GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER Launch Review Roundup

Wooooooooooow.....no wait wrong wording...... yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn
 
The card did better than I thought. It has the best value among the 3. Not bad, Nvidia.
 
And now we wait to see availability and prices. It should make for an interesting round of holiday sales.

Seems so close to the 1660Ti in performance, and the regular 1660 in price, that it makes both of them pointless.

Agreed. But then if you look at the numbers in various reviews, it is just more obvious that Nvidia positioned their products to offer something at every $50 price point. Look at the numbers for a 1660, Super and Ti. Even at release earlier this year =you were looking at a 5-10fps difference in most games for $50 more. The 1660ti has been overpriced since its release. Much the same as all cards this generation. $280+ for a 192bit 6GB card that is 10fps faster than a $230 one. Neither of which is going to be a good value long term (2+ years) compared to 2-3 year old cards that are $120-180.
 
Seems so close to the 1660Ti in performance, and the regular 1660 in price, that it makes both of them pointless.

It depends what the price if the 1660 base is after this. Most of those cards could do 10 GB/s which is a 25% boost over the stock 8 GB/s. With those memory speeds, you would probably match the 1660 super. Yes, you can overclock the 1660 Super memory, but since it is already 75% higher bandwidth than the 1660, I doubt that will do much.
 
It depends what the price if the 1660 base is after this. Most of those cards could do 10 GB/s which is a 25% boost over the stock 8 GB/s. With those memory speeds, you would probably match the 1660 super. Yes, you can overclock the 1660 Super memory, but since it is already 75% higher bandwidth than the 1660, I doubt that will do much.

I am not sure why you think getting Memory to 10GB/s will equal having memory at 14GB/s like on the Super.

Sure you can lower the price of the 1660 to have relevence, but then what about the 1660 Ti. Every review I looked at said it was ~2% faster than the 1660 S. Why do both of these cards exist?

The "Super" releases have been quite strange.
 
I honestly don't understand the point of releasing most of these super cards. Why not just drop the price of the ti variant to the super's price slot? No need to make two cards that perform nearly identically and charge different prices. But then again, rational and logical thought doesn't make much sense, considering big corporations are trying to milk every dollar out of uninformed customers...lol.

*sigh* the world we live in.
 
its a little lame(the 1660) but we just got done with the years releases so reading a new benchmark review is a nice present to myself today. thank you.
 
I honestly don't understand the point of releasing most of these super cards. Why not just drop the price of the ti variant to the super's price slot? No need to make two cards that perform nearly identically and charge different prices. But then again, rational and logical thought doesn't make much sense, considering big corporations are trying to milk every dollar out of uninformed customers...lol.

*sigh* the world we live in.
Dumping gpus that don't meet up to nvidia's standards for a Ti?
 
I am not sure why you think getting Memory to 10GB/s will equal having memory at 14GB/s like on the Super.

Sure you can lower the price of the 1660 to have relevence, but then what about the 1660 Ti. Every review I looked at said it was ~2% faster than the 1660 S. Why do both of these cards exist?

The "Super" releases have been quite strange.

The point is that the 1660S probably doesn't need the 75% increase in bandwidth to get that performance when the 1660 could most likely match it with a 20-25% boost in GDDR5 speed.
 
The point is that the 1660S probably doesn't need the 75% increase in bandwidth to get that performance when the 1660 could most likely match it with a 20-25% boost in GDDR5 speed.

The 14 GB/s seems to help the 1660 Super get a lot closer (~2% less) to the 1660 Ti (12GB/s) than would be expected, so it looks like that memory bandwidth is very useful.
 
The 14 GB/s seems to help the 1660 Super get a lot closer (~2% less) to the 1660 Ti (12GB/s) than would be expected, so it looks like that memory bandwidth is very useful.

Yeah the 1660 Ti is essentially EOL now.
 
I honestly don't understand the point of releasing most of these super cards. Why not just drop the price of the ti variant to the super's price slot? No need to make two cards that perform nearly identically and charge different prices. But then again, rational and logical thought doesn't make much sense, considering big corporations are trying to milk every dollar out of uninformed customers...lol.

*sigh* the world we live in.
Price cut " sends the wrong signals" or some shit?
 
I honestly don't understand the point of releasing most of these super cards. Why not just drop the price of the ti variant to the super's price slot?
Could be as simple as them planning for the card to be faster (but it isn't in the end) and the parts or manufacturing is different so they can't use the same name as a previous release.
 
I still have no clue when I'll upgrade again....

