OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v3.0

ASUS TUF GeForce GTX 1660 Gaming review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£210VRAM:6 GBMemory bus width:192 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):120 W

ASUS TUF GeForce GTX 1660 Gaming Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 4 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

ASUS TUF GeForce GTX 1660 Gaming
5.5/10

Overall score

Score
5.5/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 93% of models
Score components

40%

4.9

Technical score

25%

4.9

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

4.9

Sentiment score

▼Worse than 93% of graphics cards
6.7

Value for money

Value for money
6.7/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 83% of models
Score components

70%

5.5

Overall score

30%

9.4

Price

▼Worse than 83%
4.9

Technical score

Technical score
4.9/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 85% of models
Score components

44%

3.3

Performance

24%

3.5

Memory

12%

8.5

Power

11%

7.9

Features

5%

9.1

Design

4%

5.8

Connectivity

▼Worse than 85%
4.9

Reviews score

Reviews score
4.9/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 90% of models

4.9

Mark 7.6 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.6

Average grade

20%

8.0

Popularity

Grades by review (4)
2 reviews: 2 with a printed score, 0 estimated from the review. 2 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
▼Worse than 90%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • asus-tuf-geforce-gtx-1660-gaming
  • asus-tuf-geforce-gtx-1660-gaming
  • asus-tuf-geforce-gtx-1660-gaming
  • asus-tuf-geforce-gtx-1660-gaming
  • asus-tuf-geforce-gtx-1660-gaming
  • asus-tuf-geforce-gtx-1660-gaming
  • asus-tuf-geforce-gtx-1660-gaming
  • asus-tuf-geforce-gtx-1660-gaming
  • asus-tuf-geforce-gtx-1660-gaming
asus-tuf-geforce-gtx-1660-gaming
asus-tuf-geforce-gtx-1660-gaming
asus-tuf-geforce-gtx-1660-gaming
asus-tuf-geforce-gtx-1660-gaming
asus-tuf-geforce-gtx-1660-gaming
asus-tuf-geforce-gtx-1660-gaming
asus-tuf-geforce-gtx-1660-gaming
asus-tuf-geforce-gtx-1660-gaming
asus-tuf-geforce-gtx-1660-gaming
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the ASUS TUF GeForce GTX 1660 Gaming

Based on 2 · 2

Reviewers agree it fits easily into most cases, but are split on whether its gaming performance is good enough.
Praised
Mixed views
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card ASUS TUF GeForce GTX 1660 Gaming

Technical score
Technical score
4.9/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 85% of models
Score components:

44%

3.3

Performance

24%

3.5

Memory

12%

8.5

Power

11%

7.9

Features

5%

9.1

Design

4%

5.8

Connectivity

4.9
Reviews score
4.9
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.7/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 83% of models
Score components:

70%

5.5

Overall score

30%

9.4

Price

6.7
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
6,000 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 6,000 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 83% of graphics cards and equal to 0.4% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
1,070 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 1,070 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 81.2% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
12,053 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 12,053 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 80.9% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
4,950 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 4,950 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 83.5% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
5.03 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 5.03 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 86.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.4% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
VRAM
6 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 6 GB of VRAM, which is less than 82.5% of graphics cards and equal to 5.1% of graphics cards.
Memory type
GDDR5
This graphics card uses GDDR5 memory, which is older than on 85.4% of graphics cards and equal to 13.2% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
192 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 192 bit memory bus, which is wider than that of 31.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 18.7% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
192.1 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 192.1 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 87.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.2% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
8,000 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 8,000 MHz, which is slower than that of 86.1% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.6% of graphics cards.
Show more
PCI Express (PCIe) version
3
This graphics card supports PCIe 3, which is older than on 77.6% of graphics cards and equal to 20.1% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x16
This graphics card uses x16 PCIe lanes, which is more than 24.1% of graphics cards and equal to 75.9% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
12
This graphics card supports DirectX 12, which is older than on 81.8% of graphics cards and equal to 17% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.4
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.4, which is more advanced than on 20.8% of graphics cards and equal to 79.2% of graphics cards.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 2% of graphics cards and equal to 98% of graphics cards.
Show more
Max displays supported
3
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 3 displays, which is fewer than 91% of graphics cards and equal to 6.6% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
7680x4320
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320, which is higher than that of 9.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 90.9% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
1
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 1 DisplayPort outputs, which is fewer than 88.1% of graphics cards and equal to 8.7% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
1.4a
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.4a, which is more advanced than on 19.3% of graphics cards and equal to 46.3% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
25.92 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 25.92 Gbps, which is faster than on 51.7% of graphics cards and equal to 4.3% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
120 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 120 W, which is lower than that of 82.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.3% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
120 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 120 W under peak load, which is lower than 85.6% of graphics cards and equal to 1.5% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
450 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 450 W PSU, which is lower than that of 84% of graphics cards and equal to that of 6.1% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
120 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 120 W, which is lower than that of 85.8% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.4% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
120 W
Show more
Size
204x 128x 42 mm
Length
205 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 205 mm long, which is shorter than 87.8% of graphics cards and equal in length to 0.3% of graphics cards.
Height
123 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 123 mm tall, which is shorter than 54.9% of graphics cards and equal in height to 0.7% of graphics cards.
Slot width
2.3 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 2.3 slot/s, which is slimmer than 50.4% of graphics cards and equal in width to 0.3% of graphics cards.
Weight
900 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 900 g, which is lighter than 63.2% of Graphics cards and equal to 0.8% of Graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say

