7 ms·

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1660 Ti 6GB Review

115 points by babak_ap 8y ago

walrus01 8y ago
For the price, I'm kind of skeptical that it will outperform a previous-generation GeForce 1060. Which can be purchased from $259 to $299 in various places. I just got a 1060 that has 3 x displayport 1.4 outputs + 1 x HDMI 2.0 output, it can drive four 4K displays at 60 Hz. The 1060 is probably somewhat more power hungry and hot under load.
- jra101 8y ago
  "Looking at the numbers, the GeForce GTX 1660 Ti delivers around 37% more performance than the GTX 1060 6GB at 1440p, and a very similar 36% gain at 1080p"
- taspeotis 8y ago
  Benchmarks start on page 5.
- jplayer01 8y ago
  I'm sorry, what is there to be skeptical of? There are plenty of reviews with hard data and measurements. This isn't one of those things where something stops being true just because you refuse to look. https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/msi-geforce-gtx-1660-ti-ventus-xs-review,14.html https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/msi-geforce-gtx-1660-t... Now, whether it's worth another 279 to upgrade from the 1060, well, probably not. It is very much worth considering if you have an older card than from the 1000 series. It performs on par with a 1070, gets within spitting distance of the Vega 56 in 1080p/1440p in a bunch of games, and it's the most power efficient card out there.
  - walrus01 8y ago
    Yes, what I meant is that for a person who bought a 1060 two months ago, it's not worth spending the same $279 again to upgrade.
    - jplayer01 8y ago
      Oh definitely. The 1060 is plenty performant for modern games (except for pathological cases like Anthem) and somebody who owns one shouldn't be in any hurry to get the 1660. The 2060 is a better candidate for that, but pricey.
      - chx 8y ago
        Which makes it particularly sad the Galax SNPR 1060 eGPU didn't see a wider release. I have one, it's great.
r1ch 8y ago
The NVENC hardware encoder in Turing is actually comparable to x264 at fast / veryfast. This card will be quite interesting to Twitch streamers as it opens up the possibility to stream without CPU impact for those with a limited budget.
- akanet 8y ago
  A lot of people are comparing RTX's NVENC to x264 medium. Favorably, I might add: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fi9o2NyPaY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fi9o2NyPaY
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - the8472 8y ago
    I think some charts with SSIM measurements at various bitrates and resolutions etc. would be way more informative than a youtube video.
- Flott 8y ago
  Is the hardware encoder the same in every Turing based card or should we expect different performance when comparing ultra high end to mid range? (2080TI vs 1660TI)
  - akanet 8y ago
    It appears so far that the NVENC chip has been the same in all the RTX 20xx cards. I haven't looked into whether that is the case with the 1660 TI, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was.
LeoPanthera 8y ago
I'm very confused by Nvidia's numbering scheme. It used to be generation-model, so my 1080 is generation 10, and "80" is an arbitrary model number where higher is better. It's the logical successor to the 9-80. The 20-x cards I suppose are OK, a big jump to signify a big change in architecture. But now we have... 16-60? Why 16? Is this the successor to the 1060? And it's a "Ti", but there isn't a non-Ti 1660? I'm confused.
- tedunangst 8y ago
  More than 10, less than 20. The article says as much.
  - tootie 8y ago
    Like line numbering in BASIC. Leaves room to insert.
- tdhz77 8y ago
  It’s the new 1080p card since the 2060 can handle 1440p
- taspeotis 8y ago
  From NVIDIA [1] > As far as naming goes, and why 16 series instead of just using 11? Quite simply, we felt that from an overall architecture and performance perspective, TU116 is closer to the other TU10x parts than it is to prior generation GP10x. TU116 has most of the Turing architecture features, including the new dedicated cores for INT32 and FP16 operations, and it also has all of the new Turing shading features, including variable rate shading and mesh shading. And as you see, performance is closer to the GeForce RTX 2060 than it is to the GeForce GTX 1060. In fact just like you said, it performs closest to the GTX 1070, beating it in some games and losing some others. So we ultimately settled on 1660 Ti instead of 1160 Ti. ‘16’ is closer to 20, after all. [1] https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3445-evga-gtx-1660-ti-xc-review-benchmark https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3445-evga-gtx-1660-ti-...
  - imagooddriver 8y ago
Justsignedup 8y ago
The question is: With prices returning to sanity, is it a better bang for your buck to get a 1660 or 2060. Seems like a $100 difference. But the 2060 seems like still an amazing value today.
- Deimorz 8y ago
  It's a $70 difference, and the last page of the article has a chart that includes comparing a 1060 against both a 1660 and a 2060. Over a 1060, the 1660 gives a +36% performance boost for a +12% price difference, and the 2060 gives +59% performance for +40% price. So if you just want the best performance-per-dollar ratio, the 1660 is better, but the 2060 is probably better overall if you don't mind the extra cost (and it also supports the new RTX enhancements for ray-tracing and such).
- smacktoward 8y ago
  It comes down to whether you think RTX/raytracing will go from being a novelty to being a Must Have within the next few years. If it doesn’t, the 1660 would be the right choice, you’ll save some money now and can always get RTX in your next card if it makes sense then. On the other hand, if it does, getting the 2060 today will spare you having to buy a new card sooner than you normally would just to get RTX support.
  - skohan 8y ago
    But arguably, the 2060 is already the wrong card for the future of ray tracing. This current batch of cards are barely able to handle the limited ray-tracing features in the few fames its available in: i.e. one-bounce global illumination to a single light-source or reflections or ray-traced shadows. If ray tracing does become increasingly relevant, this batch of cards (and especially the 2060 at the bottom) are likely to become dated rather quickly. Also as with any bleeding-edge technology, you're paying an early-adopter premium for something which is likely to see relatively large inter-generation improvements.
  - swinglock 8y ago
    If ray tracing becomes widespread in games, my bet is you'll need a new card to run that ray tracing with a good enough visual fidelity and high performance anyway. This is just the first generation. I think of RTX like the first Oculus Rift. You shouldn't buy it to be future proof, it will be anything but, you buy it only because you're an enthusiast that want to play with the latest tech early and plans to upgrade before it breaks or become obsolete anyway.
beerlord 8y ago
Looks like 1440p gaming at a reasonable budget is finally here. Now we just need some good (non-curved) Nvidia-approved adaptive sync cards at 32" 1440p IPS.
sandeatr 8y ago
Why do they benchmark at 1080p, can't every card under the sun run games at 60fps with such a low resolution. And no 4k ? Wtf? Shouldn't that be the standard now.
- sixothree 8y ago
  > [...] $279 for a xx60 class card, and which performs like a $379 card from two years ago.
  - bitL 8y ago
    ...with 2GB less memory
- IntelMiner 8y ago
  1080p benchmarks are helpful for those of us on 144hz monitors at least Mine is "only" 1080p, but at 144hz it still makes my GTX 1080 sweat in just about every game I throw at it
- vbezhenar 8y ago
  Definitely not every card under the sun. I have 1060 and it can't run WoW (game from 2004) at 60 fps 1080p unless I'm lowering some settings.
  - skohan 8y ago
    That sounds like a CPU bottleneck, or else very poor optimization. I cannot imagine WoW is that demanding on a GPU.
    - cbg0 8y ago
      It is when you're in a raid and there are dozens of spells going off all around you. They have however made some tweaks recently, but it's still not incredibly well optimized.
      - 8y ago

