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

GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 1660 OC review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£360VRAM:6 GBMemory bus width:192 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):120 W

GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 1660 OC Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 13 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 1660 OC
6.5/10

Overall score

Score
6.5/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 82% of models
Score components

40%

5.1

Technical score

25%

8.4

Reviews score

25%

?

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

10%

5.1

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 82% of graphics cards
7.1

Value for money

Value for money
7.1/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 71% of models
Score components

70%

6.5

Overall score

30%

8.6

Price

â–¼Worse than 71%
5.1

Technical score

Technical score
5.1/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 83% of models
Score components

44%

3.3

Performance

24%

3.5

Memory

12%

8.9

Power

11%

7.7

Features

5%

9.6

Design

4%

8.7

Connectivity

â–¼Worse than 83%
8.4

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.4/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 85% of models

80%

8.3

Average grade

20%

8.7

Popularity

Grades by review (13)
8 reviews: 6 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 5 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.
â–²Better than 85%
?

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
  • gigabyte-geforce-gtx-1660-oc
  • gigabyte-geforce-gtx-1660-oc
  • gigabyte-geforce-gtx-1660-oc
  • gigabyte-geforce-gtx-1660-oc
  • gigabyte-geforce-gtx-1660-oc
gigabyte-geforce-gtx-1660-oc
gigabyte-geforce-gtx-1660-oc
gigabyte-geforce-gtx-1660-oc
gigabyte-geforce-gtx-1660-oc
gigabyte-geforce-gtx-1660-oc
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 GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 1660 OC

Based on 8 · 5

Reviewers praise its quiet fans, good value and compact, efficient design, but criticise limited memory and warm running; gaming performance divides opinion.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 1660 OC

Technical score
Technical score
5.1/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 83% of models
Score components:

44%

3.3

Performance

24%

3.5

Memory

12%

8.9

Power

11%

7.7

Features

5%

9.6

Design

4%

8.7

Connectivity

5.1
Reviews score
8.4
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.1/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 71% of models
Score components:

70%

6.5

Overall score

30%

8.6

Price

7.1
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
5,000 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 5,000 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 84.8% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
1,401 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 1,401 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 80.7% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
11,737 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 11,737 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 81.4% of graphics cards and equal to 0.2% 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 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 192 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 87.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.5% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
8,002 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 8,002 MHz, which is slower than that of 85.8% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.3% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
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
4
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 4 displays, which is more than 9% of graphics cards and equal to 88.2% 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
3
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 3 DisplayPort outputs, which is more than 21.7% of graphics cards and equal to 76% 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
5.4 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 5.4 Gbps, which is slower than on 87.9% of graphics cards and equal to 6% 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
134 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 134 W under peak load, which is lower than 80.2% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% 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
175 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 175 W, which is lower than that of 66.5% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.2% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
120 W
Show more
What reviewers say
Size
224x 121x 40 mm
Length
224 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 224 mm long, which is shorter than 84.1% of graphics cards and equal in length to 0.1% of graphics cards.
Height
121 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 121 mm tall, which is shorter than 56.5% of graphics cards and equal in height to 1.8% of graphics cards.
Slot width
2 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 2 slot/s, which is slimmer than 52.4% of graphics cards and equal in width to 43.4% of graphics cards.
Weight
600 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 600 g, which is lighter than 86.3% of Graphics cards and equal to 0.5% of Graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say

GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 1660 OC 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
  • 58.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (224 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    224 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 16.7% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.4/ 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
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 85% of models

    80%

    8.3

    Average grade

    20%

    8.7

    Popularity

    Grades by review (13)
    8 reviews: 6 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 5 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.
    8.4 vs 7.2
  • 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
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 16.7% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.4/ 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
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 85% of models

    80%

    8.3

    Average grade

    20%

    8.7

    Popularity

    Grades by review (13)
    8 reviews: 6 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 5 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.
    8.4 vs 7.2
  • 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
  • 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
  • 58.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (224 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    224 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 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
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • 26.9% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,830 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,830 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
  • 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
  • 1 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • 34.6% lower sentiment score
    5.1 vs 7.8
  • 4% worse value for money
    GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 1660 OC has worse value for money than the average graphics card (7.13 vs 7.4).
    7.13 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
  • 26.9% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,830 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,830 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
  • 57.4% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (161 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    161 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
  • 45.5% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (87.8 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    87.84 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
  • 48.2% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (11,737 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    11,737 points vs 22,638 points
  • 66.2% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (5,000 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    5,000 points vs 14,779 points
  • 84.7% lower ray tracing score
    This graphics card has a lower ray tracing score than the average graphics card (1,401 points vs 9,148 points). The average graphics card has a ray tracing score of 9,148 points.
    1,401 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
  • 64.5% lower FP16 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP16 performance than the average graphics card (10.5 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP16 performance of 29.5 TFLOPS.
    10.47 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 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    192 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 (8,002 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    8,002 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 AI upscalers
    This graphics card does not support AI upscalers, the average graphics card does.
  • No Resizable BAR
    This graphics card does not support Resizable BAR, while the average graphics card does. 76.4% of Graphics cards support it.
  • Lower VRS tier
    This graphics card supports a lower VRS tier than the average graphics card (Tier 1 vs Tier 2).
    Tier 1 vs Tier 2
  • Older DirectX version
    This graphics card supports an older DirectX version than the average graphics card (12 vs 12 Ultimate).
    12 vs 12 Ultimate
  • Older OpenCL version
    This graphics card supports an older OpenCL version than the average graphics card (1.2 vs 3).
    1.2 vs 3
  • 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 (3 vs 3.1).
    3 vs 3.1
  • No AV1 encoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
  • 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
  • No 3D output
    This graphics card does not support 3D output, the average graphics card does.
  • 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
  • 75% lower DisplayPort bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower DisplayPort bandwidth than the average graphics card (5.4 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps). The average graphics card has DisplayPort bandwidth of 21.6 Gbps.
    5.4 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps
  • 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.
  • 11 °C higher idle temperature
    This graphics card has a higher idle temperature than the average graphics card (48 °C vs 37 °C). The average graphics card has an idle temperature of 37 °C.
    48 °C vs 37 °C

