Gigabyte GeForce GTX 1660 Gaming OC review
Click here to post a comment for Gigabyte GeForce GTX 1660 Gaming OC review on our message forum
IchimA
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?
airbud7
These cards should have been faster than a 1070 like the 1060 vs 970 but no... not even a decent upgrade from 1060.
Loophole35
It’s about 20-25% faster than the 1060 6GB on average that’s a decent upgrade in performance for about $50 less launch MSRP. The 1660ti is about 40-45% faster than the 1060 6GB at the same launch MSRP and that one sits right between the 1070 and 1070ti most of the time.
Undying
Its only 10-15% faster than RX580 for 50$ more. I dont think this is worth it even if you have 1060.
IchimA
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
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.
Darkest
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
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
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
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
Moderator
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
another fantastic review HH... or should that be Lord Hilbert of House Hagedoorn?
lol too much Game of Thrones i guess 😛:p
ColonelBlimp
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
For gamers like myself who use 1080p and will continue for some time these cards are ideal.
ColonelBlimp
Loophole35
Vega 56 uses almost twice the power.
ColonelBlimp
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
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
https://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=articles&action=file&id=50219
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
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.
