GTX 1660 vs RX 580
The complete head-to-head: full specs, real per-game FPS with 1% lows, ray tracing, a live CPU-bottleneck check, thermals, power and value, with a straight verdict.
GeForce GTX 1660
Radeon RX 580
avg, 1080p
The short answer
The GTX 1660 is the better card today, about 23% faster on average, 65 watts cooler, and it still gets current drivers on a real architecture (Turing) rather than one that stopped receiving new features years ago. The RX 580 answers back with 8 GB of VRAM against the 1660's 6 GB and a much lower price on the used market, and its wider 256-bit bus keeps it from falling over in memory-heavy titles the way a 6 GB card eventually will. Both are budget 1080p cards in 2026, not 1440p cards, so buy on price and condition first.
Both of these cards are old enough to buy a house with in some markets, but they still show up constantly in budget and hand-me-down builds. The GTX 1660 is a Turing-generation card with no RT or Tensor cores, essentially a GTX 2070's little brother stripped of ray tracing. The RX 580 is two years older, built on AMD's Polaris architecture, and was the go-to budget card of the late 2010s thanks to relentless price cuts and mining-era overproduction that left millions of them on the used market.
This page runs the 1080p benchmarks, thermal and power draw comparisons, and price trends for both, then settles the one question that actually matters at these prices: which is the smarter buy today, not which was more expensive back in 2019.
At a glance
Seven dimensions, two cards. Bigger area is not automatically better, each card owns different corners.
Strengths radar
Each axis scored 0-100 relative to the pair
Performance vs price
Up and to the left is better value
Grey dots are neighbouring cards for context.
Which should you buy?
Pick your use case, the winner changes with what you actually do.
23% faster on average and noticeably smoother 1% lows in modern titles, the clearer buy for pure frame rate.
8 GB of VRAM on a 256-bit bus holds textures better in games from its own era, where the 1660's 6 GB can start swapping.
Neither is a real AI card, but CUDA support and a newer driver stack make the 1660 far less of a headache to get running.
NVENC on Turing is meaningfully better than Polaris's aging VCE encoder for stream and export quality at the same bitrate.
120 W against 185 W means a smaller PSU, less case heat, and an easier fit in a compact build.
At around $55 used, the RX 580 is the cheapest way into 1080p gaming here, even after accounting for its higher running cost.
Own either one already? Neither is worth swapping for the other.
Short answer: probably not
If you already have an RX 580, the 1660's 23% gain is real but not transformative, and you'd be giving up 2 GB of VRAM to get it. If you already have a GTX 1660, the RX 580 is a straight downgrade in speed and efficiency, its only edge is a fatter memory bus that mostly matters in older, texture-heavy games at max settings.
Either card is genuinely near the end of its useful life for modern AAA titles. If you're spending money, skip this comparison entirely and look at something like a used RTX 3050 or RX 6600, both are a real generational jump over anything here for not much more cash.
Full specification comparison
Every spec side by side. The highlighted figure wins each row.
| Specification | GTX 1660 | RX 580 |
|---|---|---|
| Architecture | ||
| GPU / architecture | TU116 · Turing | Polaris 20 XT · GCN 4 |
| Process node | TSMC 12 nm ▲ | GF/Samsung 14 nm |
| Release date | Mar 14, 2019 | Apr 18, 2017 |
| Launch MSRP | $219 ▲ | $229 |
| Compute | ||
| CUDA cores / stream processors | 1,408 | 2,304 SP ▲ |
| RT cores | None | None |
| Tensor cores | None | None |
| Base / boost clock | 1530 / 1785 MHz ▲ | 1257 / 1340 MHz |
| L2 cache | 1.5 MB | 2 MB ▲ |
| Memory | ||
| VRAM | 6 GB GDDR5 | 8 GB GDDR5 ▲ |
| Memory bus | 192-bit | 256-bit ▲ |
| Bandwidth | 192 GB/s | 256 GB/s ▲ |
| Power & form factor | ||
| TDP | 120 W ▲ | 185 W |
| Power connector | 1× 8-pin | 1× 6-pin + 1× 8-pin |
| Suggested PSU | 450 W ▲ | 500 W |
| PCIe interface | 3.0 ×16 | 3.0 ×16 |
| Features | ||
| Upscaling | FSR 1/2 (no DLSS) | FSR 1/2 (no dedicated HW) |
| AV1 encode | No | No |
| Display outputs | 3×DP1.4 · HDMI2.0b · DVI-D | DVI-D · HDMI2.0b · 3×DP1.4 |
Average FPS by game
Switch resolution, metric, ray tracing and upscaling, the bars update live. Hover a bar for the avg / 1% / 0.1% breakdown.
