[Videocardz] 1660 Details

Head1985

Golden Member
Jul 8, 2014
1,567
28
126
#2
This will be the mainstream king in near 6+ months until AMD launches Navi.Around 15% faster than rx 590 and 50usd cheaper + eat like 120w less.
AMD need reduce price on RX 590 to 180-190usd if they dont want fall under 18% market share...But they will probably fall to 10%.
https://wccftech.com/nvidia-amd-discrete-gpu-market-share-q4-2018-report/

Btw sad time how AMD is bad in GPU market.
 
Mar 28, 2005
139
49
101
#3
This will be the mainstream king in near 6+ months until AMD launches Navi.Around 15% faster than rx 590 and 50usd cheaper + eat like 120w less.
AMD need reduce price on RX 590 to 180-190usd if they dont want fall under 18% market share...But they will probably fall to 10%.
https://wccftech.com/nvidia-amd-discrete-gpu-market-share-q4-2018-report/

Btw sad time how AMD is bad in GPU market.
One of the big reasons AMD marketshare fell so badly was the lack of new product and the used card market.

New products stimulate new sales because they bring new buyers which were not interested in buying polaris/pascal/vega. The RX 590 was simply a poor value proposition for laggard buyers and no one wanted one for the card just the bundle where the RX 580 was still the better buy.

In addition, Nvidia basically has cornered the market in prebuilts and laptops because of their efficiency. Without a gaming bundle for desktop builders and high power consumption, partners don't really want something with AMD in it. AMD's saving grace is Apple but there is not enough volume. The Nvidia brand also brings a lot to these partners and they believe a buyer is more likely to pay a higher price if it has a Nvidia card in it which is mostly true outside of the mining market.This allows Nvidia to have a safe number of sales as they are not as susceptible to seasonal changes. People continue to get new laptops and do not follow the same product adoption cycles as videocards. I.e High initial sales, then a gradual slowing of sales.

GTX 1060 laptops for examples are still highly desirable at this point, while GTX 1060/rx580 performance does not really seem that appealing at the 200 price point since this price/performance has been around for 3 years now almost.

The market has become so saturated at this point since this price and performance has been available for so long and has been flooded with used cards that it is a tough sell for people to buy Polaris/Pascal as the slow inventory selloff has shown.AMD needs to understand how cost sensitive laggard buyers are. Laggard buyers are more likely to buy a used card as well which makes it especially to sell Polaris at 200/280 for the RX 580/590 respectively.

What AMD needs to realize is at this point there is mostly laggard buyers. Any high margin customers were gone by the end of the 2 years of polaris, and the cow is now dry meaning AMD needs to be more aggressive. The only buyers at this point are the super cost sensitive buyers who respond purely on price, not game bundles. They need to drop the RX580 to 150 dollars after the GTX 1660 launches and potentially remove the game bundle or have the option of buying the cards at lower price points without the game bundle.

Using guerrilla marketing to make people anti Nvidia only goes so far when they fail to launch products with compelling price points(most of their launches have their products with worse price/performance compared to Nvidia). AMD is the value brand and they need to accept it if they don't want to bleed marketshare. Charge the same price as Nvidia or worse and they deserve to lose marketshare from incompetence in running a company.
 

Dribble

Golden Member
Aug 9, 2005
1,631
88
106
#4
I suspect AMD's market share if you take away the mining sales has been tiny for years, steam makes that pretty clear with AMD having 15% including their integrated graphics, and according to jpr it was 18% in 2015 when AMD's cards were a lot more competitive. They were only saved by mining. Anyway Nvidia doesn't even need these cards to be completely dominant (the 1050/60 were already doing that in budget machines). These will just pull them even further ahead.
 

railven

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2010
6,382
70
126
#5
I suspect AMD's market share if you take away the mining sales has been tiny for years, steam makes that pretty clear with AMD having 15% including their integrated graphics, and according to jpr it was 18% in 2015 when AMD's cards were a lot more competitive. They were only saved by mining. Anyway Nvidia doesn't even need these cards to be completely dominant (the 1050/60 were already doing that in budget machines). These will just pull them even further ahead.
Last time I was in a thread that cited JPR, console numbers were conflated and seemingly, AMD is #1 in marketshare, barely beating to Intel. Or something along those lines. Rory took the axe to AMD GPU, and Raja was beheaded at the failure of Vega. It's going to take a lot of execution/silicon/praying to change things. I'll hold my rosary beads close, because we desperately need some competition.
 

