ASUS TUF Gaming B760-PLUS WIFI D4 review
Netac NV7000 2 TB NVMe SSD Review
ASUS GeForce RTX 4080 Noctua OC Edition review
MSI Clutch GM51 Wireless mouse review
ASUS ROG STRIX B760-F Gaming WIFI review
Asus ROG Harpe Ace Aim Lab Edition mouse review
SteelSeries Arctis Nova Pro Headset review
Ryzen 7800X3D preview - 7950X3D One CCD Disabled
MSI VIGOR GK71 SONIC Blue keyboard review
AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D processor review
MSI GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Gaming X review
Posted by: on: 02/22/2019 04:00 PM [
229 comment(s) ]
We review the new MSI GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Gaming X edition. This is a more high-end product in the new mainstream line of the new GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Gaming series products. MSI has already factory tweaked the card for you, making this a very more affordable offer, yet without RTX features.
Read article
Advertisement
pages « < 43 44 45 46
airbud7
Senior Member
Posts: 7835
Senior Member
Posts: 7835
Posted on: 03/01/2019 09:55 PM
$80 is $80 Bro!.....had he got a 2060 you would then say....> should have got 2070! .an then you would say.....> should have got 2080!
Grrrrrrrr
The RTX 2060 has a whole 25% more shader cores than the 1660ti, as well as 17% greater VRAM bandwidth, so if both the RTX 2060 and GTX 1660ti are overclocked to their max stable frequency the RTX 2060 is likely to be winning by up to 25% difference. The only reason why the gap between 1660ti and RTX 2060 doesn't seem that great is because they are being compared at stock frequencies, and the 1660ti has a higher stock frequency - but both the RTX 2060 and the 1660ti should overclock to roughly the same frequency, so overclocked performance would show a bigger gap (also the RTX 2060 has less power restrictions than the 1660ti, so another winning factor when comparing overclocked performance). I think RTX 2060 is a no brainer given what I've talked about here considering the small price difference between 1660ti & RTX 2060, not to mention the RTX features & DLSS - I think it's hard to not see that all this is worth the $80 that you mention. 1660ti too expensive for what it offers. (But, if you've set yourself an absolute upper limit for a GPU spend that happens to be at 1660ti price, well then there is no argument to be had, but that would be unfortunate).
$80 is $80 Bro!.....had he got a 2060 you would then say....> should have got 2070! .an then you would say.....> should have got 2080!
Grrrrrrrr
sykozis
Senior Member
Posts: 22422
Senior Member
Posts: 22422
Posted on: 03/02/2019 01:18 AM
Overclocking potential only becomes a factor if there is intent to overclock. As I have no intent nor reason to overclock, any potential gains to be had from overclocking are moot. The absolute most taxing game I could possibly install would be BF5 or FarCry.... My RX470 easily ran BF4 at well over 100fps at my preferred settings, so I would suspect that this 1660Ti will do so as well.
As for the RTX and DLSS features, those are moot as well. None of the games I currently play support RayTracing, nor will they ever. They also don't support DLSS, nor will they ever. Unused or unusable features have no value. As I only play BF games for the multiplayer aspect, RayTracing would be a no-go anyway as framerates are more important than "realistic graphics".... Quite frankly, I loathe the idea that games need more "realistic" graphics.
The games I play are BF4, SimCity, DA:O, DA2, TL, TL2 and ME2. All of which were easily run by my RX470. The primary reason for the upgrade was the stock fans failing on the RX470 and it having no ability to control or monitor the fans on my Accelero TwinTurbo II. The secondary reason for upgrading was "glitches" within the aforementioned games that were getting worse with newer graphics drivers. I don't expect that a newer AMD card would solve the issues as the drivers would still be the same.