ASUS TUF GeForce GTX 1660 Gaming vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 44.2% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (120 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    120 W vs 215 W
  • 30.8% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (450 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    450 W vs 650 W
  • 77.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (205 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    205 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 14.3% faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (2001 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    2,001 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 45.5% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (120 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    120 W vs 220 W
  • 1 more DVI outputs
    This graphics card has more DVI outputs than the average graphics card (1 vs 0). The average graphics card has 0 DVI outputs.
    1 vs 0
  • 2.48x cheaper
    ASUS TUF GeForce GTX 1660 Gaming is cheaper than the average graphics card (£210 vs £520).
    £210 vs £520
  • 7 °C lower idle temperature
    This graphics card has a lower idle temperature than the average graphics card (30 °C vs 37 °C). The average graphics card has an idle temperature of 37 °C.
    30 °C vs 37 °C
  • 2.48x cheaper
    ASUS TUF GeForce GTX 1660 Gaming is cheaper than the average graphics card (£210 vs £520).
    £210 vs £520
  • 14.3% faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (2001 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    2,001 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 1 more DVI outputs
    This graphics card has more DVI outputs than the average graphics card (1 vs 0). The average graphics card has 0 DVI outputs.
    1 vs 0
  • 44.2% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (120 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    120 W vs 215 W
  • 30.8% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (450 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    450 W vs 650 W
  • 45.5% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (120 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    120 W vs 220 W
  • 7 °C lower idle temperature
    This graphics card has a lower idle temperature than the average graphics card (30 °C vs 37 °C). The average graphics card has an idle temperature of 37 °C.
    30 °C vs 37 °C
  • 77.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (205 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    205 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 6 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (6 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    6 GB vs 12 GB
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 28.7% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,785 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,785 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • 31.9% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.9/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▼ Worse than 90% of models

    4.9

    Mark 7.6 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.6

    Average grade

    20%

    8.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (4)
    2 reviews: 2 with a printed score, 0 estimated from the review. 2 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    4.9 vs 7.2
  • 18 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (22 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    22 vs 40
  • 2.4x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (12 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    12 nm vs 5 nm
  • 96 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (88 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    88 vs 184
  • 31.9% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.9/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▼ Worse than 90% of models

