Final Fantasy XV benchmark places the GTX 1660 Ti on par with GTX 1070

[mongeese]

Highly anticipated: The GTX 1660 Ti has been spotted in the Final Fantasy XV benchmark database, where it was able to match the GTX 1070 and outperform the GTX 1060 by miles. If it comes in at the anticipated price of $279, it could be the mid-range savior many gamers have been hoping for.

A score of 5000 points would make the new GPU 40% faster than the GTX 1060 6GB, and 70% faster than the GTX 1060 3GB in this specific benchmark. Currently those two cards are available from $200-300 and $150-250, respectively, so the GTX 1660 Ti would be better value than all but the cheapest 1060 3GB models on offer.

Compared to the GTX 1070, 1070 Ti and Vega 56, the GTX 1660 Ti still comes away strong. All three currently sit in the $300-$550 bracket, so while they can match or slightly exceed the performance of the 1660 Ti they’re still more expensive.

However, there’s one key feature the older cards have the GTX 1660 Ti doesn’t: 8 GB of memory. The 1660 Ti is expected to have just 6GB. As the only benchmark run on the 1660 Ti was at 2560 x 1440 on the High preset, it’s only speculation, but there’s a good chance that the older GPUs may be better value for 4K gaming, particularly if their prices drop in reaction to the new card.

Benchmark entry first spotted by Apisak.

Judging from the specs we’ve seen leaked from Russian retailers, the 1660 Ti shouldn’t really be able to catch up to the GTX 1070, which features 25% more cores that are clocked 5% slower. While the 1660 Ti does use much faster GDDR6 compared to the GDDR5 employed by the 1070, that may not be enough of an advantage. It’s worth considering that this may be a more expensive factory overclocked edition.

Regardless, the new benchmark indicates that the 1660 Ti is a poised to be solid improvement over the status quo, if not amazingly better. We’ll have to wait and see until we receive a review sample and benchmark the card more thoroughly, which should be sometime around the leaked February 22nd release date.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/78791-final-fantasy-xv-benchmark-places-gtx-1660-ti.html

 

[Vulcanproject]

When you posted the specs a few weeks ago I could see it would be a very strong competitor in the midrange. It should flatten the RX590, which was $279. It has more memory bandwidth than a GTX1070, even with a 192 bit bus and 'slow' GDDR6.

With 80 percent the shader cores of a RTX2060, slightly higher boost clocks and 85 percent the memory bandwidth it looked like the new mainstream king. Been a long time coming but it should be a decent step over the GTX1060.

 

[Nestea]

When you .

I wonder where the 3 GB variant will be positioned. Can't wait to see.
For once prices are just: 1070 ti costs from €440 anywhere to €550 (compared to the dollar prices)

 

[Sausagemeat]

The community won’t be happy, I predict that they will whine about the name and only 6GB of RAM (despite that you have proven yourself is more than fine for modern games) before asserting you that you should wait for Navi which will be better for half the money or something ridiculous like that.

 

[Vulcanproject]

I wonder where the 3 GB variant will be positioned. Can't wait to see.
For once prices are just: 1070 ti costs from €440 anywhere to €550 (compared to the dollar prices)

I would be surprised if they do a 3GB version of the Ti as per some rumours. I could conceive of a 3GB version of non Ti model that was also touted. GTX1660 6GB or 3GB. They could cut down the core or clocks further and it would probably still be as fast as an RX580 or GTX1060.

I think it would be a tough sell though.

At this point in time I would have reservations about buying any mid range graphics card with less than 4GB of memory. The aforementioned RX580 with 8GB of memory can be had now for less than $190!

Surely a much better bet than a GTX1660 3GB, even if it were just $150. Which is extremely unlikely.

 

[noel24]

When you posted the specs a few weeks ago I could see it would be a very strong competitor in the midrange. It should flatten the RX590, which was $279. It has more memory bandwidth than a GTX1070, even with a 192 bit bus and 'slow' GDDR6.