The RTX 2060 has a whole 25% more shader cores than the 1660ti, as well as 17% greater VRAM bandwidth, so if both the RTX 2060 and GTX 1660ti are overclocked to their max stable frequency the RTX 2060 is likely to be winning by up to 25% difference. The only reason why the gap between 1660ti and RTX 2060 doesn't seem that great is because they are being compared at stock frequencies, and the 1660ti has a higher stock frequency - but both the RTX 2060 and the 1660ti should overclock to roughly the same frequency, so overclocked performance would show a bigger gap (also the RTX 2060 has less power restrictions than the 1660ti, so another winning factor when comparing overclocked performance). I think RTX 2060 is a no brainer given what I've talked about here considering the small price difference between 1660ti & RTX 2060, not to mention the RTX features & DLSS - I think it's hard to not see that all this is worth the $80 that you mention. 1660ti too expensive for what it offers. (But, if you've set yourself an absolute upper limit for a GPU spend that happens to be at 1660ti price, well then there is no argument to be had, but that would be unfortunate).
Overclocking potential only becomes a factor if there is intent to overclock. As I have no intent nor reason to overclock, any potential gains to be had from overclocking are moot. The absolute most taxing game I could possibly install would be BF5 or FarCry.... My RX470 easily ran BF4 at well over 100fps at my preferred settings, so I would suspect that this 1660Ti will do so as well.
As for the RTX and DLSS features, those are moot as well. None of the games I currently play support RayTracing, nor will they ever. They also don't support DLSS, nor will they ever. Unused or unusable features have no value. As I only play BF games for the multiplayer aspect, RayTracing would be a no-go anyway as framerates are more important than "realistic graphics".... Quite frankly, I loathe the idea that games need more "realistic" graphics.
The games I play are BF4, SimCity, DA:O, DA2, TL, TL2 and ME2. All of which were easily run by my RX470. The primary reason for the upgrade was the stock fans failing on the RX470 and it having no ability to control or monitor the fans on my Accelero TwinTurbo II. The secondary reason for upgrading was "glitches" within the aforementioned games that were getting worse with newer graphics drivers. I don't expect that a newer AMD card would solve the issues as the drivers would still be the same.
Robbo9999
Senior Member
Posts: 1720
Senior Member
Posts: 1720
Posted on: 03/02/2019 05:52 PM
$80 is $80 Bro!.....had he got a 2060 you would then say....> should have got 2070! .an then you would say.....> should have got 2080!
Grrrrrrrr
That's why I wrote that last sentence in my post saying: "But, if you've set yourself an absolute upper limit for a GPU spend that happens to be at 1660ti price, well then there is no argument to be had, but that would be unfortunate.". Which is what you're getting at by saying $80 is $80, so we're on the same page about that. If he got a 2060 I most certainly wouldn't have said to get a 2070, I think the 2060 is the one that actually makes sense in this RTX lineup in terms of performance & price.
Overclocking potential only becomes a factor if there is intent to overclock. As I have no intent nor reason to overclock, any potential gains to be had from overclocking are moot. The absolute most taxing game I could possibly install would be BF5 or FarCry.... My RX470 easily ran BF4 at well over 100fps at my preferred settings, so I would suspect that this 1660Ti will do so as well.
As for the RTX and DLSS features, those are moot as well. None of the games I currently play support RayTracing, nor will they ever. They also don't support DLSS, nor will they ever. Unused or unusable features have no value. As I only play BF games for the multiplayer aspect, RayTracing would be a no-go anyway as framerates are more important than "realistic graphics".... Quite frankly, I loathe the idea that games need more "realistic" graphics.
The games I play are BF4, SimCity, DA:O, DA2, TL, TL2 and ME2. All of which were easily run by my RX470. The primary reason for the upgrade was the stock fans failing on the RX470 and it having no ability to control or monitor the fans on my Accelero TwinTurbo II. The secondary reason for upgrading was "glitches" within the aforementioned games that were getting worse with newer graphics drivers. I don't expect that a newer AMD card would solve the issues as the drivers would still be the same.
Yeah, I see what you mean, if you're only playing games that have already launched and aren't interested in future games, then all you need is a GPU which will run your current ones - so yes "job done" with your GTX 1660ti choice then. For people buying a GPU in that rough price range and if they're more interested in being able to play future games and getting the most performance/features/value from their GPU choice, then the RTX 2060 is the more solid choice over the GTX 1660ti, given the small price difference between the two as well as all the other points I mentioned in my earlier post.
