GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mega Benchmark: 34% Faster than GTX 1060 6G at 1440p

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,004
Hardware Unboxed’s latest mega benchmark pits the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti against 33 games at 1440p. Steve found the 1660 Ti performing 34% faster on average compared to the GTX 1060 6G, with significant differences in titles such as Shadow of the Tomb Raider, Rainbow Six Siege, and Apex Legends. While the GPU performed similarly to the GTX 1070 (“same performance”), it was 14% slower on average than the RTX 2060 and 8% slower on average than the Radeon RX Vega 56.
 
Last edited:

Nobu

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
3,943
In case you don't feel like watching all that fancy video, here's the article with all the boring graphs and text. ;)

Too bad! They didn't write an updated article yet, though they do apparently have the graphs on patreon.
 
Last edited:

Ocellaris

Ginger @le, an alcoholic's best friend.
Joined
Jan 1, 2008
Messages
18,875
I'm assuming you mean the 1660 ti is faster than the 1060, not the 1660.
Also the article mentions 38% and 40%, not “34% on average”

Should just take away Megalith’s ability to post tech news and stick with click bait.
 

Nobu

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
3,943
No that was the first video. Techspot did not publish HUB's 33 game benchmark yet. However, you can got to the patreon page to view all of the graphs.
Ah, my mistake. The graphs all looked the same as in the video (which I watched earlier today) so I thought it was the same.
 

Ocellaris

Ginger @le, an alcoholic's best friend.
Joined
Jan 1, 2008
Messages
18,875
The 38% and 40% was from the article Nobu wrongly posted. Perhaps they should take away your ability to post.
The article link in the OP goes to a 404 (at least on mobile), I’m still +1 here.
 

Nanogrip

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 4, 2016
Messages
443
I am really like this GTX 1660 Ti. I might get one this week and put my RX 580 for sale.
 

PsyaNyde

n00b
Joined
Feb 18, 2018
Messages
11
A Vega56 can be had for £250 now, so that's looking to be where i'm heading, the top end 1660ti's are up to £350! and anyone paying that is insane as it's the same price as a 2060, these cards are way overpriced imho.
 

Calavaro

Whiskey & Honey
Joined
Apr 11, 2001
Messages
8,326
How well does a Vega 56 undervolt, and where does the powerdraw end up?
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
18,955
A Vega56 can be had for £250 now, so that's looking to be where i'm heading, the top end 1660ti's are up to £350! and anyone paying that is insane as it's the same price as a 2060, these cards are way overpriced imho.
Pity those prices don't carry over to the US. At $250, for a card with a not-shit cooler, the Vega 56 would be a steal.

How well does a Vega 56 undervolt, and where does the powerdraw end up?
From what I've heard they undervolt decently, but the exact amount will vary from card to card.
 

Dodge245

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 8, 2018
Messages
186
I had no idea the 1060 had ever been considered an actual 1440p card.
Runs fine for me, the first game I've had to put on low is APEX Legends, however something like RE2 I have running at medium-high at 60fps.

I pick up most my games on sale these days so tend to run 6-12 months behind new releases, RE2 being an exception to that. I plan to pick up FC5 the next time it goes on sale...
 
Joined
Jun 12, 2018
Messages
678
Coming from a GTX 1060 the 1660 Ti doesn't seem like a worthy upgrade for the money. I'd pay extra for a RTX 2060, which I did, for that extra GTX 1080-like speed plus added RTX features. However I'd be more than OK with a 1660 Ti for a fresh new build too.
 
Joined
Aug 1, 2016
Messages
94
I'm still using my GTX970 SSC at 1080p and have no plans to upgrade to 1440 or 2160 anytime soon. Is there a cheap upgrade path or is it still unnecessary? I don't see well enough to need a shit-ton of eye candy settings maxed out.
 

craigdt

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 27, 2016
Messages
1,055
I had no idea the 1060 had ever been considered an actual 1440p card.
I used my 3gb 1060 at 1440 and it was a great performer. Now, I was not running the latest AAA games at max quality but that little card is a beast.

Obviously, pales in comparison to better models though
 

Devilpup

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 4, 2002
Messages
2,047
sadly, my hangup with new cards doesn't come from gpu clock but from vram. i max my 1060 6b with a modded Skyrim, which at this point is almost an 8 year old game. i get it that for the most part the lower vram is "good enough" for most current games, but the whole reason i game on PC is for the mods. if i just want to play a base game i do that on console because i don't have to deal with crashes.
 

Ranulfo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 9, 2006
Messages
1,884
Drop the settings, don't try to run the latest AAA stuff?

All depends on what you play, I'd think.
Sure, thats true of many cards but that is not how they sold the 1060, either nvidia or the vaunted tech reviewers. Its been considered the top end 1080p card since its release. This strikes me as a review guide talking point being pushed.
 

ZodaEX

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 17, 2004
Messages
3,728
I'm still using my GTX970 SSC at 1080p and have no plans to upgrade to 1440 or 2160 anytime soon. Is there a cheap upgrade path or is it still unnecessary? I don't see well enough to need a shit-ton of eye candy settings maxed out.
Consult the system requirements of all the games you play to see if an upgrade is necessary.
 

Full Otto

Weaksauce
Joined
Jun 2, 2017
Messages
98
I'm still using my GTX970 SSC at 1080p and have no plans to upgrade to 1440 or 2160 anytime soon. Is there a cheap upgrade path or is it still unnecessary? I don't see well enough to need a shit-ton of eye candy settings maxed out.
If you're at 1080p 60Hz and fine with med-high settings, you should be OK I would think, especially if you're not an AA snob like me. If you were maxing out your VRAM in anything it would already be obvious. I guess it depends on what you consider an upgrade. Depending on how your card clocks, it could be trading blows with a stock 1060, which has fewer shader units and a narrower memory bus but much higher GPU clocks. Generally, a stock 1060 is ~15% faster then a 970. It's worth keeping in mind that the Turing (not Tensor, the actual raster parts) cores seem to have increased their efficiency in DX12/Vulkan over Maxwel and Pascal.

So given the results in this review, the 1660 Ti would be right around the minimum performance upgrade over a 970 imo. Cards seem available at 279, but you'll need 300+ to get a better cooler/pcb. Personally, I like to see at least 50% increase in single card performance at a given price, with the goal of raising framerates in games that struggle and cranking quality in games that don't. Being in your shoes, I would look for a killer deal on a 1070 Ti in the 300-350 range, though I've already seen the occasional basic 2060 pop up for <400. If you don't need more performance or want to crank the quality any higher, I'd say you're fine for awhile. The newer games seem really good at scaling down, likely due to them all having consoles in mind these days. If something comes out that finally saturates that 3.5GB at your settings, you can jump off that bridge when you get there.

I'm kinda in the same boat with my 1070. The next step up would be 1080 Ti tier performance (2080, RVII), which right now costs as much or more then the launch MSRP of the 1080 TI for NIB cards. With the water block this card cost me $500 and is well over 2 years old. Having to spend 50% more to get 50% more performance just doesn't right at this point. I think it's obvious that they don't care about selling upgrades anymore, they are fine filling an expanding market and testing how high they can push pricing.
 
Top