ASRock Z390 Steel Legend review
Corsair M55 RGB PRO gaming mouse review
Promo: Windows 10 Pro for $13 With Office 2016 For $33
Lexar NM600 NVMe M.2. SSD (480GB) review
Tech preview: Radeon RX 5700 and 5700 XT
Tech preview: AMD Ryzen 3000 - 7nm ZEN2
Patriot Viper VPN100 M2 NVMe 512 GB SSD Review
Samsung 970 EVO Plus 2TB NVMe M.2. SSD review
Guru3D Rig of the Month - May 2019
Promo: URCDKey Summer Sale Windows 10 Pro for $11
Gigabyte GeForce GTX 1660 Gaming OC review
Posted by: on: 05/14/2019 08:38 AM [
30 comment(s) ]
We review the Gigabyte GeForce GTX 1660 Gaming OC edition. The non-Ti product is more value targeted and sits in NVIDIA's mainstream line of the GTX 1660 series products. Gigabyte has already factory tweaked the card a notch for you. You get all the good stuff, yet without RTX features and Tensor cores.
Read article
Advertisement
pages 1 2
airbud7
Senior Member
Posts: 6877
Senior Member
Posts: 6877
Posted on: 05/14/2019 01:23 PM
These cards should have been faster than a 1070 like the 1060 vs 970 but no... not even a decent upgrade from 1060.
These cards should have been faster than a 1070 like the 1060 vs 970 but no... not even a decent upgrade from 1060.
Loophole35
Senior Member
Posts: 9150
Senior Member
Posts: 9150
Posted on: 05/14/2019 03:16 PM
It’s about 20-25% faster than the 1060 6GB on average that’s a decent upgrade in performance for about $50 less launch MSRP. The 1660ti is about 40-45% faster than the 1060 6GB at the same launch MSRP and that one sits right between the 1070 and 1070ti most of the time.
These cards should have been faster than a 1070 like the 1060 vs 970 but no... not even a decent upgrade from 1060.
It’s about 20-25% faster than the 1060 6GB on average that’s a decent upgrade in performance for about $50 less launch MSRP. The 1660ti is about 40-45% faster than the 1060 6GB at the same launch MSRP and that one sits right between the 1070 and 1070ti most of the time.
Undying
Senior Member
Posts: 11035
Senior Member
Posts: 11035
Posted on: 05/14/2019 03:44 PM
Its only 10-15% faster than RX580 for 50$ more. I dont think this is worth it even if you have 1060.
It’s about 20-25% faster than the 1060 6GB on average that’s a decent upgrade in performance for about $50 less launch MSRP. The 1660ti is about 40-45% faster than the 1060 6GB at the same launch MSRP and that one sits right between the 1070 and 1070ti most of the time.
Its only 10-15% faster than RX580 for 50$ more. I dont think this is worth it even if you have 1060.
IchimA
Senior Member
Posts: 948
Senior Member
Posts: 948
Posted on: 05/14/2019 04:25 PM
And no one is saying 6GB is to little to late ! My 1070 struggles at 1440p all on ULTRA ! or try R6Siege at that resolution on Very high ... without the Ultra Texture pack . It's not always about the speed ... more is better ! I agree that maybe 2080 12GB is overkill but 8GB should be the norm by now. 6Gb is bare minimum
And no one is saying 6GB is to little to late ! My 1070 struggles at 1440p all on ULTRA ! or try R6Siege at that resolution on Very high ... without the Ultra Texture pack . It's not always about the speed ... more is better ! I agree that maybe 2080 12GB is overkill but 8GB should be the norm by now. 6Gb is bare minimum
Loophole35
Senior Member
Posts: 9150
Senior Member
Posts: 9150
Posted on: 05/14/2019 04:26 PM
People with a 1060 or 580 will not be looking to upgrade to a 1660 to begin with. This is more of a card for someone still in a 290 or a 970.
This really isn’t a 1440p card. It’s a 1080p card. 6GB if fine in that environment by the time you need more VRAM the core won’t be fad enough anyway.
Plus who in this day and age is “GAMING” at ultra? You play at HIGH and screenshot at ULTRA anyway. During gameplay high and ultra a barely distinguishable.
Its only 10-15% faster than RX580 for 50$ more. I dont think this is worth it even if you have 1060.
People with a 1060 or 580 will not be looking to upgrade to a 1660 to begin with. This is more of a card for someone still in a 290 or a 970.