Mopetar

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2011
4,427
357
126
#6
I think that this card will do gangbusters and that you won’t see NVidia talking about low sales after this launches.
 

jpiniero

Diamond Member
Oct 1, 2010
6,097
152
126
#7
AT has a review... sure enough the memory bandwidth does hurt performance. More or less comparable to the 590.
 

Head1985

Golden Member
Jul 8, 2014
1,567
28
126
#8
Around 10% faster than rx590.Eats 130w less and good oc.At 220usd pretty good card.AMD dont have any good card now except rx570(and maybe radeon7)
 
Last edited:
Oct 20, 2014
1,895
38
126
#9
So the 1050 replacement is $220. Or $250 if you go by the ones in all the reviews. Great.
 

Bouowmx

Senior member
Nov 13, 2016
827
11
116
#11
GeForce GTX 1660's GDDR5 appears to have good overclock headroom: up to 10 GT/s.
 

jpiniero

Diamond Member
Oct 1, 2010
6,097
152
126
#12
:confused expression: since when was GeForce GTX 1660 intended to replace 1050?
Well, "in theory" the 2060 was supposed to replace the 1060. The 1660 Ti and 1660 are one tier lower.

You obviously wouldn't buy a 1660/Ti if you already had a 1060.
 
Mar 28, 2005
139
49
101
#13
So the 1050 replacement is $220. Or $250 if you go by the ones in all the reviews. Great.
Aside from the sarcasm, are you trying to push the myth propagated by not an apple fan and the good old gamer to make these cards look bad since they can't find anything else wrong and need to some how bad mouth all Nvidia products ?

The GTX 950 to gtx 1050 only had a 16% difference in performance.



Taking into account this chart only has gtx 1050 ti,

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1050_Gaming_X/27.html

Look at the GTX 1660 vs the GTX 1050 ti.




https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Palit/GeForce_GTX_1660_Storm_X/28.html

If we take into account that the gtx 1050 represents 86% of the performance of the gtx 1050 ti, the gtx 1660 is 137% faster than a gtx 1050. Not 37% faster 137% which is more than double.

or 100/((49*.86) = 1.37. 137% increase in performance between successive generations is unheard of, particularly without a node shrink.

This is not a GTX 1050 class card and the die size and memory size show this. 132mm2 + 2gb + 128bit bus of memory is not the same class of GPU as a GTX 284mm2 and 6gb card + 192 in memory bus.

In fact if you look the GTX 950 transition to GTX 1060 transition referring to the top techpowerup chart, the gtx 1060 is 196% performance and the gtx 950 represents 86 performance. We see the performance difference is 1.28 or (196/86) or 128%.

So what is more similar to 128% which represented the transition between the gtx 950 to gtx 1060? 16% or 137%? I think you know the answer.

Think for yourself and don't believe a youtuber who doesn't call out the name change between a RX 480 vs RX 590 using largely the same die and memory size and speed but thinks a new die which is 40% larger and triple the memory of a gtx 1050 deserves a reduction in naming tier. AKA GTX 1660 should really be the GTX 1650. In a market with little competition, what we are seeing is largely as competitive as you can expect in a market where the competition launches cards 12% faster cards for 22% more money(the RX 590 launch).

As we can see from the price drops of the RX 590/580, the GTX because it is moves performance per dollar forward, represents a compelling product for the market. Considering their brand strength, this is not bad. It not amazing, but considering what AMD is doing, its much better than what Intel has been doing for the last 8 years. 5% increase in performance per dollar between generation vs 20% performance increase for 12% less money.

