Nvidia GeForce GTX 1660 Review: A New Mainstream King

[144hzGamer]

You are funny... we are not talking about 50$ difference, but something like 150$ of value.

Yeah, power is important, but not THAT important if you are playing games. You really think a lightbulb more or less is going to make a difference for a gamer at load over a year budget? Maybe 3$-5$ if I am generous with the estimate per year of electricity supplementary consumption.

As of now, the RX 580 is reigning supreme at 180-190$ with 2 AAA games bundled with it. Stop drinking the coolaid and compare the real value.

Why would I pay 180 for a gpu that is way slower and uses more power than the 250 one? Because of division 2 or devil may cry? Lel nice try.

Love to see the amd fans so defensive

 

[redgarl]

>:/

Your cost analysis per frame is useless if you aren't updating your price list. I will even say that they are MISLEADING!

https://www.anandtech.com/show/14071/nvidia-gtx-1660-review-feat-evga-xc-gaming

The RX 580 is 179$. Making it 2.304$ per frame.

They update it regularly. There are a few RX 580 8GB for $179 to $189 on Newegg but it looks like that is the sale price and not the regular price. $179 is not too far off the mark from $199, is it? How can that be useless? There is a sale on Vega 56 as well for $320 right now but looks like it is promo price. Both are good deals.

Nevertheless, this card is also an excellent card to buy. For me, it comes down to if you care about the game bundle that comes with the AMD cards.

To be fair, he linked a 1 fan gimped version for 180, really reaching...

Don't like it? For 10$ more you get have 4-5 different other models /sarcasm

Just cmon...

 

[Nightfire]

There is no way I'd go for this over a 2060 or 2070.

Or if I didnb't buy a new RTX, I'd get the 1070.

This card is not competing with any of those.

 

[Nightfire]

I'm really happy that NVIDIA chose to go for 6GB this time, and not a crippled card.

Looks pretty good. I'm looking forward to seeing how the 1650 performs.

The 1660 is the new mainstream champ.
The 1650 looks like it will be a dud with only 4 GB of 128 bit GDDR5. It will be even very bandwidth starved and will most likely perform worse than the GTX 1060 3 GB on average.

Just look how bad the RX 570 beats up on the 1050ti, which is also 128 bit GDDR5.

 

[Nightfire]

Nvidia just destroyed one of the last price points where AMD was dominating: $200-$250.

The RX 570 will still hold on to the $150 price point as the GTX 1650 will most likely be slower.

 

[mainstream]

Mainstream king of overprice alright.

Unfortunately there are no shorted of uninformed peeps and fanboys for greedy corporation to take advantage of.

 

[Nightfire]

Redgarl / redhat / mainstream are all the same account as all 3 of those are unavailable to view now. Damn, get a life dude. Then again, he might be making a nice living being such a shill.

If this card ever gets GDDR5x, it will really be a smoking deal.

 

[144hzGamer]

He is so mad about this launch,that he had to create clones. How desperate lol

 

[BSim500]

Redgarl / redhat / mainstream are all the same account as all 3 of those are unavailable to view now. Damn, get a life dude.

^ Now that really is a new level of sad...

 

[QuantumPhysics]

This card is not competing with any of those.

I don't care what it's competing with.

MONEY is what matters.

It's more logical to spend slightly more for the new technology than to spend a little less on the old.

 

[meric]

Nvidia tech is way beyond AMD's, so sad for competition

 

[Nightfire]

I don't care what it's competing with.

MONEY is what matters.

It's more logical to spend slightly more for the new technology than to spend a little less on the old.

It is still Turing. Newer than the GTX 1070 and just as new of technology as what the GTX 2060/2070 are. It is just missing a few features that most mainstream gamers don't really need.

 

[Puiu]

Why would I pay 180 for a gpu that is way slower and uses more power than the 250 one? Because of division 2 or devil may cry? Lel nice try.

