Nvidia have refreshed the GTX 1660 with the new GTX 1660 Super, so what are the differences
between them and is it worth paying more for the Super version? I’ve compared 16 games
at 1080p and 1440p to find out!
Let’s take a look at how the 1660 and 1660 Super differ in terms of specs, note that
things like clock speeds will vary between specific cards, these are just the reference
specs for each. They both have the same number of CUDA cores and same base and boost clock
speeds. The key difference is that the new Super version uses faster GDDR6 memory, whereas
the original 1660 uses GDDR5.
For the testing I’m using the MSI Gaming X version of both the GTX 1660 and GTX 1660
Super, so results should be fairly comparable. Both of these have a small out of the box
overclock, expect slightly different results with different models.
The system that I’m testing with has an Intel i7-8700K CPU overclocked to 5GHz on
all cores in an MSI Z390 ACE motherboard, along with 16GB of DDR4-3200 CL14 memory running
in dual channel. You can check the links in the description for details on all of the
components as well as for up to date pricing. The same drivers and Windows updates were
used for all testing, so let’s get into the games.
Control was tested running through the start of the game, with the same test pass completed
each time. Although the 1660 cards are aimed at 1080p gaming, I’ve also thrown in 1440p
results too. With the high preset, at 1080p the 1660 Super was 11.5% faster in terms of
average FPS than the non Super version, and just 10% ahead at 1440p.
Shadow of the Tomb Raider was tested with the game’s built in benchmark, at both 1080p
and 1440p the Super was around 10% ahead of the non super 1660.
Apex Legends was tested with all graphical settings at maximum, and at both 1080p and
1440p this game saw the smallest difference between the two out of all games tested, with
the Super card coming out just 5% ahead of the non Super.
Borderlands 3 was tested with the game’s benchmark tool, and there wasn’t much of
a difference here either, with the Super version being 8% faster at 1080p and 9% faster at
1440p.
Battlefield 5 was tested in campaign mode with the highest ultra preset. This game saw
one of the larger differences out of all games tested, which I suspect is a result of the
faster memory, as I’ve found this title to benefit from this. Anyway the Super was
14% faster at 1080p and 15.6% faster at 1440p.
Assassin’s Creed Odyssey was tested with the built in benchmark, and although I typically
find this test to be more CPU dependent, it received an above average increase with the
1660 Super, coming out 12% ahead at 1080p, and almost 15% ahead at 1440p.
I’ve tested Fortnite with the new Chapter 2 map, the replay feature was temporarily
removed when I did this testing, so I played through the same part of the game in the same
way for each test. At 1080p the 1660 Super was 9.6% ahead of the non super 1660, lowering
just slightly to a 9.2% lead at 1440p.
Ghost Recon Breakpoint was tested using the built in benchmark at very high settings,
and at 1080p the super card was 11% ahead of the non super, rising slightly to a 12.5%
improvement at 1440p.
Overwatch was tested playing in the practice range, and the differences were below average
here with the 1660 super 9% ahead at both 1080p and 1440p resolutions.
F1 2019 was tested with the built in benchmark at the highest ultra high setting preset,
and this was another game that was below the average out of the games I’ve tested, with
the 1660 super 8.5% ahead of the non super at 1080p, and only just slightly lower at
1440p.
PUBG was tested using the replay feature, with the exact same replay file used for each
test. At 1080p this game saw the biggest difference with the 1660 Super 19% in front of the non
super, however at 1440p it lowered to a 14% lead, which is still above the average, just
not quite as big of a change as 1080p.
Rainbow Six Siege was tested with the built in benchmark. At 1080p the 1660 Super was
11% ahead of the non super 1660, lowering to a 7% lead once we up the resolution to
1440p.
The Witcher 3 was tested with ultra settings, and as a game that tends to be more GPU bound
we’re seeing an above average increase with the 1660 super, which was 12% in front of
the non super at 1080p, increasing slightly to a 13.8% lead at 1440p.
Strange Brigade was tested as a Vulkan title using the built in benchmark. This game saw
one of the largest differences out of the 16 I’m looking at, with the 1660 super almost
17% ahead at 1080p, rising up to a 19% higher average frame rate at 1440p.
I’ve tested CS:GO with the Ulletical FPS benchmark, as I wanted to see how a game that
typically favours CPU power would behave. Sure enough, at 1080p this game had the second
smallest difference out of all titles tested, with the super just 6% faster than the non
super, however at 1440p things turned around, with the super now just under 11% ahead.
Far Cry New Dawn was tested with the game’s benchmark tool. At 1080p it was basically
right on the average for all games tested with an 11% higher average frame rate on the
1660 Super, rising up to a 14% lead at 1440p.
In terms of overall improvement, over all 16 games on average the GTX 1660 Super was
performing 11% better when compared against the GTX 1660 in terms of average FPS. As you
can see, the results can vary quite a bit between specific game. Games that rely more
on the CPU such as CS:GO are closer to the bottom, with GPU heavier titles stacking the
top.
When we step the resolution up to 1440p the difference only changes slightly, on average
the GTX 1660 Super is now 11.5% ahead of the GTX 1660 on average, so not too much of a
change there with the higher resolution. I don’t think the 1660 Super is a great choice
for 1440p gaming, I was just interested to see the results, as higher resolutions are
typically more GPU bound and can be useful for comparison purposes.
As for the differences in total system power draw the system with the 1660 Super was using
12.8% more power with the F1 2019 benchmark running, so a little more than the 11% increase
we saw to average frame rate.
Temperatures were quite close, with the Super just 1 degree higher, again in the same F1
2019 test. The results should be pretty accurate, as I used MSI’s Gaming X version of each
with the same cooling design.
Now for the final difference, the price. I suggest checking updated prices using the
links in the description, as prices will change over time. I don’t currently have US pricing
as the 1660 Super isn’t out at the time of making this video, however I believe it’s
just $10 more than the 1660. Here in Australia I’ve been advised that MSI’s Gaming X
1660 Super I tested with here will go for $439 AUD, so that’s $20 AUD more than the
same 1660 I used for testing, or under 4.8% more money.
Essentially this means it costs around 5% more to get on average 11% more performance
in games, making the 1660 Super look like a good option when compared against the older
1660, at least if you’re buying today, obviously there’s no point upgrading from a 1660 to
the Super. Nvidia are likely refreshing the 1660 Super ahead of AMD’s upcoming options,
so it will be interesting to see how those stack up in future comparisons.
Let me know which you’d pick and why down in the comments, GTX 1660 or 1660 Super?
This specific comparison is of course only relative between these two cards, I’ll be
comparing the 1660 Super with the 1660 Ti in an upcoming video, so if you’re new to
the channel consider getting subscribed for that comparison as well as for future tech
videos like this one.