Old Mainstream GPU: GeForce GTX 960 vs. GTX 1660 & RTX 2060

Impressive performance upgrade for many. This will be a hot seller for sure. It's good that Nvidia is really pushing the midrange cards this time around.
 
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.

Yeah, I feel they missed the mark on this one. I'd rather see a side-by-side of how much the 960 owners have to give up for 60fps / acceptable performance compared to what the 1660 TI can do at higher settings. Getting too far from how people actually use their hardware... They state that the 4GB version of the 960 was less popular, yet it's what they used to test, which doesn't help either.
 
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.
The 970 cost a whole lot more than the 960. $200 vs 329.
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.

I hope you are kidding. No one should buy hardware on credit. It devalues too fast. If you can't afford it, don't buy it. If you can't pay it off the first month, don't get it. No sense in spending money to spend more money.
 
"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.

For 1080p, my i5-2400 would fare well with up to a 1060 6GB as far as I can tell. If going 1440p or 4K, it could use more GPU (by a lot).

If I wanted high fps 1080p, it would make sense to upgrade the platform (GPU, GPU, Mobo, and possibly a monitor, lol) before spending beyond the 1660.
 
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.
$200 vs $330
 
I have 960 2GB, it suits my needs, I mostly play Rocket League and GTAV Online. I still play a lot of PS3 so grafix and performance are not important to me, but recently I played DMC5 on High settings and I had a smooth framerate although I didn't check with Fraps how much exactly frames I was getting, the game was crap though and I quit it after 3 hours lol
 
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...

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.
 
"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.
 
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.

Newegg:
RTX 2060 + Anthem, BFV or Metro - three cheapest SKU's @ $349
Few more @ $369
Vega 64 - doesn't say what 3 games - cheapest SKU @ $419
next cheapest @ $474

Performance Summary:
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GeForce_GTX_1660_Ti_STRIX_OC/27.html
 
Last edited:
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.
 
I got curious a few days ago as to whether my old system could run Apex. It's got a Core I5 3470, 16Gb of RAM and runs well, I last used it with a 1060 6gb just a year ago and it still ran well then.

After upgrading I put the old gpu back in (Gigabyte Gtx570)
And let it sat. Just the other day needless to say, That 570 ran Apex like **** on the absolute lowest settings, maybe 30fps. Maybe. It's definitely old as hell and barely runs the game, It's crux is the fact that is literally has like no Vram. Fills up instantly and falls flat on it's face
 
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%
 
Just wanted to say I am really happy with my windforce gtx 1660 ti. I bought it to upgrade my system I built in 2011 and now I’m playing the latest games in 1080p on ultra. I was worried that my i7 950 overclocked at 3.71 ghz would be a bottleneck but it’s actually a very balanced system now with gpu usage around 97%-99% and cpu usage around 80% typically in demanding games. Im getting about 100 FPS in apex legends. Thought I would put that out there if anyone else is still using the first gen i7 950. I also upgraded to 12gb ddr3 ram(triple channel)
 
I was just given a new nvidia 1660 GTX and it smokes my R9 280 which I still swear by. It's a good card
 
Back