With 80 percent the shader cores of a RTX2060, slightly higher boost clocks and 85 percent the memory bandwidth it looked like the new mainstream king. Been a long time coming but it should be a decent step over the GTX1060.

Sooo, 1660Ti costs 20% less than 2060, yet comes @ 20% less shaders, 15% less memory bandwith and 100% less RT cores. Basically, nVidia tells us that We are suppose to pay for Raytracing cores that We're not getting. Or maybe those that shell out 20% more on a 2060 are getting this raytracing for free from TSMC? Either way, this sucks. $199-300 middle range has used to be best in price/performance ratio. I'll skip this generation (again).
AMD, where are You?

 

[Vulcanproject]

Sooo, 1660Ti costs 20% less than 2060, yet comes @ 20% less shaders, 15% less memory bandwith and 100% less RT cores. Basically, nVidia tells us that We are suppose to pay for Raytracing cores that We're not getting. Or maybe those that shell out 20% more on a 2060 are getting this raytracing for free from TSMC? Either way, this sucks. $199-300 middle range has used to be best in price/performance ratio. I'll skip this generation (again).
AMD, where are You?

Well a cheap RTX2060 is $350, or 25 percent more than the MSRP of this card. You're looking at it the wrong way up really, and finding a problem where one doesn't exist in the current category.

This according to all reports should be a $279 video card faster than AMD's very recent $279 video card, the RX590. Therefore using it to call out Nvidia on pricing is bizarre to say the least, when they are going to give you more for the same money.

It was never the case that a $400 card was exactly twice as fast as a $200 one, nor where a $200 card always twice as fast as a $100 one. You have minimum design, manufacturing, marketing and shipping costs for everything.

At $279 Nvidia will have priced the 1660Ti very fairly if it proves to be a step ahead of the RX590. The mere presence of an RTX2060's additional features for 25 percent more cost is about choice than some evil plot to force you up the model ladder.

I know it's fashionable right now to bash Nvidia, but the 1660Ti looks like it'll be one particular Nvidia product difficult to legitimately moan about!

 

[Lounds]

So 3 years later we're only getting 1070 performance for mid range prices... Get F'd Nvidia.

 

[noel24]

Sooo... ...You?

Well a cheap RTX2060 is $350, or 25 percent more than the MSRP of this card... ...about!

You're right, I'm expecting nVidia to not act like a monopolist in a situation where they are defacto monopolist (cause AMD got nothing better in this most popular price range). How stupid of me.
Seriously, You just deflected my question with a rant on AMD, like a child that just did something wrong: "but Mommy, John did it first!" Everybody knows that RX590 was poorly priced. It will be now scrapped from production and seriously price-cut.

 

[Vulcanproject]

You're right, I'm expecting nVidia to not act like a monopolist in a situation where they are defacto monopolist (cause AMD got nothing better in this most popular price range). How stupid of me.
Seriously, You just deflected my question with a rant on AMD, like a child that just did something wrong: "but Mommy, John did it first!" Everybody knows that RX590 was poorly priced. It will be now scrapped from production and seriously price-cut.

Your reply is illogical. AMD do have something in this price range, but by the looks of it Nvidia will deliver something better a month or so later and ask the same money.

I really am failing to see your point. You want Nvidia to what? Deliver a better product AND charge a lot less for it??? It isn't enough to deliver something better and only charge the same?

Honestly what is your problem here? It isn't like there is no competition around this level of performance. You have other options like a GTX1070 or Ti, and AMD offer the RX590 and Vega 56.

This isn't a case where there is absolutely no alternative and Nvidia are charging what they please. Sub $300 is still competitive, unlike >$400.....

 

[Sausagemeat]

You're right, I'm expecting nVidia to not act like a monopolist in a situation where they are defacto monopolist (cause AMD got nothing better in this most popular price range). How stupid of me.
Seriously, You just deflected my question with a rant on AMD, like a child that just did something wrong: "but Mommy, John did it first!" Everybody knows that RX590 was poorly priced. It will be now scrapped from production and seriously price-cut.