Video reviews

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

9.0
SilencedTech
≈ estimated
22/03/2019
Hands-on review · overclocking, temperatures and noise tests
Verdict
GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 1660 OC is a very capable card that beats the GTX 1060 in every game, but it needs decent cooling.
8.0
Inspire2Rise
≈ estimated
16/03/2019
Unboxing and hands-on review · gameplay and benchmarks
Verdict
GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 1660 OC is a solid entry-level pick for 1080p and streaming, though not for 4K.
9.0
wwjoshdew
≈ estimated
26/03/2019
Unboxing and first test · gaming at high settings
Verdict
GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 1660 OC delivers strong gaming performance for its price, and it is easy to recommend for 1080p.
Shop video
Not graded
Overview video
Overview video

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

8.0
pcmag.com
✓ explicit
14/03/2019
Benchmark review · Entry-level card
Verdict
The Gigabyte GTX 1660 OC 6G handles 1080p games well and beats the GTX 1060 in most gaming tests, but it has no lighting and no DVI port.
8.0
uk.pcmag.com
✓ explicit
14/03/2019
Benchmark review · Entry-level card
Verdict
The Gigabyte GTX 1660 OC 6G is a strong 1080p card, quiet and capable at 1440p in some titles, but it runs warm under stress and overclocks poorly.
9.0
techradar.com
✓ explicit
14/03/2019
Performance test · Entry-level card
Verdict
The Gigabyte GTX 1660 OC 6G suits 1080p gaming and livestreaming well, but 1440p and 4K frame rates swing widely from game to game.
8.0
trustedreviews.com
✓ explicit
14/03/2019
Benchmark review · Full HD gaming
Verdict
The Gigabyte GTX 1660 is a strong, efficient Full HD card, though its QHD and 4K results are weak and the GTX 1660 Ti is faster.
8.0
au.pcmag.com
✓ explicit
15/03/2019
Benchmark review · Entry-level card
Verdict
The Gigabyte GTX 1660 OC 6G is a quiet card that suits 1080p gaming and holds up at 1440p in some titles, though it runs warm in stress tests.
8.0
vonguru.fr
≈ estimated
25/03/2019
Lab test · Entry-level card
Verdict
The Gigabyte GTX 1660 Gaming OC is a cool, quiet entry-level card with a solid metal backplate, but it drops DVI and uses slower GDDR5 memory.
8.4
profesionalreview.com
✓ explicit
14/03/2019
Benchmark review · Mid-range card
Verdict
The Gigabyte GTX 1660 Gaming OC is a quiet mid-range card for 1080p gaming, but it lacks ray tracing and DLSS and uses GDDR5 memory.
8.0
techtesters.eu
≈ estimated
14/03/2019
Video review · Mid-range card
Verdict
The Gigabyte GTX 1660 Gaming OC is a cool, quiet choice for 1080p gaming, but the GTX 1660 Ti has more headroom for demanding titles.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 1660 OC

  • Excellent 1080p performance, handling most AAA titles at high settings smoothly.
  • Efficient Windforce 2X cooling system keeps the card consistently cool during heavy use.
  • Remarkably quiet operation, even under significant graphical load.
  • Highly energy-efficient with low power consumption, requiring only a standard 8-pin connector.
  • Solid price-to-performance value compared to older mid-range cards like the GTX 1060.
  • Compact 8.8-inch design fits easily into smaller MicroATX cases.

What customers don't like about GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 1660 OC

  • Struggles to maintain stable 60 FPS in demanding games at 1440p or 4K resolutions.
  • Uses older GDDR5 memory instead of the faster GDDR6 found in 'Ti' or 'Super' models.
  • Plastic backplate and shroud feel less premium and may not aid heat dissipation as well as metal.
  • Proprietary Aorus Engine software can be buggy or prone to crashing during tuning.
  • Lacks dedicated Ray Tracing and DLSS cores found in the RTX series.
  • Limited long-term future-proofing due to only 6GB of VRAM.

Verdict

The Gigabyte GeForce GTX 1660 OC is a mid-range graphics card based on the 12nm Turing architecture, featuring 1,408 CUDA cores and 6GB of GDDR5 memory on a 192-bit bus. This factory-overclocked model delivers a boost clock of 1,830 MHz and utilizes the Windforce 2X cooling system with two 90mm alternate-spinning fans and composite copper heat pipes for efficient heat dissipation. Its main advantages include strong 1080p gaming performance that rivals the GTX 1070, a compact 224mm length suitable for smaller builds, and excellent power efficiency with a 120W TDP. However, notable drawbacks include the lack of dedicated Ray Tracing and Tensor cores (no DLSS support), the use of older GDDR5 memory instead of faster GDDR6, and a plastic backplate that offers structural support but provides no thermal benefits.

Compare GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 1660 OC 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 GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 1660 OC and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found