Question Replacement for GTX 1070

Nov 7, 2019
2
0
10
0
Hi,

My MSI GTX 1070 just died with a bright flame coming from the PCB....

I'm looking for replacement, but since do not spend much time gaming these days, I don't want to spend much cash for the new card either... I was thinking about approx. 300$ limit

LCD: QHD (1440p) @ 60 Hz
PSU: Corsair RM550x (550W)
CPU: I5-6600K
MB: Asus Z170i Pro Gaming
RAM 2x8GB DDR4

What would be the best choice for gaming in QHD ?

I was looking at GTX 1660 Super, or should I also consider older RX480 /RX490 ? Or wait few weeks for something ?

Only thing I would appreciate: possibility to tune up fan(s) a little - so the card will be quiet in IDLE (desktop)

Thanks in advance
 
Don't go with an RX 480 or 490.

A 1660TI and 1660S would both be a downgrade from a 1070.

I know this may hurt but if you pump the budget up to ~$330 you can get an RTX 2060 or a AMD RX 5700 which would be an upgrade vs a downgrade.

As for in that budget well basically anything new will be less capable than your old 1070. You could get lucky and find a lightly used 1080 or even 1080TI in that price range but used GPUs are sketchy due to mining
 

jay32267

Distinguished
Don't go with an RX 480 or 490.

A 1660TI and 1660S would both be a downgrade from a 1070.

I know this may hurt but if you pump the budget up to ~$330 you can get an RTX 2060 or a AMD RX 5700 which would be an upgrade vs a downgrade.

As for in that budget well basically anything new will be less capable than your old 1070. You could get lucky and find a lightly used 1080 or even 1080TI in that price range but used GPUs are sketchy due to mining
I'm seeing the 1660 Ti and 1660S faster than the 1070.

https://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu.php?gpu=GeForce+GTX+1070&id=3521

https://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu.php?gpu=GeForce+GTX+1660+Ti&id=4045

https://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu.php?gpu=GeForce+GTX+1660+SUPER&id=4159
 
Nov 7, 2019
2
0
10
0
Thanks for advices... I'll be probably just fine with a replacement on par with 1070.... As I've said, I don't want to invest much in my PC anymore...

I was thinking about RTX 2060 Super too... Current prices (basic cheaper models) in my country are approx.:
GTX 1660 Super: 260$
RTX 2060 Super: 440$

So it's above limit and I'm not sure if it's worth extra 180$ anyway... Keeping in mind that the prices might drop a little, since both cards are "new" on the market...
 
VideoCardMenchmark can give you a general idea but it only gives you 2 synthetic benchmarks not real world data or frame counts i would always check https://gpu.userbenchmark.com/ to see real use case numbers
 
If you want to compare performance versus your previous 1070

1660 Ti performance at 2560x1440

1660 Super performance at 2560x1440

The former shows comparisons of the 1660 Ti to several other cards, including the 1070. The latter, however, is predominantly concerned with showing the comparisons of the 1660 Super to the 1650 (irrelevant) and the 1660 Ti.

I'd lean to the 1660 Super. It's basically 1660 Ti performance for less money than the Ti.

EDIT: Referencing @LordVile 's post, given that the Gigabyte version of the Vega 56 is available for $254.99, it might be worth considering. Out of the box, it's kind of a power hog, but edges out the 1070's performance. However, if you run it on the Power Save BIOS at the most conservative setting, its performance is around what the 1070 is, and with power draw that's only a little higher than the 1070.

See: https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-rx-vega-56,5202-22.html
Specifically:
Using the secondary BIOS with a power limit reduced by 25% gets us 159.4W and 32.7 FPS. Compared to the stock settings, just 71.6% of the power consumption serves up 89% of the gaming performance.
Of course, you can run it at the standard settings - more power consumption, but a bit more performance.


The 1660 Super is more power efficient than the Vega 56 (even detuned) and 1070, though, and performs about the same for less money than the Vega 56.


(I'm personally fascinated by the idea of the Vega 56 not actually being inefficient, when it's run at lower speeds, but they're more expensive, price/performance-wise, than I like for me to be willing to get one and experiment with running it underclocked)
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS