GTX 1660 SUPER's 6 GB of memory and 192-bit bus also give it a capacity and bandwidth advantage, which is discussed in the specification section.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ significantly in their physical and memory specifications. The GTX 1660 SUPER is a dual-slot desktop card with a length of 229 mm, a height of 111 mm, and a width of 35 mm. It requires a single 8-pin power connector and has a suggested power supply of 300 W. The RTX A2000 Mobile is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with no power connectors and no fixed dimensions, as it is portable device dependent.

Memory configuration is a major differentiator. The GTX 1660 SUPER has 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, providing 336.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RTX A2000 Mobile has only 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 1660 SUPER also has higher effective memory speed at 14 Gbps versus 12 Gbps for the RTX A2000 Mobile.

The bus interface differs as well: the RTX A2000 Mobile uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the GTX 1660 SUPER uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The GTX 1660 SUPER has a higher TDP of 125 W, whereas the RTX A2000 Mobile is rated at 95 W. Display outputs also differ, with the GTX 1660 SUPER offering 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the RTX A2000 Mobile's outputs are portable device dependent.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two GPUs is substantial. The RTX A2000 Mobile is built on the Ampere architecture using the GA107 chip, manufactured on an 8 nm process at Samsung. It contains 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 43.5 million per mm². The GTX 1660 SUPER uses the Turing architecture with the TU116 chip, built on a 12 nm process at TSMC. It has 6,600 million transistors on a larger 284 mm² die, with a lower density of 23.2 million per mm².

Core configuration is starkly different. The RTX A2000 Mobile has 2560 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. Critically, it includes 20 ray tracing cores and 80 tensor cores, which the GTX 1660 SUPER lacks entirely (both are listed as null). The GTX 1660 SUPER has 1408 shading units and 88 TMUs, but also 48 ROPs. Despite having fewer shading units, the GTX 1660 SUPER achieves a slightly higher pixel rate of 85.68 GPixel/s versus 80.98 GPixel/s for the RTX A2000 Mobile, and a higher texture rate of 157.1 GTexel/s versus 135.0 GTexel/s.

Compute throughput tells a different story. The RTX A2000 Mobile delivers 8.637 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the GTX 1660 SUPER delivers 5.027 TFLOPS. In FP16, the GTX 1660 SUPER reaches 10.05 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the RTX A2000 Mobile maintains 8.637 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio). The RTX A2000 Mobile also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the GTX 1660 SUPER only supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The RTX A2000 Mobile was released on 2021-04-11, while the GTX 1660 SUPER came earlier on 2019-10-28. The GTX 1660 SUPER has a launch MSRP of 229 USD.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 1660 SUPER is the winner in most graphics-centric scenarios. Its strong performance in DirectX 9, 10, and 11 tests (39.2%, 12.3%, and 34.6% leads respectively) makes it ideal for running older games or applications that rely on legacy APIs. Its G3D score of 12699 versus 9611 indicates superior general 3D rendering performance, which benefits modern games that do not heavily utilize ray tracing. The GTX 1660 SUPER's 6 GB memory and 336.0 GB/s bandwidth also make it more capable for texture-heavy workloads and higher resolution gaming, where memory capacity and bandwidth are critical. Its 39% lead in the G2D test also makes it better suited for desktop productivity and 2D applications.

The RTX A2000 Mobile wins in compute-oriented scenarios, particularly those leveraging OpenCL. Its 7.7% advantage in Geekbench OpenCL suggests it can handle compute shaders and general-purpose GPU tasks more efficiently. The presence of ray tracing and tensor cores, which the GTX 1660 SUPER lacks, gives it a functional advantage in workloads that utilize these features, even if the benchmark data does not directly measure them. Its higher FP32 throughput of 8.637 TFLOPS versus 5.027 TFLOPS indicates superior raw compute capability for scientific or AI workloads. The RTX A2000 Mobile's smaller 95 W TDP and IGP form factor also make it suitable for power-constrained environments, though this is a qualitative advantage not reflected in the benchmark scores.