And no one is saying 6GB is to little to late ! My 1070 struggles at 1440p all on ULTRA ! or try R6Siege at that resolution on Very high ... without the Ultra Texture pack . It's not always about the speed ... more is better ! I agree that maybe 2080 12GB is overkill but 8GB should be the norm by now. 6Gb is bare minimum
This really isn’t a 1440p card. It’s a 1080p card. 6GB if fine in that environment by the time you need more VRAM the core won’t be fad enough anyway.
Plus who in this day and age is “GAMING” at ultra? You play at HIGH and screenshot at ULTRA anyway. During gameplay high and ultra a barely distinguishable.
Darkest
Senior Member
Posts: 10125
Senior Member
Posts: 10125
Posted on: 05/14/2019 07:04 PM
I actually like the 1660 (non TI) but not at this price point, there's absolutely no point for a huge triple fan heatsink on a card like this either. The entry level models for 40-50 euros less will perform more or less the same and will hit similar max OC's, which puts them within spitting range of a stock 1660ti. Regardless, with the recent price drops on the AMD 580 I think Nvidia needs to answer in kind for these to remain an appealing purchase.
I actually like the 1660 (non TI) but not at this price point, there's absolutely no point for a huge triple fan heatsink on a card like this either. The entry level models for 40-50 euros less will perform more or less the same and will hit similar max OC's, which puts them within spitting range of a stock 1660ti. Regardless, with the recent price drops on the AMD 580 I think Nvidia needs to answer in kind for these to remain an appealing purchase.
Undying
Senior Member
Posts: 11035
Senior Member
Posts: 11035
Posted on: 05/14/2019 09:49 PM
580 can be found at 160-170Eur already, thats 50 less than this. You can easily reach 590 performance if you let it consume even more power. You also get an extra 2gb vram. There is nothing to like about this 1660 non ti.
I actually like the 1660 (non TI) but not at this price point, there's absolutely no point for a huge triple fan heatsink on a card like this either. The entry level models for 40-50 euros less will perform more or less the same and will hit similar max OC's, which puts them within spitting range of a stock 1660ti. Regardless, with the recent price drops on the AMD 580 I think Nvidia needs to answer in kind for these to remain an appealing purchase.
580 can be found at 160-170Eur already, thats 50 less than this. You can easily reach 590 performance if you let it consume even more power. You also get an extra 2gb vram. There is nothing to like about this 1660 non ti.
Darkest
Senior Member
Posts: 10125
Senior Member
Posts: 10125
Posted on: 05/14/2019 10:02 PM
If both were the same price I'd take the 1660, if the 1660 was within 20 bucks I'd take the 1660. I've already addressed the fact that the current price difference makes the 580 a more appealing prospect.
These cards are aimed at 1080p gamers, 6gb is more than fine in that regard. The 1660 is not only faster but uses substantially less power, which can also be a deal breaker for some.
580 can be found at 160-170Eur already, thats 50 less than this. You can easily reach 590 performance if you let it consume even more power. You also get an extra 2gb vram. There is nothing to like about this 1660 non ti.
If both were the same price I'd take the 1660, if the 1660 was within 20 bucks I'd take the 1660. I've already addressed the fact that the current price difference makes the 580 a more appealing prospect.
These cards are aimed at 1080p gamers, 6gb is more than fine in that regard. The 1660 is not only faster but uses substantially less power, which can also be a deal breaker for some.
Krizby
Senior Member
Posts: 584
Senior Member
Posts: 584
Posted on: 05/15/2019 07:32 AM
Just buy the cheapest 1660 then flash it with the Gigabyte 1660 Gaming OC bios as this one has a 200W power limit; easy 15-20% performance uplift which RX590 cannot even compare lol.
Just buy the cheapest 1660 then flash it with the Gigabyte 1660 Gaming OC bios as this one has a 200W power limit; easy 15-20% performance uplift which RX590 cannot even compare lol.
vbetts
Posts: 14406
Posts: 14406
Posted on: 05/15/2019 02:27 PM
I think what you're buying these for over the 1060 is these being Turing, while they do not feature any RTX features they will get the same driver optimizations the rest of Turing gets, while Pascal driver optimizations are done. Look at launch 580 vs 580 now and what driver optimizations have done for that.
These cards should have been faster than a 1070 like the 1060 vs 970 but no... not even a decent upgrade from 1060.
I think what you're buying these for over the 1060 is these being Turing, while they do not feature any RTX features they will get the same driver optimizations the rest of Turing gets, while Pascal driver optimizations are done. Look at launch 580 vs 580 now and what driver optimizations have done for that.
tunejunky
Senior Member
Posts: 875
Senior Member
Posts: 875
Posted on: 05/15/2019 03:13 PM
another fantastic review HH... or should that be Lord Hilbert of House Hagedoorn?
lol too much Game of Thrones i guess :p:p
another fantastic review HH... or should that be Lord Hilbert of House Hagedoorn?
lol too much Game of Thrones i guess :p:p
ColonelBlimp
Junior Member
Posts: 11
Junior Member
Posts: 11
Posted on: 05/15/2019 07:27 PM
This and the 1660ti are completely pointless if you are looking at buying a card right now.
This may be UK specific but Vega 56, a really good Sapphire Pulse version, can be had for £249/€280 at Overclockers .
That's performance close to a 2060 so kind of makes that one pointless as well.
I bought one, so should you.
This and the 1660ti are completely pointless if you are looking at buying a card right now.
This may be UK specific but Vega 56, a really good Sapphire Pulse version, can be had for £249/€280 at Overclockers .
That's performance close to a 2060 so kind of makes that one pointless as well.
I bought one, so should you.
jbscotchman
Senior Member
Posts: 2663
Senior Member
Posts: 2663
Posted on: 05/15/2019 07:51 PM
This and the 1660ti are completely pointless if you are looking at buying a card right now.
This may be UK specific but Vega 56, a really good Sapphire Pulse version, can be had for £249/€280 at Overclockers .
That's performance close to a 2060 so kind of makes that one pointless as well.
I bought one, so should you.
For gamers like myself who use 1080p and will continue for some time these cards are ideal.
This and the 1660ti are completely pointless if you are looking at buying a card right now.
This may be UK specific but Vega 56, a really good Sapphire Pulse version, can be had for £249/€280 at Overclockers .
That's performance close to a 2060 so kind of makes that one pointless as well.
I bought one, so should you.
For gamers like myself who use 1080p and will continue for some time these cards are ideal.
ColonelBlimp
Junior Member
Posts: 11
Junior Member
Posts: 11
Posted on: 05/15/2019 09:15 PM
For gamers like myself who use 1080p and will continue for some time these cards are ideal.
At the same price? Really?
What's ideal about paying the same price for less performance?
If you're on a budget you'd want the best bang for buck surely, whether it's green or red.
For gamers like myself who use 1080p and will continue for some time these cards are ideal.
At the same price? Really?
What's ideal about paying the same price for less performance?
If you're on a budget you'd want the best bang for buck surely, whether it's green or red.
Loophole35
Senior Member
Posts: 9150
Senior Member
Posts: 9150
Posted on: 05/15/2019 10:08 PM
This and the 1660ti are completely pointless if you are looking at buying a card right now.
This may be UK specific but Vega 56, a really good Sapphire Pulse version, can be had for £249/€280 at Overclockers .
That's performance close to a 2060 so kind of makes that one pointless as well.
I bought one, so should you.
Vega 56 uses almost twice the power.
This and the 1660ti are completely pointless if you are looking at buying a card right now.
This may be UK specific but Vega 56, a really good Sapphire Pulse version, can be had for £249/€280 at Overclockers .
That's performance close to a 2060 so kind of makes that one pointless as well.
I bought one, so should you.
Vega 56 uses almost twice the power.
ColonelBlimp
Junior Member
Posts: 11
Junior Member
Posts: 11
Posted on: 05/16/2019 11:23 AM
Except it doesn't. Pretty sure the power figures are for the original reference card.
Mine is under 200 if I recall. (Would have to double check that)
Yes it uses more power but Radeon Chill keeps it lower than you would expect. Theres always undervolting as well.
More power for better results.
Would cost what, £10 a year on your bill? The power argument has been discredited for a long time now given the actual wattage involved and usage.
If you are that close to the limit on finances, maybe not buy a card at all?
Except it doesn't. Pretty sure the power figures are for the original reference card.
Mine is under 200 if I recall. (Would have to double check that)
Yes it uses more power but Radeon Chill keeps it lower than you would expect. Theres always undervolting as well.
More power for better results.
Would cost what, £10 a year on your bill? The power argument has been discredited for a long time now given the actual wattage involved and usage.
If you are that close to the limit on finances, maybe not buy a card at all?
alanm
Senior Member
Posts: 8638
Senior Member
Posts: 8638
Posted on: 05/16/2019 12:10 PM
Except it doesn't. Pretty sure the power figures are for the original reference card.
Mine is under 200 if I recall. (Would have to double check that)
Yes it uses more power but Radeon Chill keeps it lower than you would expect. Theres always undervolting as well.
More power for better results.
Would cost what, £10 a year on your bill? The power argument has been discredited for a long time now given the actual wattage involved and usage.
If you are that close to the limit on finances, maybe not buy a card at all?
The power argument isnt about electric bills, but more about heat control and boost performance. The hotter the card, the less boost/clock speeds. Higher TDP cards require more vigorous cooling designs. Not necessarily speaking about vega 56 in particular, but about GPUs in general. Secondly, the 1660 is not in same league as V56. If price is close, yeah V56 looks more appealing.
Except it doesn't. Pretty sure the power figures are for the original reference card.
Mine is under 200 if I recall. (Would have to double check that)
Yes it uses more power but Radeon Chill keeps it lower than you would expect. Theres always undervolting as well.
More power for better results.
Would cost what, £10 a year on your bill? The power argument has been discredited for a long time now given the actual wattage involved and usage.
If you are that close to the limit on finances, maybe not buy a card at all?
The power argument isnt about electric bills, but more about heat control and boost performance. The hotter the card, the less boost/clock speeds. Higher TDP cards require more vigorous cooling designs. Not necessarily speaking about vega 56 in particular, but about GPUs in general. Secondly, the 1660 is not in same league as V56. If price is close, yeah V56 looks more appealing.
Loophole35
Senior Member
Posts: 9150
Senior Member
Posts: 9150
Posted on: 05/16/2019 01:40 PM
Except it doesn't. Pretty sure the power figures are for the original reference card.
Mine is under 200 if I recall. (Would have to double check that)
Yes it uses more power but Radeon Chill keeps it lower than you would expect. Theres always undervolting as well.
More power for better results.
Would cost what, £10 a year on your bill? The power argument has been discredited for a long time now given the actual wattage involved and usage.
If you are that close to the limit on finances, maybe not buy a card at all?
Except it does. Undervolting is nice and all but the user this card is aimed at will slap the GPU in the PC and let Windows install drivers. The power usage point is not about your electricity bill, it’s about noise and heat. I’ve had two 670’s heating a room up before. I’d much rather have a low heat with minimal noise setup.
Except it doesn't. Pretty sure the power figures are for the original reference card.
Mine is under 200 if I recall. (Would have to double check that)
Yes it uses more power but Radeon Chill keeps it lower than you would expect. Theres always undervolting as well.
More power for better results.
Would cost what, £10 a year on your bill? The power argument has been discredited for a long time now given the actual wattage involved and usage.
If you are that close to the limit on finances, maybe not buy a card at all?
Except it does. Undervolting is nice and all but the user this card is aimed at will slap the GPU in the PC and let Windows install drivers. The power usage point is not about your electricity bill, it’s about noise and heat. I’ve had two 670’s heating a room up before. I’d much rather have a low heat with minimal noise setup.
ColonelBlimp
Junior Member
Posts: 11
Junior Member
Posts: 11
Posted on: 05/16/2019 09:10 PM
Like I said, the Vega56 in your chart is the original reference model and power draw is way higher than it is with a good AIB and therefore is misleading.
My pulse has lower vcore and higher sustained clocks.
Just had an hour on The Division 2 and maximum power draw was 180, gpu temp of 72, in a room around 22 degrees.
I understand your point about lower heat and lower noise but you should know that the chart is inaccurate.
Like I said, the Vega56 in your chart is the original reference model and power draw is way higher than it is with a good AIB and therefore is misleading.
My pulse has lower vcore and higher sustained clocks.
Just had an hour on The Division 2 and maximum power draw was 180, gpu temp of 72, in a room around 22 degrees.
I understand your point about lower heat and lower noise but you should know that the chart is inaccurate.
Loophole35
Senior Member
Posts: 9150
Senior Member
Posts: 9150
Posted on: 05/16/2019 10:25 PM
Like I said, the Vega56 in your chart is the original reference model and power draw is way higher than it is with a good AIB and therefore is misleading.
My pulse has lower vcore and higher sustained clocks.
Just had an hour on The Division 2 and maximum power draw was 180, gpu temp of 72, in a room around 22 degrees.
I understand your point about lower heat and lower noise but you should know that the chart is inaccurate.
Really?? Whould you mind posting some proof or are you going to expect me to take your word for it over Hilbert?
Unless you are using a power clamp to check power I don't believe a software based power draw reading.
I get defending your purchase but do it with honesty.
Like I said, the Vega56 in your chart is the original reference model and power draw is way higher than it is with a good AIB and therefore is misleading.
My pulse has lower vcore and higher sustained clocks.
Just had an hour on The Division 2 and maximum power draw was 180, gpu temp of 72, in a room around 22 degrees.
I understand your point about lower heat and lower noise but you should know that the chart is inaccurate.
