Review Nvidia GeForce GTX 1660 Ti 6GB Review: Turing Without The RTX

abryant

Asst. Managing Editor
Staff member
May 16, 2016
183
17
4,685
0
For the gamers out there who wondered how Nvidia’s Turing architecture would perform if the company stripped out its Tensor and RT cores, you’re about to find out. GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is all about accelerating today's games. Read more here.

CHRIS ANGELINI
@cangelini
Chris Angelini is an Editor Emeritus at Tom's Hardware US. He edits hardware reviews and covers high-profile CPU and GPU launches.
 

shrapnel_indie

Distinguished
Jan 21, 2010
2,152
10
20,465
277
FIRST: I'd like to see the links to the comments in more articles... they're sporadic at best right now.

This little GPU seems impressive for its price. I just hope they don't confuse things like they did with the 1060 by releasing the rumored 3GB model as a 1660Ti. (if they do release it, drop the Ti and I won't have an issue.) It isn't enough to make me upgrade from my 1080 though, especially since it can't match or beat that performance level.

EDIT: Some seem to make note that this is a little expensive compared to past pricing. It is disappointing that it is more expensive. My statement is made in reference to the current pricing model though.
 
Last edited:

King_V

Illustrious
Ambassador
Interesting how it pops around, variously above and below the 1070 and Vega 56. I think I'd definitely put it in the 1070/1070Ti/Vega56 tier, though it's a little odd how it underperforms relative to them in some games, and outdoes them in others.

Pretty solid, and my own opinion is price-wise to performance, a better deal than the 1070s that are still around.... with the caveat of if those specific games are your focus, the 1070 might be better.

I do think the price should come down a bit, though.
 

jpe1701

Honorable
Mar 13, 2015
1,385
47
11,990
200
FIRST: I'd like to see the links to the comments in more articles... they're sporadic at best right now.

This little GPU seems impressive for its price. I just hope they don't confuse things like they did with the 1060 by releasing the rumored 3GB model as a 1660Ti. (if they do release it, drop the Ti and I won't have an issue.) It isn't enough to make me upgrade from my 1080 though, especially since it can't match or beat that performance level.
Yeah I hope that they have a better naming scheme for the 3gb version too. That was confusing for people that aren't on top of hardware.
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
This little GPU seems impressive for its price.
I'd refrain from calling it 'impressive' for the price while Nvidia has a near-monopoly on most of the GPU market and a performance bump was WAY overdue. Navi will need much better bang-per-buck than this for AMD to regain GPU market share and that's when things should get genuinely interesting assuming AMD delivers this time around. (Which it had better do since the PS5 and next Xbox depend on it.)
 
As my GTX1060 falls toward the bottom of the charts, a card like this becomes a definite risk to my wallet...

...but wait a minute, I've not bought a new game in YEARS, so I guess my money will stay safe, at least for a while.

Given generations of articles that claimed as low as 30FPS was playable, unless you need the RT / Tensor cores for a specific game, this should be a great looking card, possibly for quite some time.
 
It is enough performance to recommend, but it is still overpriced. 1070 performance is nice, but the 1070 is almost 3 years old and the MSRP is only $100 less than the MSRP of the 1070. Basically it is 3 year old tech for a $100 bucks less. This GPU should be $200 and it would really take over the market. We just need more competition to get these prices down.
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
Given generations of articles that claimed as low as 30FPS was playable, unless you need the RT / Tensor cores for a specific game, this should be a great looking card, possibly for quite some time.
How low an FPS is playable is a personal opinion, just like how much detail can be sacrificed for better FPS. I don't mind sacrificing however much detail is necessary to stay above 50fps most of the time on my GTX1050 since most details get blurred by movement during actual game play anyway. I'll worry about higher details when a substantial upgrade (as in double the performance or better) becomes available for ~$200.
 

abryant

Asst. Managing Editor
Staff member
May 16, 2016
183
17
4,685
0
FIRST: I'd like to see the links to the comments in more articles... they're sporadic at best right now.

