NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole shared benchmark between the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is a decisive victory for the newer card. The GTX 1660 scores 47,850 points, while the GTX 560 Ti manages only 10,690 points. That translates to a delta of 347.6% — the GTX 1660 outperforms the GTX 560 Ti by nearly four and a half times in this compute-oriented workload. This is not a marginal generational improvement; it is a complete overhaul of raw processing capability. The data shows a single head-to-head test, and the GTX 1660 takes the win in that one matchup, leaving the GTX 560 Ti with zero wins in direct comparison.

For context on where each card sits in the broader landscape, the GTX 1660’s average benchmark score across all tests is 11,680, placing it at the 51st percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT, scores 11,627, a delta of just 0.5% — effectively a statistical tie. The GTX 1660 also edges out the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M (11,528, +1.3%) and the NVIDIA Tesla K20c (11,479, +1.8%), while trailing the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT (11,842, -1.4%) by a hair. In contrast, the GTX 560 Ti’s average benchmark score is 10,690, which places it at the 49th percentile. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 6600S, scores 10,629, a delta of 0.6% in the GTX 560 Ti’s favor. The NVIDIA Quadro K2200 (10,761) sits 0.7% above it, and the AMD Radeon Pro 450 (10,804) is 1.1% higher. The takeaway is clear: both cards are mid-pack performers relative to their respective eras, but the GTX 1660’s average score is 990 points higher than the GTX 560 Ti’s, and that gap is far more pronounced in the compute-heavy Geekbench test.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two GPUs is vast, reflecting nearly a decade of semiconductor evolution. The GTX 1660 is built on the Turing architecture, using the TU116 chip, fabricated on a 12 nm process at TSMC. It packs 6,600 million transistors onto a die size of 284 mm², yielding a transistor density of 23.2 million transistors per square millimeter. The GTX 560 Ti, by contrast, uses the Fermi 2.0 architecture with the GF114 chip, manufactured on a 40 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 1,950 million transistors on a larger die of 332 mm², resulting in a much lower transistor density of 5.9 million per square millimeter. The GTX 1660 crams more than three times the transistors into a smaller physical area — a signal of the process node advantage.

The compute resources tell a similar story. The GTX 1660 fields 1,408 shading units, 88 texture mapping units, and 48 render output units. The GTX 560 Ti offers just 384 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The GTX 1660’s pixel rate is 85.68 GPixel/s versus 13.17 GPixel/s for the GTX 560 Ti, and its texture rate is 157.1 GTexel/s compared to 52.67 GTexel/s. In floating-point performance, the GTX 1660 delivers 5.027 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the GTX 560 Ti manages 1,263.4 GFLOPS — a difference of roughly fourfold. The GTX 1660 also supports FP16 at 10.05 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, a feature entirely absent from the GTX 560 Ti, which has no FP16 capability listed.

Memory architecture diverges sharply as well. The GTX 1660 comes with 6 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 192-bit bus, delivering 192.1 GB/s of bandwidth at 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective). The GTX 560 Ti has only 1 GB of GDDR5 on a wider 256-bit bus, but its bandwidth is just 128.3 GB/s due to a lower memory clock of 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective). The GTX 1660’s memory clock is double that of the GTX 560 Ti, and while the bus width is narrower, the total bandwidth is still 50% higher. The GTX 560 Ti’s 1 GB frame buffer is a severe limitation for modern workloads, while the GTX 1660’s 6 GB is far more practical.

Interface and connectivity also differ. The GTX 1660 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the GTX 560 Ti is limited to PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs are another differentiator: the GTX 1660 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a, whereas the GTX 560 Ti provides 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a. API support is broader on the GTX 1660, with 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 listed. Neither card has ray tracing or tensor cores, so those features are not a differentiator here.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 1660 wins in every measurable category where data exists. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 47,850 versus 10,690 for the GTX 560 Ti is the only direct head-to-head benchmark, and it is a landslide. Beyond that, the GTX 1660’s broader benchmark suite — including 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 (1,065), Geekbench Vulkan (50,137), and multiple Passmark tests — shows a card capable of handling modern DirectX 12 and Vulkan workloads. The GTX 560 Ti has no corresponding scores in those tests, so its capabilities there are undocumented in this dataset. The GTX 1660’s Passmark G3D score of 11,646 and GPU compute score of 4,963 further illustrate its strength in both rasterization and compute tasks.

The GTX 560 Ti’s only claim to relevance is its position in the percentile ranking. At the 49th percentile, it is only 2 points below the GTX 1660’s 51st percentile, which suggests that within its own generation, it was a competent mid-range part. Its nearest rival deltas are tight — within -1.1% to +1.0% of comparable cards — indicating that it was well-matched against its contemporaries. However, in absolute terms, the GTX 1660 is simply in a different class. The GTX 560 Ti’s 1,263.4 GFLOPS of FP32 performance is roughly one-quarter of the GTX 1660’s 5.027 TFLOPS, and its 128.3 GB/s bandwidth is two-thirds of the GTX 1660’s 192.1 GB/s. For modern gaming or compute, the GTX 560 Ti would bottleneck severely.

Use-case analysis favors the GTX 1660 for virtually any task that demands graphics processing. The 6 GB memory capacity is sufficient for high-resolution textures and larger datasets, whereas the GTX 560 Ti’s 1 GB is a hard ceiling. The GTX 1660’s support for Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1) makes it compatible with contemporary APIs, while the GTX 560 Ti’s DirectX 12 (11_0) support is a legacy feature set. The GTX 560 Ti could still serve in a retro or low-intensity role, but the data does not support any scenario where it outperforms the GTX 1660. The GTX 1660 also has a lower TDP of 120 W versus 170 W for the GTX 560 Ti, meaning it delivers vastly more performance while consuming less power.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the GTX 1660 than the GTX 560 Ti in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The GTX 1660 scores 47,850 points, while the GTX 560 Ti scores 10,690 points. This represents a delta of 347.6% in favor of the GTX 1660.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each card?

A: The GTX 1660 has an average benchmark score of 11,680, placing it at the 51st percentile of all GPUs. The GTX 560 Ti has an average benchmark score of 10,690, placing it at the 49th percentile.

Q: Which card has more memory and bandwidth?

A: The GTX 1660 has 6 GB of GDDR5 memory with a 192-bit bus and 192.1 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 560 Ti has 1 GB of GDDR5 with a 256-bit bus and 128.3 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does the GTX 560 Ti support Vulkan?

A: No. The GTX 560 Ti has no Vulkan support listed. The GTX 1660 supports Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What is the transistor count difference between the two chips?

A: The GTX 1660’s TU116 chip contains 6,600 million transistors on a 284 mm² die. The GTX 560 Ti’s GF114 chip contains 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die.

Q: How do the power requirements compare?

A: The GTX 1660 has a TDP of 120 W and requires a 300 W PSU with a single 8-pin connector. The GTX 560 Ti has a TDP of 170 W and requires a 450 W PSU with two 6-pin connectors.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 | NVIDIA GeForce 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 Bus Width | 192 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 192.1 GB/s | 128.3 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 2001 MHz (8 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 Performance | 5.027 TFLOPS | 1,263.4 GFLOPS |

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

| TDP | 120 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 |

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

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

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | null |

| Dimensions (L×H×W) | 229 mm × 111 mm × 35 mm | 229 mm × null × null |

| Release Date | 2019-03-13 | 2011-01-24 |

| Launch MSRP | 219 USD | 249 USD |

| Predecessor | GeForce 10 | GeForce 400 |

| Successor | GeForce 20 | GeForce 600 |