If Nvidia were to price this product in the 130 dollar range not only would they not make enough money to cover the R and D expense for a new generation, it would destroy AMD profitability for the Polaris line up and force them to selling every RX 570/580/590 at a heavy loss. With the price of the GTX 1660, AMD has to cut the pricing of their rx 590/580 to where they should have been priced for a rebrand/refresh. This is really the best we can expect from Nvidia in a market where they are so strong and AMD is so weak.

Well, "in theory" the 2060 was supposed to replace the 1060. The 1660 Ti and 1660 are one tier lower.

You obviously wouldn't buy a 1660/Ti if you already had a 1060.
Its called segmentation with a new product.

People wanted a turing card largely missing the turing tax from the larger die. The GTX 1660 ti/gtx1660 is that card. Nvidia shouldn't be punished for delivering a product people want by creating a new chip that is much more inline with their gx106 card as far as cost to build. If Nvidia is spending additional R and D to create more chips to further segment the market, they shouldn't be punished for it. Making 5 or 6 chips to cover the discrete videocard market vs 2 or 3 to cover the market.
 
Last edited:
Oct 20, 2014
1,895
38
126
#14
:confused expression: since when was GeForce GTX 1660 intended to replace 1050?
OK so maybe it's a 1050 Ti replacement

Tier list for Turing
1. 2080 Ti
2. 2080
3. 2070
4. 2060
5. 1660 Ti
6. 1660

Tier list for Pascal
1. 1080 Ti
2. 1080
3. 1070 Ti
4. 1070
5. 1060
6. 1050 Ti
 
Oct 20, 2014
1,895
38
126
#15
Aside from the sarcasm, are you trying to push the myth propagated by not an apple fan and the good old gamer to make these cards look bad since they can't find anything else wrong and need to some how bad mouth all Nvidia products ?
I have no idea who you're talking about or what youtuber you're talking about. The gpu price inflation since and including the 600 series / 7000 series sucks and I can't understand people who seem to enjoy it.
 

Ranulf

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2001
1,444
14
91
#16
Its called segmentation with a new product.
Its called adding in new product numbers to justify inflating prices. Pushing that the $350 to near $400 high end 2060's can now do entry level 1440p is kinda the cherry on top of the turd sandwich.
 

Mopetar

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2011
4,427
357
126
#17
OK so maybe it's a 1050 Ti replacement
If you go by the old leak, there's still a TU117 that's likely going to act as the replacement for the 1050 Ti and 1050, so I don't know what everyone is getting all bothered about.



Personally I think this is a great card for 1080p gaming. I'll probably get one of these to throw in my old rig when I build a new one. Should give it plenty of years of extra life.
 

Qwertilot

Golden Member
Nov 28, 2013
1,410
37
106
#18
Well yes, of course there's a smaller chip coming :) That's an absolute given.
 
Mar 18, 2018
172
26
61
#19
AT has a review... sure enough the memory bandwidth does hurt performance. More or less comparable to the 590.
Actually I think it was 10% or more faster *at half the power consumption.* Seems like the obvious choice to me.
 
Mar 18, 2018
172
26
61
#20
OK so maybe it's a 1050 Ti replacement

Tier list for Turing
1. 2080 Ti
2. 2080
3. 2070
4. 2060
5. 1660 Ti
6. 1660

Tier list for Pascal
1. 1080 Ti
2. 1080
3. 1070 Ti
4. 1070
5. 1060
6. 1050 Ti
Determined to find a way to make the card look bad aren't you? Except for a single outlier, the 1050 Ti on newegg ranges from 180.00 to well over 200.00. If the 1660 sells at 220.00, it will have 50% more performance at essentially the same price. Seems like a fine card to me.
 
Oct 27, 2006
19,566
101
106
#21
Determined to find a way to make the card look bad aren't you? Except for a single outlier, the 1050 Ti on newegg ranges from 180.00 to well over 200.00. If the 1660 sells at 220.00, it will have 50% more performance at essentially the same price. Seems like a fine card to me.
Yeah. It's not mind blowing, but it's pretty decent and a way better option than 590 right now.

Given how much faster 1160 is vs 1050ti, hopefully we see a $139 1150 that is around 1050ti perf or a little better. Something really affordable, that doesn't need PCIe power, and can play most games at 1080/high would be a boon to affordable PC gaming.
 