This little GPU seems impressive for its price. I just hope they don't confuse things like they did with the 1060 by releasing the rumored 3GB model as a 1660Ti. (if they do release it, drop the Ti and I won't have an issue.) It isn't enough to make me upgrade from my 1080 though, especially since it can't match or beat that performance level.
Yes, I totally agree with you. We will endeavor to include links to comments in more articles, if not all. :)
 
Well it is better news than I was expecting but still priced too high for a 6GB VRAM card. I don't expect to pay over $230 for 6GB of VRAM. I'm in no hurry I can wait for the right card at the right price.
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
Well it is better news than I was expecting but still priced too high for a 6GB VRAM card. I don't expect to pay over $230 for 6GB of VRAM.
Can't do miracles about it, 6GB of GDDR6 already costs somewhere in the neighborhood of $100, then you have the somewhat large GT116 die, the HSF and all of the support components on the board. That's the better part of $200 in parts and assembly costs.

We aren't going to get much better bang-per-buck for $200ish until GDDR6 prices go further down, 7nm yields come up and improved GPU efficiency enables the use of cheaper VRMs. With some luck, maybe we'll get there later this year between falling DRAM prices and Navi.
 

honujab

Prominent
Feb 22, 2019
15
4
515
0
Like the deers of Horrifying Planet, this card is just fine. It sits were it should sit.

But don't tell me that it is a replacement for the 1060, because is not.
(prices from PCpartpicker, bubble size is memory)

 
Last edited:

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
But don't tell me that it is a replacement for the 1060, because is not.
If you are saying that based on MSRPs, you need to keep in mind that the 1060's MSRP was set before the DRAM price explosion increasing the cost of 6GB of GDDR5/5X by $50 or more. That makes up most of the price difference between the GTX1060 and GTX1660, then you have GDDR6 costing an extra buck or so per GB, so there goes another ~$10.

Looks pretty close to a direct replacement to me after adjusting for recent memory pricing history. Expect the same thing to happen with the GTX1650: it'll have an MSRP $30-40 above the GTX1050Ti mainly due to memory pricing.
 

AnimeMania

Distinguished
Dec 8, 2014
333
18
18,815
13
EVGA and Asus cards tend to, but all mid range graphic cards targeting 1080p and 1440p monitors should have DVI, as well as displayport and HDMI connectors. Many people still have the inexpensive Korean IPS monitors that were extremely popular a few years back and most were DVI only. I am disappointed that many GTX 1660 Ti and RTX 2060 don't have DVI connectors.

I know that the RTX 2060 requires Windows 10 to enable all of it's functions. What functions do you lose when you run the RTX 2060 with Windows 7?
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
I am disappointed that many GTX 1660 Ti and RTX 2060 don't have DVI connectors.
That is no big deal, just use a $2 HDMI-DVI adapter or a $8 HDMI-DVI cable.

Card manufacturers are dropping DVI because the connector is huge compared to modern alternatives, taking up a fair amount of IO bracket and PCB space that board manufacturers would prefer to use for something else like improved airflow and simpler mechanical design.
 
Reactions: King_V
On the AMD side, we’re mostly interested in Radeon RX 590, although Radeon RX Vega 64 and Radeon RX Vega 56 make for interesting additions, too.
How many people are actually interested in the RX 590? It launched at too high a price to be considered a good value relative to AMD's existing lineup. The real card to compare against should have been the RX 580, which offers around 90-95% of an RX 590's performance and 8GB of VRAM for as little as $180. Sure, it's obviously not going to perform on the level of a 1660 Ti, but that card costs around 55% more, making the RX 580 at least better in terms of performance per dollar, for those who don't feel they need to spend $100 more for the additional performance.

The RX 590 needed to drop closer to $200 to be worth considering even before the 1660 Ti came on the scene, but now it needs that more than ever. It should have been launched for far less to begin with if AMD actually wanted it to compete. Matching the RX 580's $230 launch price from a year and a half prior would have been the sensible thing to do considering the minimal performance gains over that card.

AMD apparently dropped the MSRP of Vega 56 to $279 the other day, though I still don't actually see any models for sale anywhere close to that price. Considering those cards are likely still fairly expensive to manufacture, with their 8GB of HBM2, I'm not entirely convinced that they will be widely available for that price. A sub-$300 Vega 56 would provide some very strong competition against the 1660 Ti though, at least for anyone willing to put up with the extra 100 watts of power draw under load, and the extra heat and noise that results.

How low an FPS is playable is a personal opinion, just like how much detail can be sacrificed for better FPS. I don't mind sacrificing however much detail is necessary to stay above 50fps most of the time on my GTX1050 since most details get blurred by movement during actual game play anyway. I'll worry about higher details when a substantial upgrade (as in double the performance or better) becomes available for ~$200.
Um... An RX 580 already offers double the performance of a GTX 1050 for under $200. >_>

I agree that high detail settings are not so important in many games though, particularly in multiplayer titles where the atmosphere of a game often tends to be less important than smooth performance. Playing any game with a first-person perspective at around 30fps tends to not be a pleasant experience though.

