The Test

Without any Founders Edition, NVIDIA is pushing out the GTX 1660 Ti as a fully custom launch, and while the EVGA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti XC Black has reference clocks, the TDP is set at 130W rather than the reference 120W. To keep testing and analysis as apples-to-apples as possible, as usual we've emulated reference GTX 1660 Ti specifications. While not perfect, this should be reasonably accurate for a virtual reference card as we look at reference-to-reference comparisons.

Test Setup
CPU Intel Core i7-7820X @ 4.3GHz
Motherboard Gigabyte X299 AORUS Gaming 7 (F9g)
PSU Corsair AX860i
Storage OCZ Toshiba RD400 (1TB)
Memory G.Skill TridentZ
DDR4-3200 4 x 8GB (16-18-18-38)
Case NZXT Phantom 630 Windowed Edition
Monitor LG 27UD68P-B
Video Cards EVGA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti XC Black
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti

AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 (Air)
AMD Radeon RX 590
AMD Radeon RX 580
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Founders Edtion
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Founders Edition
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 6GB Founders Edition
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 (2GB)
Video Drivers NVIDIA Release 418.91
AMD Radeon Software Adrenalin 2019 Edition 19.2.2
OS Windows 10 x64 Pro (1803)
Spectre and Meltdown Patched

Thanks to Corsair, we were able to get a replacement for our AX860i, and so power consumption figures will differ for earlier GPU 2018 Bench data.

In the same vein, for Ashes, GTA V, F1 2018, and Shadow of War, we've updated some of the benchmark automation and data processing steps, so results may vary at the 1080p mark compared to previous GPU 2018 data.

Meet the EVGA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti XC Black Battlefield 1
Comments Locked

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 information
    https://apkmabbu.com
    https://apkmabbu.com/gbwhatsapp-apk/
    https://apkmabbu.com/ac-market-apk/
    https://apkmabbu.com/lucky-patcher-apk/

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now