Average FPS · 1080p · Rasterization. Representative data, hover a bar for avg / 1% / 0.1%. Note the RX 580's 1% lows fall off at 1440p and up from its 8 GB VRAM.
Smoothness & frametimes
Average FPS hides stutter. This is one run plotted as frametime, a flat line is smooth, spikes are hitches. Watch what the RX 580's 8 GB VRAM does in a texture-heavy game.
Frametime: Hogwarts Legacy, 1080p Ultra
Lower and flatter is better · 16.7 ms = 60 fps
Counterintuitive but real: the slower GTX 1660 delivers a smoother line here because 12 GB holds the texture pool the 8 GB RX 580 keeps evicting, those spikes are VRAM stutter, not raw speed.
Lab scores
Clean apples-to-apples tests, useful, but weaker at predicting real games than the FPS above.
Ray tracing & upscaling
Ray tracing tanks both cards at native resolution. What makes it playable is upscaling, and here the RX 580 has a real edge.
Is frame generation "real" performance?
Neither card supports frame generation of any kind. DLSS 3 needs RTX 40-series Tensor cores the 1660 never had, and while AMD's FSR 3 frame-gen component is more hardware-open than DLSS, neither of these GPUs has the raw shader throughput to make it worthwhile, you would mostly just add input latency for a number that doesn't reflect real responsiveness.
If smoother motion at low base frame rates matters to you, that is a reason to look at a newer card entirely, not a reason to pick between these two.
Will your CPU bottleneck these cards?
A faster GPU only helps if your CPU keeps up. Pick your CPU and resolution to see expected FPS and bottleneck for each card.
CPU + GPU pairing check
The willitbottleneck engine, built right into the comparison.
Estimated from a 43-CPU model across 1440p. A weak CPU mostly bites at 1080p; at higher resolutions the GPU becomes the limiter and the bottleneck shrinks.
Thermals & noise
The efficiency gap shows up here: the newer card runs cooler and quieter, day in and day out.
Real draw, efficiency & PSU
TDP is the rated figure; what matters is real gaming draw and how many frames you get per watt.
Both use a single 8-pin connector. If your PSU already ran the GTX 1660, it will run the RX 580 easily. Leave about 30% headroom for spikes.
Will it fit, and what to pair it with?
Size to scale
Card length matters for small cases
What monitor to pair
GTX 1660: comfortable at 1080p 100+ Hz on most titles, drops to 60-80 fps territory at 1440p. RX 580: best kept to 1080p 60-75 Hz. Neither card is a sensible 1440p purchase in 2026, and 4K is off the table for both.
Running an older PCIe 3.0 board?
Neither card can saturate a PCIe 3.0 x16 link at this performance level, so a newer PCIe 4.0 board buys nothing for the 1660 or the RX 580. An older x16 3.0 slot runs both at full, unrestricted speed.
Price history & dollars-per-frame
Raw price is only half the story. Cost per frame is the number that decides it, and it keeps moving as prices fall.
New price over time
Street price of new cards (USD)
The 6 GB vs 8 GB question
GTX 1660 · 6 GB
- 6 GB is enough for the large majority of 1080p titles at high, not ultra, settings through 2026.
- Turing's better memory compression partly offsets the smaller raw capacity versus the 580's 8 GB.
- Modern texture packs at ultra settings can push past 6 GB and force a quality drop the 580 doesn't need.
- No headroom for local AI workloads or large creative projects, this is a gaming-only allocation.
RX 580 · 8 GB
- 8 GB on a 256-bit bus keeps ultra textures loaded in older and lighter titles without stutter.
- The wider bus and larger pool age better in modding-heavy games like Skyrim or Fallout with high-res texture packs.
- The core itself is 23% slower on average, so the extra memory rarely translates into a smoother overall experience.
- Polaris's compression is far less efficient than Turing's, so the raw GB advantage is smaller in practice than it looks.
Emulation & memory bandwidth
The narrower bus is a real downgrade for emulation
Both cards are dated for demanding emulation, but the RX 580's 256 GB/s bandwidth and 8 GB pool give it a real edge in higher-resolution Switch and PS3 emulation, where memory bandwidth and capacity matter more than raw shader speed. For 1080p-native emulation targets, the GTX 1660's faster core wins instead. Neither is a good pick if serious emulation is your main goal, look at a newer card.
Creator, AI & streaming
The newer card is quicker per task, but the older card's extra VRAM unlocks larger jobs it can't fit at all.
Streaming: the AV1 encoder is the differentiator
NVIDIA's NVENC encoder on Turing produces meaningfully cleaner output at a given bitrate than AMD's older VCE block on Polaris, and it's more consistently supported across OBS, Discord, and streaming software. If streaming or recording matters at all, that alone tips this comparison toward the GTX 1660.