Your reply is illogical. AMD do have something in this price range, but by the looks of it Nvidia will deliver something better a month or so later and ask the same money.

I really am failing to see your point. You want Nvidia to what? Deliver a better product AND charge a lot less for it??? It isn't enough to deliver something better and only charge the same?

Honestly what is your problem here? It isn't like there is no competition around this level of performance. You have other options like a GTX1070 or Ti, and AMD offer the RX590 and Vega 56.

This isn't a case where there is absolutely no alternative and Nvidia are charging what they please. Sub $300 is still competitive, unlike >$400.....

He just wants to lash out at Nvidia. As you mentioned, it’s cool to hate on Nvidia at the moment. These sort of people aren’t interested in what the actual best value card to buy is, especially if Nvidia make it.

 

[SteelGrayRider]

I would love to give my money to AMD. However, why does everyone think that Navi is going to be priced so much cheaper than Nvidia prices? Its business and GPU and CPU price ranges are scaled differently. AMD will price a successful Navi card accordingly to just slightly below the Nvidia card it corresponds to. Not 50 to 100 less.....Not only would that cause them to loose profit, they are a business......and they have given proof already. Take the rx590. I think we'll all agree that it was priced too high to be worth it over the 580, heck, maybe even over the 570! Then the Radeon VII for $700 and as much as I wanted to see it wipe the floor with the 2080, it cannot but its on par and the same price. These are the prices both companies will charge. I want to buy AMD but in the end my money goes to what is best for me. I would image most people would do the same. Still rooting for AMD to pull through

 

[noel24]

I think I already said in my first post: most cash stranded consumers must pay nVidia for RT cores they are not getting, because AMD is not competitive.

 

[Sausagemeat]

I think I already said in my first post: most cash stranded consumers must pay nVidia for RT cores they are not getting, because AMD is not competitive.

So Nvidia release a card which is clearly a better value buy than the competition but you are bashing Nvidia for it because on top of better value you feel that they should have included RT cores aswell?

That isn’t logical. You just irrationally hate Nvidia.

 

[noel24]

@ Sausagemeat
Cheeses, You nVidia fanboys are like children, AMD this, AMD that. Try and forget that AMD exists for a moment, could You, or is it too hard?
I'm saying that if 2060 core is 445 mm2 and 1660 Ti is around 300 - 310 m (with 20% less shaders and whole RT core out, 1660Ti could be priced even lower, maybe even $229-249 (like old x60 cards used to) and still make nVidia the same amount of money per square mm of silicone. But instead they will price it even higher than 2060. 1660 will be a gold mine for nVidia, and most cash strapped gamers will pay for it.

 

[Evernessince]

Seems pretty nice for the price if true. Just need more benchmarks.

 

[Nightfire]

AMD, where are You?

They were busy selling the RX480 v3.0 for about the same price.

This is basically the 980ti v2.0, which I would MUCH rather have.

 

[Nightfire]

@ Sausagemeat
Cheeses, You nVidia fanboys are like children, AMD this, AMD that. Try and forget that AMD exists for a moment, could You, or is it too hard?
I'm saying that if 2060 core is 445 mm2 and 1660 Ti is around 300 - 310 m (with 20% less shaders and whole RT core out, 1660Ti could be priced even lower, maybe even $229-249 (like old x60 cards used to) and still make nVidia the same amount of money per square mm of silicone. But instead they will price it even higher than 2060. 1660 will be a gold mine for nVidia, and most cash strapped gamers will pay for it.

So now you are not really mad at the price/$, you are just mad that they have a design that they are making too high of a profit.

Continue the fight, comrade.

 

[Nightfire]

Furthermore, the gpu core in itself does not dictate the cost of a gpu.

Yes, it is 20% less shaders as the 2060.

Guess what - they are still putting on 100% of the GDDR6. They are still adding 100% of a GPU cooler. They are still takes some factory worker 100% of the time to put this damn thing together / machine time.

You act as if you are just buying a necklace or something where size and quality scale better with price.