The Titan Xp's I have work fine for most things... if anything I'd like more CPU power perhaps, but I'm not even sure about that anymore. Being able to use CUDA for a lot of the things I do outside of gaming means I don't always need the best CPU... but for some games... it still comes in handy.

Maybe when the next generation of GPU's hits I'll consider a purchase.
 
I'm guessing you used TPU as the basis for that 2%. Its a bit deceptive as the after market 1660ti all were higher than what the stock 1660ti is shown on the graph. At stock settings, the clock profiles can be a little funny depending on the bios/fan profiles.

Comparing similiar locked in clocks:
The 1660ti at 2002/1880 mhz core/mem has the same 9% performance boost as it does core count boost over the 1660 at 1981/1975 mhz:
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/zotac-geforce-gtx-1660-super-amp/29.html
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/msi-geforce-gtx-1660-ti-ventus-xs/33.html

Unigine is probably not the best gaming benchmarks, but it was the only one that showed a comparison with locked in overclocks.

It wasn't TPUP. It was 3 other reviews and they all showed about 2%.
 
I honestly don't understand the point of releasing most of these super cards.
To keep the card relevant when compared to upcoming cards from the competition?
Because DDR5 prices from suppliers are increasing the BOM costs enough to make the switch to DDR6 a smart move?
Or the act of switching what could be a very popular card this holiday season could allow DDR6 BOM pricing to drop for Nvidia's entire lineup due to reaching threshold quantity discounts from suppliers.
All of the above. None of the above. Who knows. Except you know it has to do with money somehow.
 
I guess process improvements/maturity and DDR6 prices allowed them a population of the TU116 chips that were worthwhile to bin accordingly? As long as the cost of greater fractionalization in SKU's doesn't hurt, it works out well, especially if it allows Nvidia provide OEM desktop assemblers finer granularity.

It also gives us a new value leader (take that wherever you'd like...) in the $200's.
 
It seems the entire Turing lineup was bandwidth starved save maybe the 1660ti and 2070. The Super series was a good way to refresh the lineup without launching a new series.
 
Crowding further an already crowded market. Unless what I read is incorrect- my understanding is they aren't EOLing anything else to make room for it. In what world does a regular 1660 make any sense when the super is available? Maybe there's still an argument for the Ti, but not even sure about that either.

I would prefer to see the SUPERs become an actual "refresh" where they replace their non-super counterparts instead of just pushing both into the market.

Though maybe I'm missing a benefit to consumers. Availability? Price? At the very least, choice.
 
I guess if this moves the plain 1660 down to the $179 range (after rebates, etc.) it's not a bad move. The 2060 non-Ti at $349 and the 1660Ti at $279 are still questionable though.
 
It seems the entire Turing lineup was bandwidth starved save maybe the 1660ti and 2070. The Super series was a good way to refresh the lineup without launching a new series.

It looks like even the 1660Ti is a bit bandwidth starved, as the 1660 Super seems to really catch up to the 1660Ti, and the Super has fewer active cores, but more bandwidth.

The curious thing about these releases is that it looks like NVidia is eliminating parts that use fully enabled chips.

While technically the 1660 Ti hasn't been officially EOL'd, what informed person would spend $50 more, for 2% more? It's effectively dead in the market except for clearance sales on the old ones.

Also the 1650 Super is NOT using a fully enabled TU117 chips as initially expected, but is instead using another further cut down TU 116.

So what is NVidia planning to do with fully enabled TU116 and TU117 parts? Mobile??
 
So what is NVidia planning to do with fully enabled TU116 and TU117 parts? Mobile??

Mobile or OEM contracts? Retail isn't the only way these chips/cards are getting used, nor do we know if they'll effectively kill off the other two 1660 SKU's even if they remain ostensibly around. And we have the 1650 super coming down the line which looks to truly obviate the vanilla 1660 (and stratify the binning more clearly once again). What I'm curious about is where does the 1660Ti go in this mid-gen refresh.
 
Mobile or OEM contracts? Retail isn't the only way these chips/cards are getting used, nor do we know if they'll effectively kill off the other two 1660 SKU's even if they remain ostensibly around. And we have the 1650 super coming down the line which looks to truly obviate the vanilla 1660 (and stratify the binning more clearly once again). What I'm curious about is where does the 1660Ti go in this mid-gen refresh.

They should just call the vanilla 2060 the 1660 Super Ti and be done with it. Charge $299. At least there would be some "RT value" in that sub $300 price point. As I've said before (maybe not in this thread). That price point currently is owned by AMD with the 5700.
 
Back
Top