Reviews: A GeForce GTX 1660 Threesome - MSI Ventus and Gaming X and Palit StormX

#5650214 Posted on: 03/15/2019 01:24 PM

---

Like rumors for Navi are July up to October, ridiculous....

#5650216 Posted on: 03/15/2019 01:27 PM

---

I think consumers have the most influence on what companies can do or get away with.

I am not sure it's up to one company to "punish" another.
That is odd thinking to me.

No one "needs" the gpus most of us buy to game... we want those gpus.

#5650218 Posted on: 03/15/2019 01:33 PM

---

Not like Navi has to be here tommorow. Polaris can still compete with turing gtx but unfortunately with another price drops.

Let them do this right not rushing things.

#5650220 Posted on: 03/15/2019 01:38 PM

---

Not like Navi has to be here tommorow. Polaris can still compete with turing gtx but unfortunately with another price drops.

Let them do this right not rushing things.
Sure but the question is how sustainable a dramatically cut Polaris lineup with bundles. doesn't sound very maintainable in terms of margins.

EDIT: As long as Zen 2 delivers, I'm happy from 2019.. but Turing pissed me off so much.
it's a shame Nvidia didn't get smacked for pulling this shady generation

#5650278 Posted on: 03/15/2019 03:40 PM

---

Only nvidia card worth buying right now is 2070. That thing overclocked can be fast as 2080 for much less.

This 6gb nvidia gtx/rtx cards just amuses me.
Max OC on the 2070 does not come close to matching the 2080. However OC 2060 almost matches the 2070. I still say if you are staying on 1080 or are fine with just 60Hz 1440 the 2060 is the card to get for the $.

#5650378 Posted on: 03/15/2019 06:42 PM

---

Thanks! as I suspected. pretty much an RX 590 performance for 220$ at 110W.

not a massive leap but it will sell well because it's facing a 3 years old competition at this point.

It's actually nowhere near an RX-590 for the following reasons:

1) 192-bit bus vs the 590's 256-bit bus

2) 6GBs of vram versus 8GB's for the 590

3)No SLI/multi-GPU DX12 capability, whereas the RX-590 will X-fire with a 480 or a 580, leaving the several hobbled-by-no-SLI new GTX and RTX cards in the dust, even if you bought your RX-480 two years ago...

There is just no comparison. Unless you are a complete n00b who has to learn these lessons the hard way, the 1660/ti is a terrible buy, imo. But, hey, that's nVidia for you.

#5650382 Posted on: 03/15/2019 06:56 PM

---

It's actually nowhere near an RX-590 for the following reasons:

1) 192-bit bus vs the 590's 256-bit bus

2) 6GBs of vram versus 8GB's for the 590

3)No SLI/multi-GPU DX12 capability, whereas the RX-590 will X-fire with a 480 or a 580, leaving the several hobbled-by-no-SLI new GTX and RTX cards in the dust, even if you bought your RX-480 two years ago...

There is just no comparison. Unless you are a complete n00b who has to learn these lessons the hard way, the 1660/ti is a terrible buy, imo. But, hey, that's nVidia for you.

is that really better performance between 192bit and 256bit ?
lately i been searching about this
for example 1070 using 256bit 8GB GDDR5 while 2060 192bit 6GB GDDR6
now 256bit GDDR5 vs 192bit GDDR6 which faster ?

if matter, all review i read so far, 2060 slight ahead 1070 even the difference really is like 10fps difference only

#5650468 Posted on: 03/15/2019 09:21 PM

---

It's actually nowhere near an RX-590 for the following reasons:

1) 192-bit bus vs the 590's 256-bit bus

2) 6GBs of vram versus 8GB's for the 590

3)No SLI/multi-GPU DX12 capability, whereas the RX-590 will X-fire with a 480 or a 580, leaving the several hobbled-by-no-SLI new GTX and RTX cards in the dust, even if you bought your RX-480 two years ago...

There is just no comparison. Unless you are a complete n00b who has to learn these lessons the hard way, the 1660/ti is a terrible buy, imo. But, hey, that's nVidia for you.
1. bit bus means nothing..... because the architectures are completely different. it's like comparing clocks between AMD and Nvidia, pointless
Nvidia has far better compression and VRAM management architecture, look at any performance level Nvidia will always do better with less bandwidth

2. Doesn't matter..... as long as you have sufficient VRAM having 20GB as well won't do you any good.

3. SLI/CFX is dead, no one cares about it. it's barely supported today.

#5650469 Posted on: 03/15/2019 09:25 PM

---

2. Doesn't matter..... as long as you have sufficient VRAM having 20GB as well won't do you any good.

How do you define sufficent amount this days? How do we differentiate vram caching and actual usage?

