The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Review, Feat. EVGA XC GAMING: Turing Sheds RTX for the Mainstream Market
by Ryan Smith & Nate Oh on February 22, 2019 9:00 AM ESTGrand Theft Auto V (DX11)
Now a truly venerable title, GTA V is a veteran of past game suites that is still graphically demanding as they come. As an older DX11 title, it provides a glimpse into the graphically intensive games of yesteryear that don't incorporate the latest features. Originally released for consoles in 2013, the PC port came with a slew of graphical enhancements and options. Just as importantly, GTA V includes a rather intensive and informative built-in benchmark, somewhat uncommon in open-world games.
The settings are identical to its previous appearances, which are custom as GTA V does not have presets. To recap, a "Very High" quality is used, where all primary graphics settings turned up to their highest setting, except grass, which is at its own very high setting. Meanwhile 4x MSAA is enabled for direct views and reflections. This setting also involves turning on some of the advanced rendering features - the game's long shadows, high resolution shadows, and high definition flight streaming - but not increasing the view distance any further.
We've updated some of the benchmark automation and data processing steps, so results may vary at the 1080p mark compared to previous data.
For the GTX 1660 Ti, it's becoming clear that it is beyond firmly faster than the RX 590, its nominal competition at the $279 price point. The card pips the RX Vega 64, putting it in the realm of 1.4X to 1.5X faster than the RX 590, and around 10% faster than the RX Vega 56.
There's no mincing words here; while NVIDIA hardware may run better on GTA V in general, the size of GTX 1660 Ti's lead over the RX 590 is just crushing for the same MSRP, and equally so against the generally pricier RX Vega 56.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
157 Comments
View All Comments
Oxford Guy - Saturday, February 23, 2019 - link
"The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Review, Feat. EVGA XC GAMING: Turing Sheds RTX for the Mainstream Market"The same idea, restated:
"NVIDIA Admits, With Its GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Turing, That RTX Isn't Ready For The Mainstream"
just6979 - Saturday, February 23, 2019 - link
Why disable all AMD or NVidia specific settings? Any using those cards would have those settings on... shouldn't the number reflect exactly what the cards are capable of when utilizing all the settings available. You wouldn't do a Turing Major review without giving some numbers for RTX ON in any benchmarks that supported it...CiccioB - Monday, February 25, 2019 - link
Yes, the test could be done with specific GPU features turned on, but you have to clearly say what are the advantage of each particular addition on the final image quality.Because you can have (optional) effects that cuts frame rate but increase the quality a lot. So looking only at the mere final number you may conclude that a GPU is better than another because it is faster (or just costs less), but in reality you are comparing two different kind of quality results.
It's not different than testing two cards with different detail settings (without stating which they are) and then trying to understand which is the better one only based on the frame rate results (which is the kind of results that everyone looks at).
jarf1n - Sunday, February 24, 2019 - link
load power consuption is wrong,if you want see only gpu measured,measured only gpu like techpowerup doing.its clear if you measure total load,its not show it right.
134W 1660ti
292W vega 56
source:techpowerup
its clear that gtx 1660 ti is much much better gpu for at least FHD and QHD also.
huge different.
CiccioB - Monday, February 25, 2019 - link
Well, that however does not tell the entire story.The ratios versus the total consumption of the system is also important.
Let's say that for a gaming PC you already have to use 1000W. A card that suck 100W more just wastes 10% more of your power. Meanwhile if your PC is using 100W, such a card will be doubling the consumption. As you see the card is always using 100W more, but the impact is different.
Let's make a different example: your PC uses about 150W in everyday use. You have to buy an SSD. There are some SSD that consumes twice the power of others for the same performances.
You may say that the difference is huge.
Well, an SSD consumes between 2 and 5W. Buying the less efficient (5W) is not really going to have an impact on the total consumption of your PC.
ilkhan - Sunday, February 24, 2019 - link
Coming from a GTX970 and playing on a 2560x1600 monitor, which card should I be looking at?Ryan Smith - Monday, February 25, 2019 - link
You'd likely want an RTX 2060, if not a bit higher with the RTX 2070.https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2148?vs=23...
Mad Maxine - Monday, February 25, 2019 - link
Price is still crap for the performance. We live in a age now that sees Hardware and software no longer growing. And a GPU from 2012 Can still run all modern games today. Market is not going to be huge for Overpriced GPUs that are really not that much of a improvement from 2012.Oxford Guy - Monday, February 25, 2019 - link
Telemetry is growing. You are "your" data.bhanavi - Tuesday, February 26, 2019 - link
Thanks you so much for the informationhttps://apkmabbu.com
https://apkmabbu.com/gbwhatsapp-apk/
https://apkmabbu.com/ac-market-apk/
https://apkmabbu.com/lucky-patcher-apk/