Really?? Whould you mind posting some proof or are you going to expect me to take your word for it over Hilbert?
Unless you are using a power clamp to check power I don't believe a software based power draw reading.
I get defending your purchase but do it with honesty.
ColonelBlimp
Junior Member
Posts: 11
Junior Member
Posts: 11
Posted on: 05/16/2019 10:35 PM
I believe I was honest, given the info I had.
But, you know, I'm always open to changing my mind given irrefutable facts to the contrary.
So, yes, it seems I'm wrong about the power draw, unless you undervolt. That changes things a lot. It is possible to shave 50w from your figures with an insignificant drop in performance.
Then it becomes a question of whether you think Vega56 at £249 is great value and you can live with its shortcomings.
On that, i say yes.
Others will and do have a different opinion on it.
I believe I was honest, given the info I had.
But, you know, I'm always open to changing my mind given irrefutable facts to the contrary.
So, yes, it seems I'm wrong about the power draw, unless you undervolt. That changes things a lot. It is possible to shave 50w from your figures with an insignificant drop in performance.
Then it becomes a question of whether you think Vega56 at £249 is great value and you can live with its shortcomings.
On that, i say yes.
Others will and do have a different opinion on it.
Loophole35
Senior Member
Posts: 9150
Senior Member
Posts: 9150
Posted on: 05/16/2019 10:53 PM
I believe I was honest, given the info I had.
But, you know, I'm always open to changing my mind given irrefutable facts to the contrary.
So, yes, it seems I'm wrong about the power draw, unless you undervolt. That changes things a lot. It is possible to shave 50w from your figures with an insignificant drop in performance.
Then it becomes a question of whether you think Vega56 at £249 is great value and you can live with its shortcomings.
On that, i say yes.
Others will and do have a different opinion on it.
The best way to do things is out-of-the-box comparison. You can not guarantee all Vega 56's will under-volt and be able to keep factory boost levels.
There is a reason AMD set the voltage where they did.
Most of the time the Turing and Pascal cards can under-volt too so this card could use even less power at the same performance. See how quickly we are playing a game of what-if's.
I believe I was honest, given the info I had.
But, you know, I'm always open to changing my mind given irrefutable facts to the contrary.
So, yes, it seems I'm wrong about the power draw, unless you undervolt. That changes things a lot. It is possible to shave 50w from your figures with an insignificant drop in performance.
Then it becomes a question of whether you think Vega56 at £249 is great value and you can live with its shortcomings.
On that, i say yes.
Others will and do have a different opinion on it.
The best way to do things is out-of-the-box comparison. You can not guarantee all Vega 56's will under-volt and be able to keep factory boost levels.
There is a reason AMD set the voltage where they did.
Most of the time the Turing and Pascal cards can under-volt too so this card could use even less power at the same performance. See how quickly we are playing a game of what-if's.
Undying
Senior Member
Posts: 11035
Senior Member
Posts: 11035
Posted on: 05/16/2019 10:56 PM
Slower product is a better product becouse it uses less power. Thats that makes sense at all?
Slower product is a better product becouse it uses less power. Thats that makes sense at all?
Loophole35
Senior Member
Posts: 9150
Senior Member
Posts: 9150
Posted on: 05/16/2019 10:59 PM
Where did I claim the 1660 was better than the V56? I simply said the 56 used twice the amount of power. Upwards of 3 times the power when overclocked.
Although I would like to point out perf/watt of the 1660 is great next to the 56 and just as good next to the VII considering that card in on 7nm. Imagine Turning on 7nm.
And remember the 1660 is within 10-15% of the performance of the 56 in DX11. In DX12 its a much larger difference like 20-25%. But again this is at x2+ the power draw.
I personally like seeing the power consumption go down. I've had that blow-dryer singeing my leg hairs in summer before and don't want it any more.
Where did I claim the 1660 was better than the V56? I simply said the 56 used twice the amount of power. Upwards of 3 times the power when overclocked.
Although I would like to point out perf/watt of the 1660 is great next to the 56 and just as good next to the VII considering that card in on 7nm. Imagine Turning on 7nm.
And remember the 1660 is within 10-15% of the performance of the 56 in DX11. In DX12 its a much larger difference like 20-25%. But again this is at x2+ the power draw.
I personally like seeing the power consumption go down. I've had that blow-dryer singeing my leg hairs in summer before and don't want it any more.
pages 1 2
Click here to post a comment for this article on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 948
HH, one question ! On GTA V page I see 117 FPS @ 1080p and 73 FPS @ 1440p. Is the difference that big ( not tipo ) ? Or the game favors 8GB cards?