NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a split decision between these two NVIDIA parts. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 1660 Ti delivers a dominant victory, scoring 51,029 against the GTX 850M's 9,821. That represents an 80.8% advantage for the newer card, a massive gap that reflects the generational leap in raw compute throughput. The GTX 1660 Ti is in a completely different performance tier here, with OpenCL results that dwarf the older mobile chip by a factor of more than five.

However, the Geekbench Vulkan results tell a very different story. The GTX 850M wins that test outright, scoring 8,782 versus the GTX 1660 Ti's 5,827. This is a 50.7% margin in favor of the older Maxwell-based part. It is an unusual outcome, since Vulkan is a modern API that should favor the newer Turing architecture. The data indicates that the GTX 850M's driver optimization or workload characteristics in that specific test allow it to outperform the more powerful card by a substantial margin. This is a notable anomaly in the benchmark database, and it suggests that the GTX 850M has particular strengths in certain low-level API scenarios.

Looking at the average benchmark scores across all recorded tests, the GTX 1660 Ti averages 7,723, while the GTX 850M averages 9,302. This is counterintuitive given the OpenCL result, but it is explained by the Vulkan score skewing the GTX 850M's average upward. The GTX 1660 Ti has a much broader benchmark profile in the database, including DirectX tests, PassMark suites, and 3DMark Steel Nomad, which pull its average down relative to the GTX 850M's limited two-test profile. The percentile rankings reflect this: the GTX 850M sits in the 46th percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 1660 Ti sits in the 41st percentile. These figures are close, but the older chip actually ranks slightly higher in the overall distribution, which is a direct consequence of its strong Vulkan showing.

The nearest rivals for each card provide additional context. The GTX 850M's closest competitors include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 (average score 9,294, a 0.1% difference), the AMD Radeon R7 M380 (9,313, a 0.1% deficit for the 850M), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 (9,273, a 0.3% edge for the 850M), and the AMD Radeon Vega 8 (9,221, a 0.9% advantage for the 850M). These deltas are all within a single percentage point, indicating that the GTX 850M sits in a tightly clustered performance band. For the GTX 1660 Ti, the nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon 540 (7,673, a 0.7% edge for the 1660 Ti), the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 (7,580, a 1.9% edge), the AMD Radeon R7 250 (7,557, a 2.2% edge), and the Intel Arc A310 (7,550, a 2.3% edge). The GTX 1660 Ti leads its closest rivals by somewhat larger margins, but it is still competing in a lower average-score bracket than the GTX 850M.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and process nodes. The GTX 850M uses the GM107 chip based on Maxwell architecture, built on TSMC's 28 nm process. It packs 1,870 million transistors into a 148 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. The GTX 1660 Ti uses the TU116 chip based on Turing architecture, built on TSMC's 12 nm process. It contains 6,600 million transistors on a 284 mm² die, with a transistor density of 23.2 million per square millimeter. The newer card has roughly 3.5 times the transistor count and nearly double the die area, while the process shrink allows for significantly higher density.

Core configuration differences are substantial. The GTX 850M has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. The GTX 1660 Ti has 1,536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. That is 2.4 times the shaders, 2.4 times the TMUs, and 3 times the ROPs. The pixel rate scales accordingly: 14.43 GPixel/s for the 850M versus 84.96 GPixel/s for the 1660 Ti, a nearly 6-fold difference. Texture rate shows a similar gap: 36.08 GTexel/s versus 169.9 GTexel/s, roughly 4.7 times higher. FP32 compute is 1,154.6 GFLOPS for the 850M versus 5.437 TFLOPS for the 1660 Ti, a difference of about 4.7 times. The 1660 Ti also supports FP16 at 10.87 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, which the 850M does not list.

Memory architecture is another major divider. The GTX 850M uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 32.03 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 1660 Ti uses 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, yielding 288.0 GB/s. That is 9 times the memory bandwidth and 3 times the capacity. Memory clock speeds are listed as 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective) for the 850M and 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) for the 1660 Ti. The newer card's GDDR6 memory is clearly in a different league.

The GTX 1660 Ti has explicit clock specifications: 1500 MHz base and 1770 MHz boost. The GTX 850M does not list base or boost clocks in the database, only the memory clock. The 1660 Ti also has a much higher TDP at 120 W versus 45 W for the 850M, which reflects the desktop-oriented design of the newer card versus the mobile IGP form factor of the older one. The 1660 Ti requires a 300 W suggested PSU and uses a dual-slot cooler with a single 8-pin power connector, while the 850M is listed as an IGP with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs.

