NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Seem to perform at GTX 1070 level at 279 USD
Click here to post a comment for NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Seem to perform at GTX 1070 level at 279 USD on our message forum
vazup
Kinda sad if that is the best they could do for a midrange card since the last one came out more than 2 years ago.
airbud7
Cool....heck i'm still learning this stuff and wondering why new cards are faster yet have less v-ram? ...."2060"
Undying
Most likely becouse nvidia is bunch of corporate assholes that wants you pay more for it.
vbetts
Moderator
Basically to segment mid range to high end. The 2060 is a very capable card, but the 6gb of frame buffer on a 192-bit bus really kind of holds it back from higher resolution gaming or post processing.
airbud7
that's definitely obvious .....Gonna get me a used 2080ti in 4/5 years!...Lol...:p
airbud7
yea but a rx 580 has a 256-bit memory interface with 8GB and is much slower?
love you vbetts ...:D
ezodagrom
The RTX 2060 with its 6GB of VRAM keeps up or even outperforms cards with more VRAM on Shadow of the Tomb Raider even at 4K. It's keeping up with the Vega 64 even when it comes to 0.1% low framerate.
-Edit-
Well... I guess I can't link this review.
-End edit-
It's not that the game actually needs more than 6GB of VRAM, I think it just allocates more VRAM than it actually needs when possible?
RzrTrek
I didn't say that I would (was more referring to their drivers) and had hoped that the last part would have made that clear, but to answer your question:
It runs poorly in my favorite UE4 games (and ACC in particular), compared to its GTX 1060 counterpart and that's enough reason for me to want an upgrade.
airbud7
Thank you!....now tell me why/how?.....I keep hearing VRAM! wins!
vbetts
Moderator
I'm not sure how they are compared core per core count, but I believe the 1070 has more shader cores than the 580 does, and is also faster both on core and memory. I'm comparing the 1070 in this case considering the 1070 an the 1660 TI are suppose to have similar performance.
Long term for 4k gaming that requires more vram though, you'll notice frame pacing issues with lack of vram or possibly even instabilities if there's a high vram demand.
ezodagrom
Well, VRAM is important, and I'm sure that someday 6GB is not going to be enough even for 1080p (though when it reaches that point, I bet 8GB won't be far behind anyway), but I doubt it'll come to that in the next few years (though the new generation of consoles could accelerate the need of more VRAM, but it all depends on how much memory they'll have).
GTX 1060 - 1280:80:48 core configuration, 6GB VRAM, 192~216 GB/s memory bandwidth depending on the version.
RX 580 - 2304:144:32 core configuration, 8GB VRAM, 256 GB/s memory bandwidth, performs slightly better than the GTX 1060 6GB overall (not in all games, but newer games seem to favor the RX 580).
RX 590 - same as above but overclocked, performs slightly better than the RX 580.
GTX 1070 - 1920:120:64 core configuration, 8GB VRAM, 256 GB/s memory bandwidth, around ~40%-ish faster than the GTX 1060.
GTX 1660 Ti - 1536:96:48 core configuration, 6GB VRAM, 288 GB/s memory bandwidth, should perform on par or close to the GTX 1070 thanks to Turing architecture improvements.
GTX 1070 Ti - 2432:152:64 core configuration, 8GB VRAM, 256 GB/s memory bandwidth.
RTX 2060 - 1920:120:48 core configuration, 6GB VRAM, 336 GB/s memory bandwidth, performs on par with the GTX 1070 Ti.
Kaarme
I wouldn't go from 8GB of GDDR to 6GB simply because it's philosophically wrong to downgrade anything in the PC world, unless, of course I was buying from an entirely different product segment for entirely different purposes. Things needs to become bigger (not usually physically) and faster with every generation of buying stuff. Or at least stay the same if it can't be reasonably helped. That's progress. It's also why I don't like 580 (and 590) only having 32 ROPs. I wouldn't get those cards unless I absolutely had to for some strange reason.
This might sound like total nonsense, but a man has to have some principles, especially after watching what Intel did for a decade.
ezodagrom
Well, people don't have to upgrade every generation, especially on the mid range market.
Personally I find it better to upgrade every 2 generations or so, users with older mid range cards (GTX 970 or worse, R9 380X or worse) could find this a good upgrade option.
Aura89
vram has become a marketing scheme to make people believe they need more and more and more. Yes, it can be beneficial, but as we've seen, it's not always necessary to have "more". RTX 2080 performs better then the 1080 ti in most 4K scenarios, where the extra ram that the 1080 ti has would make you assume it should do better.
It by far is not about "how much ram" you have.
SpajdrEX
[youtube=pfnzHA3-MhM]
It's not only about how much VRAM you have but also how to use it effectively.
NVIDIA seems to be better at it.
BReal85
Well, the 1070 is a 1440p card (all reviews called it this way), so the RTX 2060 will be the same.
The perfect card for you would be an RX 570 4GB for half the price or an RX 580 8GB for $100 less - both with 2 games worth $120.
The problem is the GTX 1060 was $250. Which was on par with the 980. Now you call it best realease in a long period, as it is 20% more expensive, and only matches the 1070, so the jump is 1 category smaller with a 20% increase. So yes, you can call this card the best in the new gen, but it's still a massive shame compared to the Pascal series.
SamuelL421
I am extremely impressed with how well the 980ti compares even today.
Also, I've played on a 3gb 1060 laptop card and have rarely had to drop below ultra/max textures for 1080p. Only on a few 2018 titles have I had to set textures back to high (Kingdom Come and BFV are the only ones I can think of off the atm). I think people get too worried about VRAM, having used a 1060 3gb, 980 4gb, 1070 8gb, 1080 8gb, 1080ti 11gb, and 2080ti 11gb, this has generally been my experience:
3-4gb 1080p max details
8gb 1440p max details
8-11gb 4k max details
stereoman
Vram isn't everything and don't forget this uses GDDR6 compared to GDDR5 on the 1070 which would probably account for the comparative speeds. Personally I wouldn't buy one as my 1070 clocks right up to 2120 before it gets a bit wobbly and is more than enough for me at 1440p.
seems like the first Turing card that actually makes a bit of sense financially but performance wise I dunno I think the fact that it only has 6gb vram coupled with 192bit bus for anyone with a 1060/1070 it's almost a non starter, side grade at best.
cowie
more like no way grade from a 1070 not so much a 1060 then maybe 15% more if its at 1070 levels then its an up grade.
then you are at the point where you can turn up things at 1080p or down if higher
its at 1060 prices if true that's not bad
I don't think even navi is going to hit 1080 like numbers so no risk till then everything 250-280 has to be as fast as a 1070. its like the "benmark" numbers for this range whatever its called now
ezodagrom
Well, I was talking about the 1660 Ti, 6GB is fine for it since it'll be mostly a 1080p card. ^^;
The 1070 was a 1440p card when it launched, but since then there's been more demanding games and as we transition to a new gen of consoles, it's gonna stop being enough for 1440p eventually.
Despite having a 192 bit bus, it's using faster GDDR6, so it has more memory bandwidth than 256 bit bus GDDR5 VRAM.
When it comes to upgrading, the 1660 Ti makes more sense for users with older (before Pascal) mid-range cards. It would also be a good option for users with lower end cards like the 1050/1050 Ti.