115 points by babak_ap 8y ago

For the price, I'm kind of skeptical that it will outperform a previous-generation GeForce 1060. Which can be purchased from $259 to $299 in various places. I just got a 1060 that has 3 x displayport 1.4 outputs + 1 x HDMI 2.0 output, it can drive four 4K displays at 60 Hz. The 1060 is probably somewhat more power hungry and hot under load.

jra101 8y ago
"Looking at the numbers, the GeForce GTX 1660 Ti delivers around 37% more performance than the GTX 1060 6GB at 1440p, and a very similar 36% gain at 1080p"
taspeotis 8y ago
Benchmarks start on page 5.
jplayer01 8y ago
I'm sorry, what is there to be skeptical of? There are plenty of reviews with hard data and measurements. This isn't one of those things where something stops being true just because you refuse to look. https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/msi-geforce-gtx-1660-ti-ventus-xs-review,14.html https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/msi-geforce-gtx-1660-t... Now, whether it's worth another 279 to upgrade from the 1060, well, probably not. It is very much worth considering if you have an older card than from the 1000 series. It performs on par with a 1070, gets within spitting distance of the Vega 56 in 1080p/1440p in a bunch of games, and it's the most power efficient card out there.
- walrus01 8y ago
  Yes, what I meant is that for a person who bought a 1060 two months ago, it's not worth spending the same $279 again to upgrade.
  - jplayer01 8y ago
    Oh definitely. The 1060 is plenty performant for modern games (except for pathological cases like Anthem) and somebody who owns one shouldn't be in any hurry to get the 1660. The 2060 is a better candidate for that, but pricey.
    - chx 8y ago
      Which makes it particularly sad the Galax SNPR 1060 eGPU didn't see a wider release. I have one, it's great.

r1ch 8y ago

The NVENC hardware encoder in Turing is actually comparable to x264 at fast / veryfast. This card will be quite interesting to Twitch streamers as it opens up the possibility to stream without CPU impact for those with a limited budget.

akanet 8y ago
A lot of people are comparing RTX's NVENC to x264 medium. Favorably, I might add: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fi9o2NyPaY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fi9o2NyPaY
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- the8472 8y ago
  I think some charts with SSIM measurements at various bitrates and resolutions etc. would be way more informative than a youtube video.
Flott 8y ago
Is the hardware encoder the same in every Turing based card or should we expect different performance when comparing ultra high end to mid range? (2080TI vs 1660TI)
- akanet 8y ago
  It appears so far that the NVENC chip has been the same in all the RTX 20xx cards. I haven't looked into whether that is the case with the 1660 TI, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was.

