Did you not read my post? Specifically the last line? Paragraph 2 is also relevant. We don't have Newegg in the UK so you've wasted your time with that one.
I appreciate this article, but I think it may have been more useful to test below Ultra settings. Anyone rocking a GTX 960 still isn't expecting to run on max settings. I'd be more interested in seeing how much better the 1660 runs at medium/high settings since that's what I've been used to for the last year or so.
The 970 cost a whole lot more than the 960. $200 vs 329.I remember being unimpressed with the GTX 960 when it was first reviewed. The 128-bit memory bandwidth seemed pitiful and I predicted that the card wouldn't have a very long lifespan in regards to games remaining playable at higher settings.
Low and behold, it didn't hold up very long. Other slightly higher end cards from the era like the R9 390/390X or even the GTX 970 are still keeping up with today's midrange crop of cards with the one caveat of power consumption.
I would've loved to see the GTX 970 included in this article. It would've helped keep things in perspective to the time period.
I personally can't recommend going any lower than the 2060Ti.
For those who've been building computers who I know, I tell em: Either the 2060 or 270. Microcenter has 2070 for a solid $500.
Buy it on your credit card. Pay it off as soon as possible.
I don't regret buying my 2080Ti. If I'd bought anything less, I absolutely would regret it.
Rays must be traced.
"Time for an Upgrade?"
This review is considering a whole new computer - not just a video card upgrade.
How to make this article mean something? Take an average computer someone with the 960 has, and plop a 1660 in it. Will their current rig take full advantage of the new GPU? I am doubting it will. Prove me wrong.
$200 vs $330I remember being unimpressed with the GTX 960 when it was first reviewed. The 128-bit memory bandwidth seemed pitiful and I predicted that the card wouldn't have a very long lifespan in regards to games remaining playable at higher settings.
Low and behold, it didn't hold up very long. Other slightly higher end cards from the era like the R9 390/390X or even the GTX 970 are still keeping up with today's midrange crop of cards with the one caveat of power consumption.
I would've loved to see the GTX 970 included in this article. It would've helped keep things in perspective to the time period.
Did you not read my post? Specifically the last line? Paragraph 2 is also relevant. We don't have Newegg in the UK so you've wasted your time with that one.
Performance has no borders...
"Admittedly the game is quite demanding with these quality settings, but those looking to upgrade to a GTX 1660 can look forward to a 152% performance boost, not that bad. Though if you’re only looking at playing The Division 2 then the RX 590 might be a better choice."
LMAO! WHAT?!
That's a massive reach!
I just looked on Newegg to compare the 1660 and 590, then the 2060 and Vega 64.
There is NO reason to buy an AMD GPU right now.
The 570 and 580 are much better than any of nvidias offerings at the same price. The 590 is a flop. The vega 56 and 64 scores here are misrepresented, as the stock settings for the two are horrid. My 56 hits levels near and above the rtx 2060, for $330 an amazing cooled card with 3 free games. An insane deal compared to any of Nvidias deals.
While I'm not entirely sure what you mean, I'm happy I got the best bang for buck at the point of purchase given performance and cost and availability in my country.
In other countries it may be the 2060 or 1660ti is the better deal, just not here at this time.
While I'm not entirely sure what you mean, I'm happy I got the best bang for buck at the point of purchase given performance and cost and availability in my country.
In other countries it may be the 2060 or 1660ti is the better deal, just not here at this time.
I apologize for missing your country and it might be a better deal there, but US has more gamers was my point.
Vega 56 - one SKU @ $329us (reference blower)
GTX 1660 Ti - 10 SKU's @ below $329us
Vega 56 is ~3% faster than 1660 Ti @ 1080p and 1440p.
1660 Ti def overclocks better.
Where did you get 3% from? Techspot own comparisons says 8%
Strix ranks right up there with the dumbest names yetTech power up also says 6-8% for base models.
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GeForce_GTX_1660_Ti_STRIX_OC/27.html
Even the Strix is slower by a little bit but then you're comparing aib with stock.