Love to see the amd fans so defensive

Let's not exaggerate that's a big difference in price. If you always had that much money to spend you would not be talking about the price and value of a product. If you are building a PC that kind of a difference could mean that you are forced to go with an i3 CPU instead of, let's say, the i5 8400.

By your logic why would anyone buy the 1660 when they can just pay more for the 1660ti or 2060.

 

[Nightfire]

A few comments from an AMD fanboy:

Your review suite seems a bit slanted performance wise. Just looking at it I got the impression the 1660 is WAY faster than the 590. However for example at PC gamer's review, https://www.pcgamer.com/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1660-review/ over their 13 game suite at 1080P, they have the 590 a smidge faster than the 1660 in 97th percentile minimum frame rate (85.0 for the 590 vs 81.2 for the 1660) which shocked me after reading your review. They have it at 110.1 for the 1660 and 109.3 for the 590 for average FPS, so a virtual tie, but typically the minimum lows are more important. Anandtech's review just glancing over also seems to place the 590 almost on par with the 1660. Techpowerup's review places the 590 at 92% as fast as the 1660, but Wizzard's reviews do typically underrate AMD performance as well for some reason. I also checked Toms hardware review and again, they have the 590 and 1660 basically tied in contrast to your review. Specifically the 590 was faster in 6/12 games and the 1660 was faster in the other 6/12 (just glancing so I didn't run percentages but in most games they actually appeared very close no matter who won). I also liked Tom's review in that they seem to have a very forward looking/modern benchmark suite, including such games as Destiny 2, Far Cry 5, and Metro Exodus.

Finally the 580, 570 (some models), and 590 all have 8GB RAM. IMO 6GB is cutting it a bit close. I dont think it's a big deal at this performance level, but it is something to consider looking to the future and even the present. I think most sites decision to test this at only 1080P (I bet they tested the 590 at 1440P) was partly to protect Nvidia from running out of RAM at higher resolutions.

On PCgamer, the 1660 did much better when using ultra settings. In that case, it was right between the 1060 and 1660ti. The bandwidth must be a bigger issue when fps are much higher. Interestingly, the 1070ti holds up much better against the 1080 with a 256 bit bus, even at the higher performance levels.

Anandtech didn't get very good o/c results. They only managed around 5% performance while everyone else seemed closer to 15%.

You can argue what is still a better value between this and Polaris, but the 1660 is a great value improvement over the 1060. This card would basically match a 1660ti, even at stock clocks, if GDDR5X was used, so they have a little more to give when Navi is released while keeping production costs low.

6 GB of ram is not an issue at higher resolutions, at least playable ones for this card. The exception is Wolfenstein 2 at 1440p using uber settings as seen on Tom's.

 

[CaptainTom]

July is in 4 months pal... yeah... a long road indeed... /sarcasm...

4 months of almost no room to breath for Radeon. That's not a normal 4 months. Typically AMD has some price segments (or most) where they can have some space, but not anymore.

Think about it: 560, 570, 580, 590 - that's four cards that will now be squeezed below $200 lol. There's going to be like $10-$20 separating these cards, and the GTX 1650 hasn't even dropped to force them all below $150!

To be clear, I am not saying it's fair AMD is forced to sell cards lower than Nvidia - but this is reality, and it's about to become pathetic to watch.

That's why AMD should just stop production (or scale it back massively) now besides the 590 and 570. There is only room anymore for an $85 560, a $120 570 4GB, and a $180 590 8GB. You want the Radeon channels to be cleared out before Navi launches.

 

[ET3D]

Nvidia tech is way beyond AMD's, so sad for competition

If anything, these chips prove quite the opposite. GP104 (GeForce 1080/1070) was 7.2B transistors and 314 mm2 at 16nm. TU116 (1660 Ti / 1660) is 6.6B transistors and 284 mm2 at 12nm. In terms of performance per transistor or per area, Turing is hardly an improvement.