Back to the 1660 Ti, overall I would consider its performance to be underwhelming given its price, but that was expected given the rest of Nvidia's new lineup. These performance gains are rather mediocre considering it's been the better part of 3 years since the 10-series launched. The performance of the 1660 Ti might have been okay at the same $250 MSRP the 1060 launched for, but for $30 more without the new raytracing features that nvidia has been so heavily pushing? Meh. It's only $20 less than what you have been able to get a GTX 1070 for lately, and while it's yet to be seen how their performance will compare down the line, the reduction in VRAM may counter the card's architectural improvements. Also, there's supposedly going to be a 1660 non-Ti coming soon to more accurately fill the price range of the 1060, and indications are that performance will be roughly in between that of a 1060 and a 1070. Again, not at all impressive gains considering it's been almost 3 years since those cards came out.

Yes, I totally agree with you. We will endeavor to include links to comments in more articles, if not all. :)
I've also been wondering why there isn't a link in every article. This site typically only publishes around 10 or so articles a day, so it doesn't seem like it would be that hard to manually add a forum post and a link to each one.
 
Reactions: shmoochie

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
The performance of the 1660 Ti might have been okay at the same $250 MSRP the 1060 launched for
The key difference between the 1060 and 1660 is that DRAM currently costs ~50% more than it did back then. Can't introduce a replacement product at the same MSRP after parts cost went up ~$30 if vendors and retailers want to maintain similar profit margins. Seeing price points creep up is disappointing but the 1660 is 50-60% more performance for only 14% higher MSRP, which makes it a considerably superior buy quite close to leading most FPS-per-dollar charts.
 
Reactions: King_V

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
Active adapters are only necessary when connecting interfaces with incompatible signaling. HDMI is essentially a slightly enhanced version of DVI on a smaller connector, no signal conversion required, only needs a passive plug converter or cable.
 

shmoochie

Commendable
May 10, 2018
900
4
1,715
207
If this card has just okay performance at 2k, then what is the selling point? I can get a RX 580 that performs spectacularly in 1080p for like $100 less and it comes with two free games and 8Gb VRAM.
 

King_V

Illustrious
Ambassador
AMD apparently dropped the MSRP of Vega 56 to $279 the other day, though I still don't actually see any models for sale anywhere close to that price. Considering those cards are likely still fairly expensive to manufacture, with their 8GB of HBM2, I'm not entirely convinced that they will be widely available for that price. A sub-$300 Vega 56 would provide some very strong competition against the 1660 Ti though, at least for anyone willing to put up with the extra 100 watts of power draw under load, and the extra heat and noise that results.
I was curious about this. Was it actually AMD who officially dropped the price, or was it just that vendors, having gotten used to how crazy expensive they were during the crypto-boom, were still keeping prices somewhat elevated relative to performance ("hey, it's WAY less than before, so what a great deal, right? right?"). My assumption was that the vendors were generally trying to milk them, and only now might possibly drop the price because, with the 1660Ti, it's going to be VERY hard to move the Vegas at those still elevated (but much less than before) prices.

Probably just cynicism on my part, though.
 

xxxlun4icexxx

Honorable
Jun 13, 2013
519
5
11,065
42
If this card has just okay performance at 2k, then what is the selling point? I can get a RX 580 that performs spectacularly in 1080p for like $100 less and it comes with two free games and 8Gb VRAM.
It's selling point is a budget 1440p card. Benchmarks look pretty good and it comes with about 30% increased performance over a 580 in most games, with about 30% less power consumption. I'm sure a bundle with games will be out soon enough, as well as the 580 price drop is most likely in response to the 1660ti's release.

Benchmarks: https://www.anandtech.com/show/13973/nvidia-gtx-1660-ti-review-feat-evga-xc-gaming/15
 

Olle P

Distinguished
Apr 7, 2010
720
59
19,090
24
... Was it actually AMD who officially dropped the price, or was it just that vendors, having gotten used to how crazy expensive they were during the crypto-boom, were still keeping prices somewhat elevated relative to performance ...
Depends on geographic location.
In North America it's retailers dropping their prices on a few models.
In Europe there's a sale from AMD on some lower end Vega 56 models.
 
Reactions: King_V

ASK THE COMMUNITY