    4.9

    Mark 7.6 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.6

    Average grade

    20%

    8.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (4)
    2 reviews: 2 with a printed score, 0 estimated from the review. 2 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    4.9 vs 7.2
  • 37.2% lower sentiment score
    4.9 vs 7.8
  • 10.7% worse value for money
    ASUS TUF GeForce GTX 1660 Gaming has worse value for money than the average graphics card (6.7 vs 7.4).
    6.7 vs 7.41
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 28.7% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,785 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,785 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 18 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (22 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    22 vs 40
  • 96 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (88 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    88 vs 184
  • 58.4% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (157.1 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    157.1 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 144 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    0 vs 144
  • 46.9% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (85.7 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    85.68 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 77.7% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (5 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    5.03 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 20.3% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,530 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,530 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 16 fewer ROPs
    This graphics card has fewer ROPs than the average graphics card (48 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    48 vs 64
  • 4 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2019 vs 2023).
    March 2019
    2019 vs 2023
  • 46.8% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (12,053 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    12,053 points vs 22,638 points
  • 59.4% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (6,000 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    6,000 points vs 14,779 points
  • 88.3% lower ray tracing score
    This graphics card has a lower ray tracing score than the average graphics card (1,070 points vs 9,148 points). The average graphics card has a ray tracing score of 9,148 points.
    1,070 points vs 9,148 points
  • 66.7% lower FP64 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP64 performance than the average graphics card (0.2 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP64 performance of 0.48 TFLOPS.
    0.16 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS
  • 59% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (4,950 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    4,950 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 65.9% lower FP16 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP16 performance than the average graphics card (10.1 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP16 performance of 29.5 TFLOPS.
    10.05 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS
  • 2,944 fewer FP32 units
    This graphics card has fewer FP32 units than the average graphics card (1,408 vs 4,352). The average graphics card has 4,352 FP32 units.
    1,408 vs 4,352
  • 6 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (6 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    6 GB vs 12 GB
  • 57.1% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (192.1 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    192.1 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 57.9% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (8,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    8,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 95.8% smaller L2 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L2 cache than the average graphics card (1 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    1 MB vs 24 MB
  • 50% smaller L1 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L1 cache than the average graphics card (64 KB vs 128 KB). The average graphics card has 128 KB L1 cache.
    64 KB vs 128 KB
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • 2.4x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (12 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    12 nm vs 5 nm
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No ray tracing
    This graphics card does not support ray tracing, the average graphics card does.
  • Older PCIe version
    This graphics card supports an older PCIe version than the average graphics card (3 vs 4).
    3 vs 4
  • No Resizable BAR
    This graphics card does not support Resizable BAR, while the average graphics card does. 76.4% of Graphics cards support it.
  • Older DirectX version
    This graphics card supports an older DirectX version than the average graphics card (12 vs 12 Ultimate).
    12 vs 12 Ultimate
  • No sampler feedback
    This graphics card does not support sampler feedback, the average graphics card does.
  • 71.2% fewer transistors
    This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (6,600 million vs 22,900 million). The average graphics card has 22,900 million transistors.
    6,600 million vs 22,900 million
  • Older FSR version
    This graphics card supports an older FSR version than the average graphics card (1 vs 3.1).
    1 vs 3.1
  • 2 fewer DisplayPort outputs
    This graphics card has fewer DisplayPort outputs than the average graphics card (1 vs 3). The average graphics card has 3 DisplayPort outputs.
    1 vs 3
  • No AV1 encoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
  • 1 fewer displays supported
    This graphics card supports fewer displays than the average graphics card (3 vs 4). The average graphics card supports 4 displays.
    3 vs 4
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (2.0b vs 2.1a).
    2.0b vs 2.1a
  • No AV1 decoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 decoding, the average graphics card does.
  • More basic codec support
    This graphics card encodes more basic formats than the average graphics card (H.264/H.265 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9).
    H.264/H.265 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9
  • Older HDCP version
    This graphics card supports an older HDCP version than the average graphics card (2.2 vs 2.3).
    2.2 vs 2.3
  • Older NVDEC generation
    This graphics card has a lower NVDEC generation than the average graphics card (4 vs 6). The average graphics card offers NVDEC generation 6.
    4 vs 6
  • 1 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • No dual BIOS
    This graphics card does not include dual BIOS, the average graphics card does.
  • No fan stop
    This graphics card does not support fan stop, the average graphics card does.
  • 9.3 dB noisier under load
    This graphics card has a higher load noise level than the average graphics card (44.7 dB vs 35.4 dB). The average graphics card has a load noise level of 35.4 dB.
    44.7 dB vs 35.4 dB

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

6.0
Funkykit
≈ estimated
01/04/2019
Hands-on review · benchmarks and build check
Verdict
ASUS TUF GeForce GTX 1660 Gaming is a decent compact card, though not as tough as its name suggests; get the 1660 Ti for more performance.
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

8.0
ign.com
✓ explicit
06/04/2023
Benchmark review · Dual-fan design
Verdict
The ASUS GeForce GTX 1660 TUF Edition is a quiet, eight-inch card that holds 60 fps at 1440p, but the GTX 1660 Ti is noticeably faster.
8.0
pk.ign.com
✓ explicit
25/04/2019
Benchmark review · Mid-range design
Verdict
The ASUS GeForce GTX 1660 TUF Edition runs silently and holds 60 fps at 1440p, but the GTX 1660 Ti is a noticeably faster step up.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about ASUS TUF GeForce GTX 1660 Gaming

  • Efficient thermal management with load temperatures often staying around 67°C
  • Strong price-to-performance ratio for 1080p gaming
  • Compact dual-fan design makes it suitable for small form factor (Mini-ITX) builds
  • Lower power consumption (120W TDP) compared to higher-end cards
  • Built with TUF durability standards, including IP5X dust resistance for the fans

What customers don't like about ASUS TUF GeForce GTX 1660 Gaming

  • 6GB of VRAM can become a bottleneck for highly demanding modern titles or higher resolutions
  • Lacks dedicated Ray Tracing and DLSS support found in the RTX series
  • Fans can become audible under heavy load compared to premium triple-fan models
  • Basic aesthetic design with limited RGB lighting compared to ROG Strix variants

Verdict

The ASUS TUF GeForce GTX 1660 Gaming is a durable mid-range graphics card based on the NVIDIA Turing architecture, featuring 1,408 CUDA cores and 6GB of GDDR5 memory with a 192-bit interface. It is built for longevity using Auto-Extreme manufacturing and includes IP5X-certified dust resistance, dual ball fan bearings, and a rigid protective backplate to prevent PCB flex. Main advantages include solid 1080p gaming performance, high power efficiency with a 120W TDP, and a compact design that fits most chassis. However, it lacks dedicated ray-tracing (RT) and Tensor cores found in RTX models, and its older GDDR5 memory and 6GB capacity may limit performance in highly demanding modern titles or at resolutions above 1080p.

Compare ASUS TUF GeForce GTX 1660 Gaming with other products in the Graphics cards category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of ASUS TUF GeForce GTX 1660 Gaming and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found