Component comparison

GeForce GTX 1660 Ti vs GeForce 940M

GeForce GTX 1660 Ti vs GeForce 940M — detailed GPU comparison: performance, gaming FPS, specifications.

Advantages

A GeForce GTX 1660 Ti
  • + Release year (+4)
  • + VRAM (GB) (+4 GB)
  • + Memory clock (MHz) (+600 MHz)
  • + Bandwidth (GB/s) (+274 GB/s)
  • + Memory bus (bit) (+128 bit)
  • + TGP / TDP (W) (+5 W)
  • + Lithography (nm) (-16 nm)
  • + Transistors (M) (+4,730M)
  • + CUDA cores (+1152)
  • + TMUs (+72)
  • + ROPs (+40)
  • + FP32 performance (TFLOPS) (+3.20 TFLOPS)
  • + Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) (+67.39 GPixel/s)
  • + Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) (+134.76 GTexel/s)
  • + Energy efficiency (+18.5)
  • + PassMark (overall) (+11485)
  • + 3DMark Fire Strike (+13196)
  • + Geekbench OpenCL (+54886)
  • + Geekbench Vulkan (+53581)
  • + Normalized score (+57.5)
B GeForce 940M
  • + Die size (mm²) (+136 mm²)

Detailed spec comparison

Spec Component A
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti
Component B
GeForce 940M
Release year 2019 (+4) 2015
VRAM (GB) 6 GB (+4 GB) 2 GB
Memory type GDDR6 DDR3
Memory clock (MHz) 1500 MHz (+600 MHz) 900 MHz
Bandwidth (GB/s) 288 GB/s (+274 GB/s) 14 GB/s
Memory bus (bit) 192 bit (+128 bit) 64 bit
TGP / TDP (W) 80 W (+5 W) 75 W
Lithography (nm) 12 nm (-16 nm) 28 nm
Transistors (M) 6,600M (+4,730M) 1,870M
Die size (mm²) 284 mm² 148 mm² (+136 mm²)
Base clock (MHz) — 1020 MHz
Boost clock (MHz) — 1098 MHz
CUDA cores 1,536 (+1152) 384
TMUs 96 (+72) 24
ROPs 48 (+40) 8
RT cores — —
Tensor cores — —
FP32 performance (TFLOPS) 4.10 TFLOPS (+3.20 TFLOPS) 0.90 TFLOPS
Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) 84.96 GPixel/s (+67.39 GPixel/s) 17.57 GPixel/s
Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) 169.90 GTexel/s (+134.76 GTexel/s) 35.14 GTexel/s
Energy efficiency 24.9 (+18.5) 6.4
PassMark (overall) 12,618 (+11485) 1,133
3DMark Time Spy 5,659 —
3DMark Fire Strike 14,818 (+13196) 1,622
Geekbench OpenCL 60,911 (+54886) 6,025
Geekbench Vulkan 58,130 (+53581) 4,549
Normalized score 63.7 (+57.5) 6.2

In both

CUDA

FPS in games (1080p)

Game GeForce GTX 1660 Ti GeForce 940M Delta
Anno 1800 69 FPS 7 FPS +885.7% (A)
Battlefield 5 111 FPS 17 FPS +552.9% (A)
CS:GO 240 FPS 240 FPS ≈
Counter-Strike 2 147 FPS 9 FPS +1533.3% (A)
Cyberpunk 2077 86 FPS 5 FPS +1620% (A)
Darksiders III 75 FPS 13 FPS +476.9% (A)
Doom 144 FPS 17 FPS +747.1% (A)
Dota 2 121 FPS 49 FPS +146.9% (A)
ELEX 90 FPS 11 FPS +718.2% (A)
F1 2018 126 FPS 17 FPS +641.2% (A)
F1 2019 121 FPS 18 FPS +572.2% (A)
FIFA 19 256 FPS 34 FPS +652.9% (A)
Far Cry 5 93 FPS 11 FPS +745.5% (A)
Farming Simulator 19 145 FPS 19 FPS +663.2% (A)
For Honor 120 FPS 14 FPS +757.1% (A)
Fortnite 120 FPS 36 FPS +233.3% (A)
Forza Horizon 4 134 FPS 14 FPS +857.1% (A)
Forza Horizon 5 107 FPS 6 FPS +1683.3% (A)
GTA V 140 FPS 140 FPS ≈
GTA V 124 FPS 14 FPS +785.7% (A)
Ghost Recon Wildlands 79 FPS 10 FPS +690% (A)
Kingdom Come: Deliverance 77 FPS 10 FPS +670% (A)
Metro Exodus 54 FPS 2 FPS +2600% (A)
Mirror's Edge Catalyst 101 FPS 12 FPS +741.7% (A)
Need for Speed Payback 113 FPS 13 FPS +769.2% (A)
Overwatch 240 FPS 240 FPS ≈
PUBG 140 FPS 140 FPS ≈
Rainbow Six Siege 201 FPS 20 FPS +905% (A)
Resident Evil 4 Remake 75 FPS 3 FPS +2400% (A)
Resident Evil 7 147 FPS 15 FPS +880% (A)
Rise of the Tomb Raider 86 FPS 10 FPS +760% (A)
Rocket League 209 FPS 24 FPS +770.8% (A)
Star Wars Battlefront 2 95 FPS 13 FPS +630.8% (A)
Star Wars Jedi Fallen Order 85 FPS 11 FPS +672.7% (A)
The Crew 2 60 FPS 11 FPS +445.5% (A)
The Witcher 3 103 FPS 10 FPS +930% (A)
The Witcher 3 93 FPS 10 FPS +830% (A)
Total War: Three Kingdoms 64 FPS 9 FPS +611.1% (A)
Valorant 209 FPS 40 FPS +422.5% (A)
World of Warships 148 FPS 37 FPS +300% (A)

Specs from public sources (PassMark, Geekbench). FPS measured at 1080p medium settings.

Based on the comparison: GeForce GTX 1660 Ti wins 20 of the comparable criteria. The choice depends on your use case.

🤔 How to choose

Universal advice for any use case.

  • Reliability vs price: reliability (median 50) ↔ price (median 385.1).
  • Weight vs CPU: mobility (median 48) ↔ overall performance (median 49.8).
  • Upgradeability vs battery: upgradability (median 50) ↔ battery life (median 2.8).