Mar 28, 2005
139
49
101
#22
Well, "in theory" the 2060 was supposed to replace the 1060. The 1660 Ti and 1660 are one tier lower.

You obviously wouldn't buy a 1660/Ti if you already had a 1060.
I have no idea who you're talking about or what youtuber you're talking about. The gpu price inflation since and including the 600 series / 7000 series sucks and I can't understand people who seem to enjoy it.
No one enjoys it but it is reasonable in this case.

When a company craps the bed as in the case of the RTX 2080/2080 ti that deserves some harsh criticism.

When a company launches something that is increases price to performance and moves the market forward, it deserves moderate praise.

As seen from the graphs above, the 1660 is not a successor to the 50 series based on performance and is inline with historical trends. Compared to what AMD has done with RX 590, the GTX 1660 deserves it's name and price.

Saying this card should be a 50 series doesn't make any sense with the performance data, along with the physical characteristics(too large, too much memory, too big of a bus). This was more about making a correction to your statement and backing it up with data rather than praising the card.

If your expectations that there should be 130% improvement between generations, I expect you to massively crap on any launch forward since most improvements are more on the order of 30% on the same node and 50-60% on new nodes.
 
Last edited:
Aug 25, 2001
42,972
384
126
#23
Except for a single outlier, the 1050 Ti on newegg ranges from 180.00 to well over 200.00. If the 1660 sells at 220.00, it will have 50% more performance at essentially the same price. Seems like a fine card to me.
Well, at some point in the not-so-distant past, I picked up a pair of GTX 1050 ti 4GB cards, for only $120 ea. Then the "mining shortage hit", and they went up in price, even though they weren't really useful for mining, as all of the entry-level gamers snapped them up for gaming, and they developed a rep., or word-of-mouth, or whatever, as the "easy 1080P gaming card", and they've stuck at the $180-200 price point since then. Now, I don't even know if NV and partners are even still making them, so that could explain their continued price increase, as mining demand is much lower now for GPUs.

Yeah. It's not mind blowing, but it's pretty decent and a way better option than 590 right now.

Given how much faster 1160 is vs 1050ti, hopefully we see a $139 1150 that is around 1050ti perf or a little better. Something really affordable, that doesn't need PCIe power, and can play most games at 1080/high would be a boon to affordable PC gaming.
That would be really nice. I picked up some MSI GTX 950 2GB GDDR5 OC ITX-sized cards some time ago, too, for like $120 ea., too, or maybe more, my memory about that time is hazy.

Something of the Turing generation, in that price range, would be REALLY nice, esp. if it is capable of 1080P Med/High gaming on modern (2018+) titles, with sufficient CPU. (Intel 9400F is $169, Ryzen R5 1600 hit $119 recently at Newegg. Both 6C.)

But hopefully, even on TU117 cards, the minimum VRAM amount is going to be 4GB, and maybe more, and not less. RX 570 being today's minimum 1080P gaming card, has at least 4GB of VRAM, so I feel most games will need that much, and if NV releases GTX 1650 (ti) with less than 4GB, it will be basically a stillborn product for gaming. (Then again, some people "game", on a GT1030 2GB GDDR5 version.)

Don't get me wrong, I've been very pro-Polaris in the past, and thus far, those cards have been mostly great for me, but I'm ready to try some new cards, and I'm definitely looking at Turing, GTX 1660 / ti / RTX 2060. Although I have no use for RTX features, and I normally don't pay that much for a GPU, $300 is probably around my max. (*)

(*) I did own a GTX 1070 ti for mining for six months, I paid $525 for it, and then it sold it to a member here for the same amount, six months later or so. That worked out fairly well.
 
Nov 16, 2006
1,375
106
106
#24
Solid card.

Not far off from its bigger brother in performance but not far from the psychologically important $200 price point. Looks like the 1650 cards that come out below this will be targeting 1060 level performance @ $170 and $120 for a further cut down version.
 

EXCellR8

Platinum Member
Sep 1, 2010
2,859
66
126
#25
Some of these cards were just announced but are already available at Newegg...?
 

Similar threads



ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS