Compute & Synthetics

Shifting gears, we'll look at the compute and synthetic aspects of the GTX 1660 Ti.

Beginning with CompuBench 2.0, the latest iteration of Kishonti's GPU compute benchmark suite offers a wide array of different practical compute workloads, and we’ve decided to focus on level set segmentation, optical flow modeling, and N-Body physics simulations.

Compute: CompuBench 2.0 - Level Set Segmentation 256

Compute: CompuBench 2.0 - N-Body Simulation 1024K

Compute: CompuBench 2.0 - Optical Flow

On paper, the GTX 1660 Ti looks to provide around 85% of the RTX 2060's compute and shading throughput; for Compubench, we see it achieving around 82% of the latter's performance.

Moving on, we'll also look at single precision floating point performance with FAHBench, the official Folding @ Home benchmark. Folding @ Home is the popular Stanford-backed research and distributed computing initiative that has work distributed to millions of volunteer computers over the internet, each of which is responsible for a tiny slice of a protein folding simulation. FAHBench can test both single precision and double precision floating point performance, with single precision being the most useful metric for most consumer cards due to their low double precision performance.

Compute: Folding @ Home Single Precision

Next is Geekbench 4's GPU compute suite. A multi-faceted test suite, Geekbench 4 runs seven different GPU sub-tests, ranging from face detection to FFTs, and then averages out their scores via their geometric mean. As a result Geekbench 4 isn't testing any one workload, but rather is an average of many different basic workloads.

Compute: Geekbench 4 - GPU Compute - Total Score

In lieu of Blender, which has yet to officially release a stable version with CUDA 10 support, we have the LuxRender-based LuxMark (OpenCL) and V-Ray (OpenCL and CUDA).

Compute/ProViz: LuxMark 3.1 - LuxBall and Hotel

Compute/ProViz: V-Ray Benchmark 1.0.8

We'll also take a quick look at tessellation performance.

Synthetic: TessMark, Image Set 4, 64x Tessellation

Finally, for looking at texel and pixel fillrate, we have the Beyond3D Test Suite. This test offers a slew of additional tests – many of which we use behind the scenes or in our earlier architectural analysis – but for now we’ll stick to simple pixel and texel fillrates.

Synthetic: Beyond3D Suite - Pixel Fillrate

Synthetic: Beyond3D Suite - Integer Texture Fillrate (INT8)

Synthetic: Beyond3D Suite - Floating Point Texture Fillrate (FP32)

The practically identical pixel fill rates for the GTX 1660 Ti and RTX 2060 might seem odd at first blush, but it is an entirely expected result as both GPUs have the same number of ROPs, similar clockspeeds, same GPC/TPC setup, and similar memory configurations. And being the same generation/architecture, there aren't any changes or improvements to DCC. In the same vein, the RTX 2060 puts up a 25% higher texture fillrate over the GTX 1660 Ti as a consequence of having 25% more TMUs (96 vs 120).


Total War: Warhammer II Power, Temperature, and Noise


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... Reply
  • 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

    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? Reply
  • Ryan Smith - Monday, February 25, 2019 - link

    You'd likely want an RTX 2060, if not a bit higher with the RTX 2070.
  • 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. Reply
  • Oxford Guy - Monday, February 25, 2019 - link

    Telemetry is growing. You are "your" data. Reply
  • bhanavi - Tuesday, February 26, 2019 - link

    Thanks you so much for the information

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now