$80 is $80 Bro!.....had he got a 2060 you would then say....> should have got 2070! .an then you would say.....> should have got 2080!
Grrrrrrrr
That's why I wrote that last sentence in my post saying: "But, if you've set yourself an absolute upper limit for a GPU spend that happens to be at 1660ti price, well then there is no argument to be had, but that would be unfortunate.". Which is what you're getting at by saying $80 is $80, so we're on the same page about that. If he got a 2060 I most certainly wouldn't have said to get a 2070, I think the 2060 is the one that actually makes sense in this RTX lineup in terms of performance & price.
Overclocking potential only becomes a factor if there is intent to overclock. As I have no intent nor reason to overclock, any potential gains to be had from overclocking are moot. The absolute most taxing game I could possibly install would be BF5 or FarCry.... My RX470 easily ran BF4 at well over 100fps at my preferred settings, so I would suspect that this 1660Ti will do so as well.
As for the RTX and DLSS features, those are moot as well. None of the games I currently play support RayTracing, nor will they ever. They also don't support DLSS, nor will they ever. Unused or unusable features have no value. As I only play BF games for the multiplayer aspect, RayTracing would be a no-go anyway as framerates are more important than "realistic graphics".... Quite frankly, I loathe the idea that games need more "realistic" graphics.
The games I play are BF4, SimCity, DA:O, DA2, TL, TL2 and ME2. All of which were easily run by my RX470. The primary reason for the upgrade was the stock fans failing on the RX470 and it having no ability to control or monitor the fans on my Accelero TwinTurbo II. The secondary reason for upgrading was "glitches" within the aforementioned games that were getting worse with newer graphics drivers. I don't expect that a newer AMD card would solve the issues as the drivers would still be the same.
Yeah, I see what you mean, if you're only playing games that have already launched and aren't interested in future games, then all you need is a GPU which will run your current ones - so yes "job done" with your GTX 1660ti choice then. For people buying a GPU in that rough price range and if they're more interested in being able to play future games and getting the most performance/features/value from their GPU choice, then the RTX 2060 is the more solid choice over the GTX 1660ti, given the small price difference between the two as well as all the other points I mentioned in my earlier post.
pages « < 43 44 45 46
Click here to post a comment for this article on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 1720
Yes, a plastic backplate..... Hilbert mentioned it in his review....but as I only skimmed through the game test results, I missed that part. The backplate is purely an aesthetic component on the card, so being plastic isn't really an issue.
In Hilbert's review, based on the games I'm most likely to play, this 1660Ti provides roughly a 50% performance improvement over my RX470. Nothing to be disappointed by there. Sure, I could have gained another 10% or so from a 2060, but not really necessary nor worth the cost for me. After shipping, I paid roughly $286 for this 1660Ti....whereas the 2060 would have cost me roughly $366. That extra 10% or so performance gain is not worth an additional $80 to me.
I haven't had a chance to stress the card yet, or even game at all due to other activities and responsibilities. I will manage to over the next couple days though. The card is quite heavy and feels as solid as a brick....lol
The RTX 2060 has a whole 25% more shader cores than the 1660ti, as well as 17% greater VRAM bandwidth, so if both the RTX 2060 and GTX 1660ti are overclocked to their max stable frequency the RTX 2060 is likely to be winning by up to 25% difference. The only reason why the gap between 1660ti and RTX 2060 doesn't seem that great is because they are being compared at stock frequencies, and the 1660ti has a higher stock frequency - but both the RTX 2060 and the 1660ti should overclock to roughly the same frequency, so overclocked performance would show a bigger gap (also the RTX 2060 has less power restrictions than the 1660ti, so another winning factor when comparing overclocked performance). I think RTX 2060 is a no brainer given what I've talked about here considering the small price difference between 1660ti & RTX 2060, not to mention the RTX features & DLSS - I think it's hard to not see that all this is worth the $80 that you mention. 1660ti too expensive for what it offers. (But, if you've set yourself an absolute upper limit for a GPU spend that happens to be at 1660ti price, well then there is no argument to be had, but that would be unfortunate).