GTX 1660Ti reviews out

Pieter3dnow said:
To people considering this 1660TI I would look at Vega 56 better card better price.
Click to expand...

At $280 of course its a better card. But AMD hasn't officially lowered the price. As of now its much closer to $400, I don't think it has to go as low as $280 to compete with nvidia though, I'd say it could go as "high" as say $330 and still be a good choice. Now, the RX590 is supposedly dropping to $229, but I'd still get the GTX1660Ti.

I think we'll have to wait till navi for AMD to compete on this segment.
 
stashix said:
Even Newegg has some 279$ cards in stock.
Click to expand...

You mean had one model of one specific card in limited stock at that price.

Right now they have one model for $369, the rest are $400-$500 and even $600+.

I suppose you could spend your days checking newegg every 5 minutes in hopes of catching a unicorn deal on Vega 56. Who knows, you might get lucky.

Most people will just buy the card they can get for the price they want now.
 
Snowdog said:
You mean had one model of one specific card in limited stock at that price.

Right now they have one model for $369, the rest are $400-$500 and even $600+.

I suppose you could spend your days checking newegg every 5 minutes in hopes of catching a unicorn deal on Vega 56. Who knows, you might get lucky.

Most people will just buy the card they can get for the price they want now.
Click to expand...
I was talking about the 1660Ti?
 
XoR_ said:
Memory gets more expensive, only two memory suppliers, process node is harder and more expensive to do, boards are more complex... and competition have cards with like twice the TDP and GCN card in the pipeline... and people still expect Nvidia to release cards so cheap that they would have hardly any profit from selling them just because of some unwritten law "new generation was always faster & cheaper" ... ridiculous =(

I bet NV could launch RTX 2060 with the price of 1660Ti with the 250$ price tag, 2070 with 400$ and so on but that would just like you say only make things worse for them and obviously for AMD, just like you said
Click to expand...

What are you smoking? That's like saying if apple cuts prices on iphones 10% they're barely going to make any money on them.
 
Im still running a 960. 2-3x performance at a reasonable price. Has my upgrade finally arrived??? Or do I wait a couple weeks for AMD to respond to this. I cant imagine they would just let the market slip by them forever.
 
Kaizer said:
Im still running a 960. 2-3x performance at a reasonable price. Has my upgrade finally arrived??? Or do I wait a couple weeks for AMD to respond to this. I cant imagine they would just let the market slip by them forever.
Click to expand...
If you have a 960, this would be a massive upgrade. I would recommend it.
 
Furious_Styles said:
What are you smoking? That's like saying if apple cuts prices on iphones 10% they're barely going to make any money on them.
Click to expand...
I wrote they could do price cuts
But you do not need to do price cuts when you are already market leader and competition is struggling to deliver performance you had 2 years ago.
Right now as it seems NV could drive AMD out of GPU business but that would be bad for NV too so they use this opportunity to charge whatever they want for their products and have pretty low clocks to increase reliability and increase performance/power consumption ratios.
 
XoR_ said:
I wrote they could do price cuts
But you do not need to do price cuts when you are already market leader and competition is struggling to deliver performance you had 2 years ago.
Right now as it seems NV could drive AMD out of GPU business but that would be bad for NV too so they use this opportunity to charge whatever they want for their products and have pretty low clocks to increase reliability and increase performance/power consumption ratios.
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't they want to be the only GPU seller around? No competition means they could jack the prices even further with no consequences.
 
Furious_Styles said:
Why wouldn't they want to be the only GPU seller around? No competition means they could jack the prices even further with no consequences.
Click to expand...
it isn't late XIX century capitalism anymore. now you have anty-monopoly laws not to mention labour laws and other bullshit like unions...

just like Intel cannot afford to lose AMD on CPU market NV cannot lose them on GPU market, at least until Intel brings their guns to the battle

...I feel kinda sad for AMD and Lisa Su...
 
XoR_ said:
it isn't late XIX century capitalism anymore. now you have anty-monopoly laws not to mention labour laws and other bullshit like unions...

just like Intel cannot afford to lose AMD on CPU market NV cannot lose them on GPU market, at least until Intel brings their guns to the battle

...I feel kinda sad for AMD and Lisa Su...
Click to expand...

What the hell are you talking about? If AMD went bankrupt tomorrow and closed down nvidia would not have anyone showing up at their door talking about the sherman anti-trust act. I don't know this but I kinda doubt nvidia even has a union that represents their employees. And it absolutely would be great for them if AMD went out of business. No need to adjust product release schedules, no need to adjust prices, etc. They would just be raking in the cash.
 
XoR_ said:
it isn't late XIX century capitalism anymore. now you have anty-monopoly laws not to mention labour laws and other bullshit like unions...

just like Intel cannot afford to lose AMD on CPU market NV cannot lose them on GPU market, at least until Intel brings their guns to the battle

...I feel kinda sad for AMD and Lisa Su...
Click to expand...

It's not anti-monopoly laws. It's laws against anti-competitive practices. Look back at what Microsoft and Intel got into trouble for: It was making deals that essentially prevented buyers from using competing products.

