• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

1660Ti Reviews Thread

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
tviceman said:
This is what the entire Turing lineup should have been. 33% more efficient and 40% faster than the Pascal chip it replaces with sane die sizes.

RTX came a generation too soon.
Click to expand...

It doesn't have the same die size as the chip it replaces (GP106) though.

It's about 35% faster than the 1060, but also 42% bigger.

The closest die size wise is the GP104 at 314 (10% bigger than TU116), but that die is about 20% faster (as seen with the 1080).

In other words Turing is an ok improvement with regards to efficiency (roughly 33% better than GP106 and 15% better than GP104), but with regards to perf/mm2 it is at best a wash, and at worst a regression (unless of course the TU116 as seen in 1660 Ti is not fully enabled).
 
IntelUser2000 said:
@linkgoron

Surprisingly I think its the RTX 2060 that's the attractive option, if you just put aside the general non progress of the sector.
Click to expand...

I think it's clearly the 1660 Ti that's better. You might be tempted to say that you can get ray tracing with the 2060, but right now the support is utterly lacking and the results that are there are terrible in terms of the performance you'll get.

I looked through the list of games in the AT benchmark, and the 2060 provides 17% better average frame rate at 1440p and 15% better average frame rate at 1080p, while it costs 25% more than the 1660 Ti. The only game where the 2060 is clearly a better value is Total War: Warhammer II where it is ~25% better at both resolutions.

There aren't a lot of situations where the 1660 Ti can't hit an acceptable frame rate, but the 2060 can. The 99th percentile frame times for the games where it was listed don't pain a vastly different picture either. Both cards have the same amount of memory so moving up to a 2060 doesn't save you from hitting a hypothetical 6 GB wall if that should ever occur.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OTG
linkgoron said:
It has 50% more transistors than the 1060, for 40% more performance.
Click to expand...
TU116 - 6,600 million transistors packed in 284 mm² --> GTX 1660Ti
GP104 - 7,200 million transistors packed in 314 mm² --> GTX 1080

You don't see a problem here if the 1660Ti is all there is to get from TU116?
 
I think I would still be tempted to get the 2060 if I was in the market for this sort of card,
but this is another decent release by Nvidia, like the 2060 was, and for the most part it's better value than that.

it's not hugely exciting in the end but it's a cheaper "1070" with better power usage, and it sure makes a lot more sense than buying the 590 or the Vega 56.

still if you already had a 1070 since 2016 I think this whole thing is not looking all that exciting
 
Dunno what's going on at NV, but this definitely one of the most interesting line ups.

How will RTX fair? Is the future the removal of Tensor/RT-Cores? FIND OUT NEXT EPISODE ON NVIDIA BALL Z!!!!!

In all seriousness, this shows that NV is ready to compete on just about ANY level AMD (and eventually Intel) wants to compete on. They are ready to cater to a wide range of buyers from average gamer who just want the FPS to early adopters who don't mind dropping extra cash for boutique features.

Navi is facing more competition than Vega did.
 
Having done some rough arithmetic regarding TCO doing DC work in my own particular case, I found that the 2060 provides the best performance per dollar over a two year expected lifespan, with the 1660ti coming in a rather distant second as far as new cards are concerned. Grain of salt disclaimer, this result was using my own research re prices, performance, and cost of electricity.

If one was to only consider raw performance in Folding, for example, vs price, the 1660ti would appear to have a slight edge between the two. I think that for gamers, this card is a compelling option, especially those who don't like chancing it with a used card. Those who aren't afraid of used cards might be better off with a used 1070ti, which is generally priced right in the ballpark of the 1660ti at this time.
 
antihelten said:
but with regards to perf/mm2 it is at best a wash, and at worst a regression (unless of course the TU116 as seen in 1660 Ti is not fully enabled).
Click to expand...

Actually, 35% improvement in performance for 42% larger is a very good gain.

How do you think we got GPUs this fast in the past 20 years? By using more transistors. Only in the recent times manufacturers had to resort to making it more efficient per W or per mm2 because they have little choice due to days of shrinking at its end.

It uses less extra power than performance gains, so yea I'd say 1660 is quite a bit better.

I looked through the list of games in the AT benchmark, and the 2060 provides 17% better average frame rate at 1440p and 15% better average frame rate at 1080p, while it costs 25% more than the 1660 Ti.
Click to expand...

If you go lower, it tends to be better at perf/$.

I don't know, I guess they are both mediocre. In absolute terms, the 1660 is better, but the 2060 does have extra features. The difference in isn't a world's difference so I'd take the 2060 for 8% worse perf/$.
 
Last edited:
coercitiv said:
TU116 - 6,600 million transistors packed in 284 mm² --> GTX 1660Ti
GP104 - 7,200 million transistors packed in 314 mm² --> GTX 1080

You don't see a problem here if the 1660Ti is all there is to get from TU116?
Click to expand...

I agree that the 1660ti looks a bit big for the performance. However, to get better performance, they probably could've also increased clock speeds. However, the card looks like it was engineered to be essentially as fast as a 1070. Also, perf/mm^2 isn't everything. Perf/watt has improved. The 1660ti has 20% better perf/watt than the 1070, and 8% better perf/watt than the 1080. In addition, as already stated elsewhere, Nvidia have added FP16 cores instead of Tensor cores.
 
linkgoron said:
Also, perf/mm^2 isn't everything. Perf/watt has improved. The 1660ti has 20% better perf/watt than the 1070, and 8% better perf/watt than the 1080.
Click to expand...
Drop the clocks on the 1080 to match 1660Ti performance and watch that perf/watt advantage melt away. Also, do keep in mind both the 1070 and 1080 use older memory chips and more of them, so card perf/watt advantage does not directly translate into chip perf/watt advantage.
 