API support differs slightly. The GTX 850M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The GTX 1660 Ti supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The DirectX feature level is the key distinction, with the 1660 Ti supporting the higher 12_1 feature set. The 850M has no listed RT cores or tensor cores, and neither does the 1660 Ti, which is consistent with the Turing-based 16-series being a non-RTX line.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 1660 Ti wins decisively in compute-heavy and modern API workloads. Its OpenCL score of 51,029 is the standout result, and its FP32 throughput of 5.437 TFLOPS, texture rate of 169.9 GTexel/s, and pixel rate of 84.96 GPixel/s all point to a card that excels at raw number crunching, high-resolution texture work, and fill-rate-bound scenarios. The 6 GB GDDR6 memory with 288 GB/s bandwidth makes it suitable for larger datasets and higher-resolution assets. This is a card for gaming at mainstream desktop resolutions, content creation tasks, and any workload that can utilize its substantial shader count and memory bandwidth.

The GTX 850M wins in one specific but notable area: Vulkan performance. Its 8,782 Vulkan score versus the 1660 Ti's 5,827 is a clear victory in that API. This suggests the older Maxwell architecture has a particular efficiency in Vulkan's explicit command-buffer model, at least in the specific benchmark recorded. The 850M also has a lower TDP of 45 W, making it suitable for thin and light portable devices where power draw is a primary constraint. Its 32.03 GB/s bandwidth and 2 GB memory are modest by modern standards, but for legacy DirectX 11-era games or applications that favor its driver stack, it remains competitive relative to its peers in the 46th percentile.

For users with a GTX 850M in a laptop, the Vulkan edge is interesting but limited. For anyone choosing between these two cards for a new build or upgrade, the 1660 Ti is the overwhelming choice for any GPU-bound work. The 850M's only win is the Vulkan test, and that singular data point does not outweigh the massive differences in memory, compute, and bandwidth.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous for most use cases: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is the superior product in nearly every measurable way. Its OpenCL score is 80.8% higher than the GTX 850M, its FP32 compute is 4.7 times higher, its texture rate is 4.7 times higher, its pixel rate is nearly 6 times higher, and its memory bandwidth is 9 times higher. It has 3 times the VRAM, 2.4 times the shaders, and 3 times the ROPs. The 1660 Ti is the card to pick for any modern gaming, compute, or content-creation workload. Its 12 nm Turing architecture, 6 GB GDDR6, and 192-bit bus make it a far more capable piece of hardware.

The GTX 850M has exactly one advantage in the recorded benchmarks: Vulkan performance, where it beats the 1660 Ti by 50.7%. It also has a much lower TDP (45 W versus 120 W), which matters for battery-powered or thermally constrained systems. The 850M's 46th percentile ranking is slightly higher than the 1660 Ti's 41st percentile, but that is a statistical artifact of the limited benchmark set for the 850M. The average score difference (9,302 versus 7,723) similarly reflects the Vulkan outlier.

The verdict is straightforward. If you need a GPU for a desktop system or any task requiring serious graphics throughput, the GTX 1660 Ti is the only rational choice. If you are stuck with a GTX 850M in an older laptop and only run Vulkan-based games, the data shows it can hold its own in that narrow scenario. Otherwise, the 1660 Ti wins by every significant metric.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti scores 51,029 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the GTX 850M scores 9,821, giving the 1660 Ti an 80.8% advantage.

Q: Does the older GTX 850M win any benchmark?

A: Yes, the GTX 850M wins Geekbench Vulkan with a score of 8,782 versus 5,827 for the GTX 1660 Ti, a 50.7% margin.

Q: How do the memory specifications compare?

A: The GTX 850M has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus with 32.03 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 1660 Ti has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the transistor counts for each chip?

A: The GTX 850M's GM107 chip has 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die. The GTX 1660 Ti's TU116 chip has 6,600 million transistors on a 284 mm² die.

Q: Which card has a higher TDP?

A: The GTX 1660 Ti has a TDP of 120 W, while the GTX 850M has a TDP of 45 W.

Q: What is the DirectX support difference?

A: The GTX 850M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the GTX 1660 Ti supports DirectX 12 (12_1), with the latter supporting a higher feature level.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti |

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

| Chip | GM107 | TU116 |

| Architecture | Maxwell | Turing |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 12 nm |

| Transistors | 1,870 million | 6,600 million |

| Die Size | 148 mm² | 284 mm² |

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

| Base Clock | Not listed | 1500 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not listed | 1770 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective) | 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 6 GB |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 32.03 GB/s | 288.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 640 | 1536 |

| TMUs | 40 | 96 |

| ROPs | 16 | 48 |

| Pixel Rate | 14.43 GPixel/s | 84.96 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 36.08 GTexel/s | 169.9 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 1,154.6 GFLOPS | 5.437 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | Not listed | 10.87 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 45 W | 120 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 300 W |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a |

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

| Dimensions | Not listed | 229 mm (9 inches) x 111 mm (4.4 inches) x 35 mm (1.4 inches) |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | 279 USD |