Intel and NVidia could lower their prices till they got 1% margins and drive AMD into bankruptcy, and there would be nothing illegal about it.
 
rkatapt said:
Did you try running Far Cry 5 on Ultra?
Click to expand...
Yes, I did try Ultra and it is playable. I was getting in the 70 - 75 fps average range.

However, I found there were dips below 60 fps, so I opted to set on High which kept things with more comfortable head room.
 
cybereality said:
If you have a 960, this would be a massive upgrade. I would recommend it.
Click to expand...

How long realiistically should I wait for AMD to respond, or should I just say F it and order a 1660ti. At the moment Im only running 1080p, Mostly Overwatch, and a little of that Apex legends. I do play mmo's but they are hardly ever that bad unless there happens to be an "event".
 
Kaizer I think the 1660 Ti is a good buy at the price. AMD will surely respond, but rumor is that Navi is coming in the June/July time-frame, which is like 5 months of waiting.

Or you can consider the price drops on the RX 500 series. Rumor has it that the RX 580 will be $199 and the 590 $229 in a few weeks.

The RX 590 is about 20% slower than the 1660 Ti, but at $229 that may be an okay proposition. Personally I would still spend the extra $50 to get more performance, but that is just me.

The RX 580 at $199 is also not a horrible deal. I have one on my Linux box, and it's pretty nice for the price.

But, since it seems you don't upgrade as often, you are probably better spending just a little more to get something that will last.

And you could always wait and get better prices or performance. So it's really up to you if you think you need the performance now.

I think if you do get the GTX 1660 Ti, you'll be happy with it. Unless you are okay waiting several months I would suggest just getting it now.
 
Kaizer said:
How long realiistically should I wait for AMD to respond, or should I just say F it and order a 1660ti. At the moment Im only running 1080p, Mostly Overwatch, and a little of that Apex legends. I do play mmo's but they are hardly ever that bad unless there happens to be an "event".
Click to expand...

If you want to wait, there's NAVI coming probably in october.

Some rumors have it at GTX1080 levels of performance for a lower price, I think it will be in line with the GTX1660Ti for a similar price.
 
Snowdog said:
It's not anti-monopoly laws. It's laws against anti-competitive practices. Look back at what Microsoft and Intel got into trouble for: It was making deals that essentially prevented buyers from using competing products.

Intel and NVidia could lower their prices till they got 1% margins and drive AMD into bankruptcy, and there would be nothing illegal about it.
Click to expand...

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/predatory-pricing.asp

It's illegal. If Nvidia can be profitable while lowering their prices to that point, its okay. But if they are knowing making no money or take a loss to ensure AMD takes a loss, it is predatory pricing when they are in the position they are in.

Nvidia can obtain a legal monopoly if they force AMD graphic division out legally(having products with better price to performance and marketing). But if they use bribery and predatory pricing to obtain a monopoly, then the FTC could come knocking at the door.
 
I think the 1660Ti and the 2060 are priced about right.

I'm disappointed we didn't see another Maxwell->Pascal performance jump for the price, but those level of jumps are exceptional, not historical.

My largest disappointment is with the price shifting of the upper tiers. I just didn't really like seeing top tier cards slide from $600-$700 to up over $1200... but I guess that's been a long time coming, with Titan having been around for a few years now.
 
cybereality said:
Yes, I did try Ultra and it is playable. I was getting in the 70 - 75 fps average range.

However, I found there were dips below 60 fps, so I opted to set on High which kept things with more comfortable head room.
Click to expand...

I received my 1660 today however I don't have any 8 pin pcie plugs. The 1050 it's replacing didn't require them. Had to order some because where I live doesnt have any computer stores except best buy.

I ran far cry 5 on the 1050 on high and it was an average of 48fps. So it'll definitely be an improvement.
 
Awesome, rkatapt . I hope you enjoy the card as much as I am.

Should be a nice upgrade from a 1050.

What monitor do you use?
 
tajoh111 said:
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/predatory-pricing.asp

It's illegal. If Nvidia can be profitable while lowering their prices to that point, its okay. But if they are knowing making no money or take a loss to ensure AMD takes a loss, it is predatory pricing when they are in the position they are in.
Click to expand...

What I said is NOT illegal.

Note that I said: "lower their prices till they got 1% margins". You aren't allowed to sell at a loss to drive you competition under, but you can still sell at next to no profit to drive them under.
 
Look at how bad Nvidia's practices are with AMD being marginally competitive. Imagine life without AMD around... say hello to $3,200 consumer video cards!
 
cybereality said:
Yes, I did try Ultra and it is playable. I was getting in the 70 - 75 fps average range.

However, I found there were dips below 60 fps, so I opted to set on High which kept things with more comfortable head room.
Click to expand...

I saw a couple of dips under 60 there on High settings there. Not bad but 1440p card worthy? No thanks.
 
cybereality said:
Yes, I did try Ultra and it is playable. I was getting in the 70 - 75 fps average range.

However, I found there were dips below 60 fps, so I opted to set on High which kept things with more comfortable head room.
Click to expand...


Tomb Raider looked kinda rough. Did it play smooth? If not, can you lock it at 60 fps?
 