#5650473 Posted on: 03/15/2019 09:30 PM

---

Great question, we take an extreme case like 1440P or even 4K maxed out, things these cards never meant for, and see if VRAM becomes an issue.
we can't never guess what requirements for future games will be but let me tell you something. the GTX 1060 is the most popular GPU in the world(Steam Hardware Survey)
even game developer knows it and requiring more than 6GB today would really hurt sales.

1660Ti / 1660 do not show VRAM issues in high resolutions, the core is bottlenecking the card way before the memory.

#5650474 Posted on: 03/15/2019 09:31 PM

---

As long as people buy the right GPU for what they need, everyone is happy.

EDIT: Only checked the GamingX charts, jesus this card beats the 590 more often than not. Awkward for AMD.

#5650532 Posted on: 03/16/2019 12:29 AM

---

Great question, we take an extreme case like 1440P or even 4K maxed out, things these cards never meant for, and see if VRAM becomes an issue.
we can't never guess what requirements for future games will be but let me tell you something. the GTX 1060 is the most popular GPU in the world(Steam Hardware Survey)
even game developer knows it and requiring more than 6GB today would really hurt sales.

1660Ti / 1660 do not show VRAM issues in high resolutions, the core is bottlenecking the card way before the memory.

This is what i have been saying. You look at 4k games and i have yet to see a game that suddenly makes the 8gb 580 better then the 4gb 580, at worst theres a 1fps difference, regardless of what the game says it can utilize.

So 6gb, no problem, if you want to game at 4k at decent fps, the gpu power and ram speed is what will get you there, not the increase in ram, as of yet.

Lately many people on these forums just seem to care about a number rather then actual performance in games.

#5650533 Posted on: 03/16/2019 12:38 AM

---

This is what i have been saying. You look at 4k games and i have yet to see a game that suddenly makes the 8gb 580 better then the 4gb 580, at worst theres a 1fps difference, regardless of what the game says it can utilize.

So 6gb, no problem, if you want to game at 4k at decent fps, the gpu power and ram speed is what will get you there, not the increase in ram, as of yet.

Lately many people on these forums just seem to care about a number rather then actual performance in games.

I think in Hardware unboxed RE2 benchmark he was talking how Fury cards and 580 4gb have issues at highest settings only becouse it was lacking vram while 580 8gb was far above it.
That was even at 1080p. There is quite a few examples like this.

#5650550 Posted on: 03/16/2019 02:19 AM

---

I think in Hardware unboxed RE2 benchmark he was talking how Fury cards and 580 4gb have issues at highest settings only becouse it was lacking vram while 580 8gb was far above it.
That was even at 1080p. There is quite a few examples like this.

Techspot shows a marginal difference at 1080p vs 580 4gb and 8gb, and shows the 980 ti doing better then both with less ram then the 8gb rx 580, as well as much better for the 2060 with again less ram then the 8gb rx 580.

I'm not going to touch hardware unboxed since its a useless youtube channel.

But while yes, in resident evil 2, you get better fps with 8gb for likely unoptimized game code, but a small amount, its not the norm, you will find massively more games that do not care then you will find unoptimizes games that do care about the 4gb vs 8gb, this is fact, if you deny this, you deny direct facts.

Most review websites dont even test the 4gb and 8gb against eachother because more often then not there is no difference. This has already been discussed before over and over again, but people like you are unwilling to understand the simple facta of the situation and only care about their own narrative and like to pop up when they find one game that says otherwise and suggests their opinion must be fact and waive it around like its the holy grail.


Fact is this: Do not care how much ram a graphics card is, UNLESS there is adequate, not one off situations, that show at your resolution you game at means a card with higher amount of ram would be better. ONLY take that singular game into the equation if it is the ONE game you plan on playing 99% of the time, which is up to you, but thats a YOU thing not an overall thing. Stop caring about the amount of ram a graphics card has, and start caring what the overall PERFORMANCE of the card is in the games YOU like to play is.

#5650720 Posted on: 03/16/2019 04:10 PM

---

I think in Hardware unboxed RE2 benchmark he was talking how Fury cards and 580 4gb have issues at highest settings only becouse it was lacking vram while 580 8gb was far above it.
That was even at 1080p. There is quite a few examples like this.
Fury suffers in general, if you look at their video the RX 580 4GB was more consistent as well