Component comparison
GeForce RTX 5060 vs GeForce GTX 1660 Ti
GeForce RTX 5060 vs GeForce GTX 1660 Ti — detailed GPU comparison: performance, gaming FPS, specifications.
Advantages
A
GeForce RTX 5060
- + Release year (+6)
- + VRAM (GB) (+2 GB)
- + Bandwidth (GB/s) (+160 GB/s)
- + Lithography (nm) (-7 nm)
- + Transistors (M) (+15,300M)
- + Die size (mm²) (+103 mm²)
- + CUDA cores (+2304)
- + TMUs (+24)
- + FP32 performance (TFLOPS) (+15.08 TFLOPS)
- + Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) (+34.94 GPixel/s)
- + Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) (+129.70 GTexel/s)
- + Energy efficiency (+44.3)
- + PassMark (overall) (+4131)
- + 3DMark Fire Strike (+16548)
B
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti
- + Memory bus (bit) (+64 bit)
- + TGP / TDP (W) (+35 W)
- + Normalized score (+13.4)
Detailed spec comparison
| Spec |
Component A
GeForce RTX 5060
|
Component B
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti
|
|---|---|---|
| Release year | 2025 (+6) | 2019 |
| VRAM (GB) | 8 GB (+2 GB) | 6 GB |
| Memory type | GDDR7 | GDDR6 |
| Memory clock (MHz) | 1500 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Bandwidth (GB/s) | 448 GB/s (+160 GB/s) | 288 GB/s |
| Memory bus (bit) | 128 bit | 192 bit (+64 bit) |
| TGP / TDP (W) | 45 W | 80 W (+35 W) |
| Lithography (nm) | 5 nm (-7 nm) | 12 nm |
| Transistors (M) | 21,900M (+15,300M) | 6,600M |
| Die size (mm²) | 181 mm² (+103 mm²) | 284 mm² |
| Base clock (MHz) | — | — |
| Boost clock (MHz) | — | — |
| CUDA cores | 3,840 (+2304) | 1,536 |
| TMUs | 120 (+24) | 96 |
| ROPs | 48 | 48 |
| RT cores | 30 | — |
| Tensor cores | 120 | — |
| FP32 performance (TFLOPS) | 19.18 TFLOPS (+15.08 TFLOPS) | 4.10 TFLOPS |
| Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) | 119.90 GPixel/s (+34.94 GPixel/s) | 84.96 GPixel/s |
| Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) | 299.60 GTexel/s (+129.70 GTexel/s) | 169.90 GTexel/s |
| Energy efficiency | 69.2 (+44.3) | 24.9 |
| PassMark (overall) | 16,749 (+4131) | 12,618 |
| 3DMark Time Spy | — | 5,659 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike | 31,366 (+16548) | 14,818 |
| Geekbench OpenCL | — | 60,911 |
| Geekbench Vulkan | — | 58,130 |
| Normalized score | 50.3 | 63.7 (+13.4) |
Only in component A
DLSS
ReBAR
ray_tracing
In both
CUDA
FPS in games (1080p)
| Game | GeForce RTX 5060 | GeForce GTX 1660 Ti | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| Battlefield 5 | 130 FPS | 111 FPS | +17.1% (A) |
| CS:GO | 240 FPS | 240 FPS | ≈ |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 220 FPS | 147 FPS | +49.7% (A) |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 95 FPS | 86 FPS | +10.5% (A) |
| Escape from Tarkov | 120 FPS | 117 FPS | +2.6% (A) |
| Far Cry 5 | 130 FPS | 93 FPS | +39.8% (A) |
| Fortnite | 170 FPS | 120 FPS | +41.7% (A) |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 150 FPS | 134 FPS | +11.9% (A) |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 255 FPS | 107 FPS | +138.3% (A) |
| GTA V | 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
| Metro Exodus | 95 FPS | 54 FPS | +75.9% (A) |
| Overwatch | 240 FPS | 240 FPS | ≈ |
| PUBG | 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 110 FPS | 75 FPS | +46.7% (A) |
| The Witcher 3 | 140 FPS | 103 FPS | +35.9% (A) |
| Valorant | 230 FPS | 209 FPS | +10% (A) |
Specs from public sources (PassMark, Geekbench). FPS measured at 1080p medium settings.
Based on the comparison:
GeForce RTX 5060 wins 14 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).