2060 vs 1660ti what's the catch?

Modred189

Modred189

Can't Read the OP
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
16,308
My 660ti in my HTPC is acting wonky and is on it's way out via obselescence anyway.

Being a lame 1080p gamer, I WAS looKing at the RTX2060 (to replace a GTX 970 in my main rig, to be sent to the HTPC), but the [H] review and craptastic RTing performance gave me some pause.

Then these leaks dropped about the 1660ti cards supposedly for launch next month.
https://www.techradar.com/news/gtx-1660-ti-models-from-gigabyte-and-msi-spotted

Rumor has it they will be around 95% of a 2060, sans RT cores (which it apparently cannot even use), all 6gb cards. For $280. Versus $350+.

Helpe out here, but it seems like I must be missing something. Did Nvidia really miss the boat on 2060 RT performance that bad? Is 2060 die manufacturing making that many bad dies that they need to move so many gimped ones?
 
The 1660ti is most likely NV's answer to whatever AMD is about to come out with in the under $300 segment.
Time will tell.

Meanwhile if you are sticking with 1080p a RX580 8gb or GTX1060 6gb would give you a lot of bang for the buck
 
Auer said:
The 1660ti is most likely NV's answer to whatever AMD is about to come out with in the under $300 segment.
Time will tell.

Meanwhile if you are sticking with 1080p a RX580 8gb or GTX1060 6gb would give you a lot of bang for the buck
Click to expand...

Nah, he's replacing a 970 and those cards are a side grade. He should go 1070 or better.
 
Auer said:
What's the point if he's staying at 1080p?
Click to expand...
1) I refuse to buy previous generation tech. A policy that has served me very well over time.

2) games do get more demanding over time as new visual tech is created. So future proofing from a horsepower perspective.
 
Modred189 said:
Rumor has it they will be around 95% of a 2060, sans RT cores (which it apparently cannot even use), all 6gb cards. For $280. Versus $350+.
Click to expand...
It will have 1536 cores vs 1920 cores. Maximum GPU clock is identical on all Turing cards so after OC you will end up with exactly 80% performance for 80% price and without ray-tracing. Bad deal imho, especially considering that since it doesn't have RT you are better off getting Pascal.

Not including RT cores have less to do with performance and more to do with price. You get more chips from smaller dies.
Imho it is very wrong decision on NV side. They should not make RT-less chips if they want this tech to be taken seriously.
 
XoR_ said:
It will have 1536 cores vs 1920 cores. Maximum GPU clock is identical on all Turing cards so after OC you will end up with exactly 80% performance for 80% price and without ray-tracing. Bad deal imho, especially considering that since it doesn't have RT you are better off getting Pascal.

Not including RT cores have less to do with performance and more to do with price. You get more chips from smaller dies.
Imho it is very wrong decision on NV side. They should not make RT-less chips if they want this tech to be taken seriously.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the clocks clarification. Makes more sense. That said, do we know that these LACK RT cores, or are they disabled?
 
Modred189 said:
Thanks for the clocks clarification. Makes more sense. That said, do we know that these LACK RT cores, or are they disabled?
Click to expand...
Since yield is supposedly really low on the RTX cards I would imagine that the ray tracing part of the core is just disabled. I'm sure GN will take one apart when they get their hands on one.
 
Modred189 said:
Thanks for the clocks clarification. Makes more sense. That said, do we know that these LACK RT cores, or are they disabled?
Click to expand...

It's supposed to be a brand-new mid-range chip with no RT cores. Because it's already a waste of die space for the RTX 2060.

It's basically going to be a 1070, for about $70 less than it used to cost. Because slightly smaller die, and 192-bit bus.

They will definitely toss RT and *possibly* Tensor cores.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top