Overclocking & undervolting
The GTX 1660 has modest but usable overclocking headroom, typically 8-10% with a stable undervolt alongside it. The RX 580 already ships close to its practical clock ceiling from the factory, an undervolt to cut heat and noise is the better move than chasing more MHz.
Pros & cons
GTX 1660
- 23% faster on average with better 1% lows
- 65 W lower power draw, cooler and quieter
- Better encoder and current driver support
- 6 GB VRAM versus the 580's 8 GB
- Narrower 192-bit memory bus
RX 580
- 8 GB VRAM on a wider 256-bit bus
- The cheapest entry point of the two, often under $50 used
- Holds up in older, texture-heavy or modded titles
- 185 W draw runs hot and loud under load
- 23% slower on average with weaker 1% lows
Buying pitfalls
The RX 580 came in 4 GB and 8 GB versions
The 8 GB RX 580 is the one to get, a 4 GB version also exists and ages badly since textures overflow 4 GB at 1080p high. All figures here assume the 8 GB card, so check the listing before buying used.
Both are past new feature updates
Both still get security and game-ready driver updates, but neither will ever gain new upscaling tech, RT support, or AV1 encoding, those require newer hardware entirely. Budget for a replacement within the next couple of years rather than expecting either card to gain capability over time.
GTX 1660 vs RX 580: your questions answered
For gaming today, yes, it's about 23% faster on average, runs 65 watts cooler, and has a meaningfully better video encoder. The RX 580 answers with 2 GB more VRAM on a wider bus and a lower used price.
Only if the price gap is large. Buy the GTX 1660 if you can find one within about $20-30 of an RX 580, the extra speed and lower running cost are worth it. Buy the RX 580 only when it's the clearly cheaper option.
Both are firmly budget 1080p cards at this point, fine for esports titles and older or lighter AAA games at medium-high settings, but neither handles demanding modern titles at ultra settings comfortably. Treat either as a stopgap, not a long-term build.
Pretty much, yes. Neither is a real AI card, but the GTX 1660 is the far less painful choice, CUDA support and a current driver stack matter more than the RX 580's extra VRAM when the tooling itself barely runs on old AMD hardware.
For streaming and editing, yes. NVENC on the 1660's Turing chip produces cleaner video at the same bitrate than the RX 580's aging VCE encoder, and it's far better supported by OBS and editing software.
Essentially, yes. Neither has dedicated RT hardware. The GTX 1660 can technically run some ray-traced effects through a slow software fallback NVIDIA enabled in 2019, but it's not a usable experience in any demanding game.
Yes, both can use FSR 1 and FSR 2 since those are shader-based and work on any DX11/12 card. Neither has DLSS or any form of frame generation, the 1660 lacks Tensor cores for that.
It's the reverse at this performance tier, almost any CPU from the last decade keeps up with these GPUs. A budget quad-core from 2018 onward won't meaningfully hold either card back at 1080p.
A fair amount. The GTX 1660 draws about 118 W under gaming load against the RX 580's 185 W, a big gap that shows up directly in temperatures and fan noise. The 1660 is the clearly cooler, quieter card.
Yes. A decent 450 W unit covers the GTX 1660 comfortably, while the RX 580 wants at least 500 W given its higher draw and transient spikes. Either way, don't cheap out on the power supply itself.
Length a bit, generation not at all. Most GTX 1660 cards run around 229 mm, RX 580 partner cards are usually a bit longer at 240 mm-plus, check your case clearance. Both use a full PCIe 3.0 x16 link, so an older motherboard costs you nothing.
Not directly. There's no standard mobile GTX 1660, only a different chip, the GTX 1660 Ti Mobile, and AMD never released a laptop RX 580. If you're shopping for a laptop, this comparison doesn't apply.
Barely, and only as a stretch. Both are 1080p cards through and through, and even 1440p struggles in demanding modern titles. Don't buy either with 4K or consistent 1440p in mind.
Used, both cards are effectively used-market-only at this point, new stock is scarce and not worth a premium. Buy from a seller with a return window, ask for a stress-test screenshot, and avoid cards with obvious mining wear.
Yes, both are still receiving security and compatibility updates as of 2026, but neither will gain new features, RT support, or upscaling tech going forward. Expect that support to keep shrinking as new games drop compatibility with older hardware.
Because two versions exist. The 8 GB version, which this page covers, holds high-resolution textures far better at 1080p ultra settings. The 4 GB version is meaningfully worse in modern titles, treat it as a different, lesser product when shopping used.