Review: Gigabyte GeForce GTX 1660 Gaming OC

Published by

Click here to post a comment for Review: Gigabyte GeForce GTX 1660 Gaming OC on our message forum
#5668880
data/avatar/default/avatar40.webp
HH, one question ! On GTA V page I see 117 FPS @ 1080p and 73 FPS @ 1440p. Is the difference that big ( not tipo ) ? Or the game favors 8GB cards?
#5668978
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/198/198862.jpg
Loophole35:

It’s about 20-25% faster than the 1060 6GB on average that’s a decent upgrade in performance for about $50 less launch MSRP. The 1660ti is about 40-45% faster than the 1060 6GB at the same launch MSRP and that one sits right between the 1070 and 1070ti most of the time.
Its only 10-15% faster than RX580 for 50$ more. I dont think this is worth it even if you have 1060.
#5668998
data/avatar/default/avatar15.webp
And no one is saying 6GB is to little to late ! My 1070 struggles at 1440p all on ULTRA ! or try R6Siege at that resolution on Very high ... without the Ultra Texture pack . It's not always about the speed ... more is better ! I agree that maybe 2080 12GB is overkill but 8GB should be the norm by now. 6Gb is bare minimum
#5669175
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/198/198862.jpg
Darkest:

I actually like the 1660 (non TI) but not at this price point, there's absolutely no point for a huge triple fan heatsink on a card like this either. The entry level models for 40-50 euros less will perform more or less the same and will hit similar max OC's, which puts them within spitting range of a stock 1660ti. Regardless, with the recent price drops on the AMD 580 I think Nvidia needs to answer in kind for these to remain an appealing purchase.
580 can be found at 160-170Eur already, thats 50 less than this. You can easily reach 590 performance if you let it consume even more power. You also get an extra 2gb vram. There is nothing to like about this 1660 non ti.
#5669310
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/108/108389.jpg
Just buy the cheapest 1660 then flash it with the Gigabyte 1660 Gaming OC bios as this one has a 200W power limit; easy 15-20% performance uplift which RX590 cannot even compare lol.
#5669423
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/156/156133.jpg
Moderator
airbud7:

These cards should have been faster than a 1070 like the 1060 vs 970 but no... not even a decent upgrade from 1060.
I think what you're buying these for over the 1060 is these being Turing, while they do not feature any RTX features they will get the same driver optimizations the rest of Turing gets, while Pascal driver optimizations are done. Look at launch 580 vs 580 now and what driver optimizations have done for that.
#5669450
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/271/271560.jpg
another fantastic review HH... or should that be Lord Hilbert of House Hagedoorn? lol too much Game of Thrones i guess 😛:p
#5669850
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/79/79740.jpg
ColonelBlimp:

Except it doesn't. Pretty sure the power figures are for the original reference card. Mine is under 200 if I recall. (Would have to double check that) Yes it uses more power but Radeon Chill keeps it lower than you would expect. Theres always undervolting as well. More power for better results. Would cost what, £10 a year on your bill? The power argument has been discredited for a long time now given the actual wattage involved and usage. If you are that close to the limit on finances, maybe not buy a card at all?
The power argument isnt about electric bills, but more about heat control and boost performance. The hotter the card, the less boost/clock speeds. Higher TDP cards require more vigorous cooling designs. Not necessarily speaking about vega 56 in particular, but about GPUs in general. Secondly, the 1660 is not in same league as V56. If price is close, yeah V56 looks more appealing.
#5670083
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/198/198862.jpg
Slower product is a better product becouse it uses less power. Thats that makes sense at all?

Next Page