LeoPanthera 8y ago

I'm very confused by Nvidia's numbering scheme. It used to be generation-model, so my 1080 is generation 10, and "80" is an arbitrary model number where higher is better. It's the logical successor to the 9-80. The 20-x cards I suppose are OK, a big jump to signify a big change in architecture. But now we have... 16-60? Why 16? Is this the successor to the 1060? And it's a "Ti", but there isn't a non-Ti 1660? I'm confused.

tedunangst 8y ago
More than 10, less than 20. The article says as much.
- tootie 8y ago
  Like line numbering in BASIC. Leaves room to insert.
tdhz77 8y ago
It’s the new 1080p card since the 2060 can handle 1440p
taspeotis 8y ago
From NVIDIA [1] > As far as naming goes, and why 16 series instead of just using 11? Quite simply, we felt that from an overall architecture and performance perspective, TU116 is closer to the other TU10x parts than it is to prior generation GP10x. TU116 has most of the Turing architecture features, including the new dedicated cores for INT32 and FP16 operations, and it also has all of the new Turing shading features, including variable rate shading and mesh shading. And as you see, performance is closer to the GeForce RTX 2060 than it is to the GeForce GTX 1060. In fact just like you said, it performs closest to the GTX 1070, beating it in some games and losing some others. So we ultimately settled on 1660 Ti instead of 1160 Ti. ‘16’ is closer to 20, after all. [1] https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3445-evga-gtx-1660-ti-xc-review-benchmark https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3445-evga-gtx-1660-ti-...
- imagooddriver 8y ago

Justsignedup 8y ago

The question is: With prices returning to sanity, is it a better bang for your buck to get a 1660 or 2060. Seems like a $100 difference. But the 2060 seems like still an amazing value today.

Deimorz 8y ago
It's a $70 difference, and the last page of the article has a chart that includes comparing a 1060 against both a 1660 and a 2060. Over a 1060, the 1660 gives a +36% performance boost for a +12% price difference, and the 2060 gives +59% performance for +40% price. So if you just want the best performance-per-dollar ratio, the 1660 is better, but the 2060 is probably better overall if you don't mind the extra cost (and it also supports the new RTX enhancements for ray-tracing and such).
smacktoward 8y ago
It comes down to whether you think RTX/raytracing will go from being a novelty to being a Must Have within the next few years. If it doesn’t, the 1660 would be the right choice, you’ll save some money now and can always get RTX in your next card if it makes sense then. On the other hand, if it does, getting the 2060 today will spare you having to buy a new card sooner than you normally would just to get RTX support.
- skohan 8y ago
  But arguably, the 2060 is already the wrong card for the future of ray tracing. This current batch of cards are barely able to handle the limited ray-tracing features in the few fames its available in: i.e. one-bounce global illumination to a single light-source or reflections or ray-traced shadows. If ray tracing does become increasingly relevant, this batch of cards (and especially the 2060 at the bottom) are likely to become dated rather quickly. Also as with any bleeding-edge technology, you're paying an early-adopter premium for something which is likely to see relatively large inter-generation improvements.
- swinglock 8y ago
  If ray tracing becomes widespread in games, my bet is you'll need a new card to run that ray tracing with a good enough visual fidelity and high performance anyway. This is just the first generation. I think of RTX like the first Oculus Rift. You shouldn't buy it to be future proof, it will be anything but, you buy it only because you're an enthusiast that want to play with the latest tech early and plans to upgrade before it breaks or become obsolete anyway.

beerlord 8y ago

Looks like 1440p gaming at a reasonable budget is finally here. Now we just need some good (non-curved) Nvidia-approved adaptive sync cards at 32" 1440p IPS.

sandeatr 8y ago

Why do they benchmark at 1080p, can't every card under the sun run games at 60fps with such a low resolution. And no 4k ? Wtf? Shouldn't that be the standard now.

sixothree 8y ago
> [...] $279 for a xx60 class card, and which performs like a $379 card from two years ago.
- bitL 8y ago
  ...with 2GB less memory
IntelMiner 8y ago
1080p benchmarks are helpful for those of us on 144hz monitors at least Mine is "only" 1080p, but at 144hz it still makes my GTX 1080 sweat in just about every game I throw at it
vbezhenar 8y ago
Definitely not every card under the sun. I have 1060 and it can't run WoW (game from 2004) at 60 fps 1080p unless I'm lowering some settings.
- skohan 8y ago
  That sounds like a CPU bottleneck, or else very poor optimization. I cannot imagine WoW is that demanding on a GPU.
  - cbg0 8y ago
    It is when you're in a raid and there are dozens of spells going off all around you. They have however made some tweaks recently, but it's still not incredibly well optimized.
    - 8y ago