AMD may be behind in power efficiency, but Polaris 10 is 232 mm2, so it seems like AMD is missing two things mainly: scalability (having chips with more CUs perform significantly better) and power efficiency. Doesn't see like something that would be way beyond what AMD can do.

 

[Nightfire]

Having any performance increase per transistor count is actually impressive.

 

[CybaGirl]

Looks like a great card for 1080p, and even useful at budget 1440p. Especially the overclocking result, beating out the GTX1070!

Yes but overclock the 1070 and it beats it hands down . Furthermore this test was based on a standard 1070 no doubt? So all the manufactures like ASUS, GigaByte, GALAX, Colorful iGame etc who factory over clock their models of the 1070 will easily beat it...

 

[CybaGirl]

And if you say 30 FPS is unacceptable, how come the highest rated games are Sony console exclusives that only run at barely 30 FPS? For example, God of War on Playstation 4 runs at 30 FPS with dips under 30 FPS and received over a 90 metacritic. Uncharted series, Infamous, Horizon Zero Dawn, all run at only 30 FPS.

Yes 30FPS might be acceptable to the console kiddies as you always get what you pay for. But from a PC gamers point of view 30FPS is simply not good enough that's why the PC Masterrace wins hands down every time. Consoles will never compete with computers and will loose to them every time .

 

[CybaGirl]

Nvidia tech is way beyond AMD's, so sad for competition

Yes but remember if there was no AMD then goodness knows what we would be paying for Nvidia graphic cards and Intel CPU's for that matter.

In the past I have always brought AMD video cards. But now I have to watch the cost of electricity as electricity prices in Australia are a complete rip off! So it was a no brainier for me to switch to Nvidia when I recently upgraded my video card.

I think for many people in the same boat this is more of a concern than anything else.

 

[DukeJukem]

I mean.....nice card, but it's just another downscaled version of another card that only exists to take more money away from amd o_O. this card simply exists only to make the 580 and 590 look worse, which is their right.

I just bought the powercolor rx 590 off amazon today. AMDS Relive software is simply way better than anything nvidia offers among other things and they don't force telemetry to be running on my computer for their capture software to work. nvidia can honestly take their better framerates and shove them up their *** for all I care. I know I'll be much happier when muh new amd card arrives :O

 

[Imran Mikayle]

If you are lucky, you can get a zotac geforce gtx 1070 ti mini with about the same price. That's happenin at my town currently damn it.

 

[Slavjan]

I was wondering why this page wasn't showing up as a search suggestion when I typed in "1660" in the omnibox/address bar, and then I realised the URL's got 1060 instead haha

Easy mistake to make.

 

[Emerald Night]

You are funny... we are not talking about 50$ difference, but something like 150$ of value.

Yeah, power is important, but not THAT important if you are playing games. You really think a lightbulb more or less is going to make a difference for a gamer at load over a year budget? Maybe 3$-5$ if I am generous with the estimate per year of electricity supplementary consumption.

As of now, the RX 580 is reigning supreme at 180-190$ with 2 AAA games bundled with it. Stop drinking the coolaid and compare the real value.

Why would I pay 180 for a gpu that is way slower and uses more power than the 250 one? Because of division 2 or devil may cry? Lel nice try.

Love to see the amd fans so defensive

Because maybe your GPU budget is $180 and not $250

By that logic you've presented why not buy the 1660 Ti as it's only around $290. Or maybe just gun it for the 2060 because having a trash budget apparently isn't allowed.

 

[144hzGamer]

Because maybe your GPU budget is $180 and not $250

By that logic you've presented why not buy the 1660 Ti as it's only around $290. Or maybe just gun it for the 2060 because having a trash budget apparently isn't allowed.

Sure because we are talking about a huge difference here. So you are saying that if my budget is 100€ I should stick to a rx560 or gt1030 because I should not save up a bit more for a much better product. Makes total sense. We not talking about huge 250€+++ differences here, we talking about 180€ vs 250€ while getting a better gpu that will last more. And even the 1660ti is at 260€ on a lot of european stores.