Bigger die, smaller die, tensor cores , no tensor cores, faster than this ,slower than this, cost this much,,cost that much......

Bottom line, for at least the next 5 or 6 month's its the fastest card you can buy with the best price/ performance, has low temps, low power consumption, overclocked well, and is quiet.
And you can buy it at MSRP $279.

Thanks Nvidia.
 
happy medium said:
Bigger die, smaller die, tensor cores , no tensor cores, faster than this ,slower than this, cost this much,,cost that much......

Bottom line, for at least the next 5 or 6 month's its the fastest card you can buy with the best price/ performance, has low temps, low power consumption, overclocked well, and is quiet.
And you can buy it at MSRP $279.

Thanks Nvidia.
Click to expand...
Well, there is a nice advertisement. But for Folding, I think the 2060 is better, and for DP operation the AMD Radeon VII is better (both perf/$$).

However, I agree that for a gamer, its a pretty good card if you are on a budget.
 
Trolling/calling out AMD users is not allowed.
railven said:
Dunno what's going on at NV, but this definitely one of the most interesting line ups.

How will RTX fair? Is the future the removal of Tensor/RT-Cores? FIND OUT NEXT EPISODE ON NVIDIA BALL Z!!!!!

In all seriousness, this shows that NV is ready to compete on just about ANY level AMD (and eventually Intel) wants to compete on. They are ready to cater to a wide range of buyers from average gamer who just want the FPS to early adopters who don't mind dropping extra cash for boutique features.

Navi is facing more competition than Vega did.
Click to expand...
Yea, AMD falls even further behind in performance per watt (and pretty much every other metric as well). Bring on the obligatory "power consumption doesnt matter" from the AMD camp.
 
happy medium said:
So I read a few reviews, this is what im seeing.

1660ti is......

* better price performance than gtx 1060 or 2060 and the fastest card per price performance.

Nvidia will sell millions of these.
Click to expand...

Doesn't put it in a really great light, since 1060 and 1070 are now close to 3 years old cards.

I'd only recommend this card to those who have GTX 960 and lower or GTX 780 and lower. People looking for a decent upgrade over their current performance, which is why no one with a GTX 970/980, GTX 1050ti, 1060 or AMD equivalents will want to upgrade to this card.

Yeah it is about 25% faster than the 1060 6gb, but we've already had this with the 1070, which could have been purchased at some points for as low as $320 brand new. Used it goes for about $250 now or lower which is a solid deal.
 
Looks like a solid contender for the mid range, for those buying just now or upgrading from an older setup.

Still, if you already had a GTX 1060 or higher or RX 480/580, its not that much of an upgrade, and to get a true upgrade from say, the 1070 or a vega, there are very few options available, and none really at a decent price.

IMO, this and the 2060 are the most interesting new cards. I tend to think that Nvidia should have not separated the lineup, and just gone with something like this as the 2050, then have the 2060 as is but without the tensor cores, and then continue the current lineup without the tensor cores and instead just having more cuda cores for better performance.
 
At about 35% faster than a gtx1060 6gb/rx580 the 1660ti is a good upgrade for........
Gtx1060 3gb owners 45% faster.
Rx570 43% faster
R9 290 owners 45% faster
Gtx970 owners 42% faster
Gtx 780ti owners 45% faster
Gtx780 owners 65% faster
7970,7950,rx280,rx285 owners 85% faster
Gtx680,670,760,770 owners 95% faster.
Gtx960 4gb, gtx1050, 1050ti, gtx950 owners 100% to 120% faster.

That's 18 cards to upgrade from .
 
I dont know about you but for 1080p gaming the new price of RX 590 at $240 + 3 free games is a good alternative to GTX1660Ti.
Cheapest GTX1660Ti currently at $280 without any games. For 1080p gaming, both cards will play all titles at the same graphics settings. Only advantage GTX1660Ti has is the 15-20% higher performance but this will only matter at 1440p.
But when Vega 56 will start to sell at $280 + 3 free games it will be a better option for 1440P gaming since it will be faster and it comes with 8GB ram that 1440p may need very soon.

Well good thing for the consumer now that we once again have competition and multiple offerings to chose and we get higher performance for less.
 
Ha, sorry, what? The 1660TI delivers around 20% more performance with less problems in games. For example Hitman 2 is such candidate. Wrong level and the RX590 cant even come close to 60FPS in 1080p: https://pclab.pl/art79983-12.html

In a few weeks the 1660 comes to the market and will offer RX590 performance for $229 with less than half of the power consumption. Just accept that Polaris had his time.
 
Last edited:
AtenRa said:
I dont know about you but for 1080p gaming the new price of RX 590 at $240 + 3 free games is a good alternative to GTX1660Ti.
Click to expand...
The RX 590 was never a good deal, free games included or not. There is a rumor floating around that the RX 580 8GB will be $200 - that is a better deal than a $240 RX 590. Priced between the RX 580 and the GTX 1660 Ti means that you're better off spending $40 less for 12-15% lower performance or spending $40 more for 25% higher performance. Either way you get better perf/dollar than the RX 590.
 
DLSS tensor core tech is making less and less sense. Why are customers of NV's flagship products going to be ok with garbage quality DLSS with fix it patches later after launch while NV's mid and entry customers who might have aligned with the tech more closely being left out?

Solid cards, medocre price, but would have been nice to see a whole product stack scaled up from this iteration of the Turing arch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top