Surprisingly, I was able to play a few games at 4K (using Nvidia DSR) on the 1660 Ti. I did have to tweak settings, around medium, but it works.

DIRT 2.0 was running at 4K with High settings AA off and getting just around 60 fps. Dying Light on Medium I was getting in the 65 fps range.

Far Cry 5 worked but I think I hit a VRAM limit. I had settings on Normal, I believe, but needed to drop render scale to 0.8 to get to 60fps.

Tomb Raider was the toughest, and I could not get it working great. Even with Low settings it was in the 45 fps range. Surprisingly bumping settings to Normal or High did not have a huge impact on performance. In this case, I think the 6GB memory is too little for 4K (at least in this game).

DOOM, of course, ran great on 4K High settings, well over 60 fps. And Left4Dead, old but one of my favorites, could hit 200 fps on 4K.

That said, I would not buy this card for 4K but they are interesting results. 1440p may be possible.
 
Ranulfo said:
I saw a couple of dips under 60 there on High settings there. Not bad but 1440p card worthy? No thanks.
Click to expand...
Yeah, there were a few short dips in the 50 fps range but I assume this could be a CPU or asset loading issue, not necessarily the video card. Hard to say for sure.
 
Nightfire said:
Tomb Raider looked kinda rough. Did it play smooth? If not, can you lock it at 60 fps?
Click to expand...
Tomb Raider was definitely playing smooth, no problems.

However, if you look at the frametime graph, there is erratic behavior and I think this affected the recording. While actually playing, it felt fine though.
 
I cant believe so many people are praising the 1660 ti. IMO 35% average performance increase after 2.5 years for the same price is a joke.
 
Nightfire said:
Really? That is much more than we can say about CPUs in the same time frame.

Why are GPUs held at such a ridiculous standard?
Click to expand...
What does a cpu have to do with anything? Might as well throw hard drives in there too. :rolleyes:

If you really cant grasp how a gpu upgrade is more of a big deal then there is no point in going back and forth with you.
 
misterbobby said:
What does a cpu have to do with anything? Might as well throw hard drives in there too. :rolleyes:

If you really cant grasp how a gpu upgrade is more of a big deal then there is no point in going back and forth with you.
Click to expand...

Debating is not your strong point. I never said that GPU performance was not important. All I was implying is that why isn't a 35% performance boost for the same price over 2.5 years a disappointment when it would be a great achievement in all other industries including all others within computing.
 
Nightfire said:
Really? That is much more than we can say about CPUs in the same time frame.

Why are GPUs held at such a ridiculous standard?
Click to expand...
They're judged based on historical improvements between GPU generations. Why would you compare generational improvements to CPUs instead of just looking at what we've had from previous GPU generations?
 
rkatapt said:
I received my 1660 today however I don't have any 8 pin pcie plugs. The 1050 it's replacing didn't require them. Had to order some because where I live doesnt have any computer stores except best buy.

I ran far cry 5 on the 1050 on high and it was an average of 48fps. So it'll definitely be an improvement.
Click to expand...

Definitely a huge step up for you.
 
Stryke1983 said:
They're judged based on historical improvements between GPU generations. Why would you compare generational improvements to CPUs instead of just looking at what we've had from previous GPU generations?
Click to expand...

Historically, cpus were probably much the same. Possibly a similar story for engine performance early in its life. However, at some point, growth improvements will decay in any technology.
 
Nightfire said:
Debating is not your strong point. I never said that GPU performance was not important. All I was implying is that why isn't a 35% performance boost for the same price over 2.5 years a disappointment when it would be a great achievement in all other industries including all others within computing.
Click to expand...
And you are just backing up what I said about not being able to grasp the simple point here. I do not give a rat's behind about how it compares to cpu performance increase or any other component. The gpu is the MOST important factor in a gaming pc and it is where MOST people that care about gaming focus their attention on. Games get more graphically demanding and people want better performance at better settings which necessitates a better gpu. I sure dont think 35% more performance for the same price after 2.5 years is very impressive at all. The only reason this card looks good is because of the current climate of overpriced cards and little to no real competition. For 280 bucks I would certainly go with the 1660 ti hands down but again I dont consider it anything impressive after all of this time.
 
cybereality said:
Honestly, I think we have to have reasonable expectations at this point.

Expecting new GPU generations to come every year, with 50% performance improvement, for the same price or less? Not reasonable.
Click to expand...
It has been 2.5 years since the 1060 so I think expecting 50% improvement at the same price point is not unreasonable at all. Plus some of these 1660 ti cards are over 300 bucks which at that point you might as well spend a little more and get the rtx 2060. I think if the 1660 ti would have been priced at the $229 to $249 range then it would make more sense after all of this time and really keep the 2060 in a separate price range.
 
cybereality said:
Honestly, I think we have to have reasonable expectations at this point.

Expecting new GPU generations to come every year, with 50% performance improvement, for the same price or less? Not reasonable.
Click to expand...

If the 2080ti was all cuda it would have been easily 50%+ faster than the Titan XP at the same price. I was a bit disappointed in the 1660ti’s price.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top