-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1660. New under $250 GPU king.
- Thread starter Leonidas
- Start date
CrustyBritches
Gold Member
So...do you, or do you not have any hard evidence for your claims?
Here's my feeling. Next-gen will be less about resolution wars, and Sony has shown an affinity for Checkerboard. The visual difference between a $400 and a $500 console might be dick for all we know. We'll find out soon enough.
I'm hoping for the 1080p 4TF Xbox "Lockhart" rumors to be true. Rather have 2 of those than 1 4k system. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
llien
Member
Vega 56 is there at about 300 Euros, bundled with games, 2Gb extra memory and 5-10% faster than 1660Ti.
570 is there with twice as much perf as competitor.
Perf/$ wise both 580/570 still ahead:
Notable that 1660 have NOT improved perf/$ of 1060
Which model was it?
Last edited:
Leonidas
Member
Nice try cherry picking the most expensive 1660.
1660 is both faster and cheaper than 1060 6 GB at launch, it obviously has improved perf/$.
And yes, the 570 is above(and the 580 above the 1060). That's because you can get those things for $140-$180, but look at the poor 590, desperately in need of a drastic price cut.
llien
Member
Erm, cherry picking? Will next one in the techpowerup reviews be ok?
This one is EVGA:
Leonidas
Member
Stop playing dumb. I have to imagine you can't really be as stupid as you sound right now.
demented waffle
Member
I'd say vega 64(56 if you're lucky on a bios flash) or 2070. The 2060 would work for most games but could possibly choke due to the 6gb of vram on some games.
You could also always get the R7 or 2080. That's more strain on the wallet, tho. Although those are almost guaranteed 60 fps at console settings.
Last edited:
llien
Member
You stated I was cherry picking.
Exactly what is so special about MSI's board?
Leonidas
Member
It's $30 over MSRP, killing it's perf/$ value.
You'd have to be a fool to not understand this. 1660 at MSRP is a better value than 1060.
Putting you on ignore now so don't bother responding, but I hope you will one day understand this simple explanation.
llien
Member
So did you want me to cherry pick non AIB card for 1660 to look better, or was there something bad about MSI?
Last edited:
bitbydeath
Member
That’s my point.
Nobody does, so expecting it to be $399 or power levels between Vega 56 and 64 means nothing and is just you pulling information from nowhere and claiming it to be true.
Last edited:
CrustyBritches
Gold Member
No. That was my point about you. Are you ok, man?
Here...just for you: PS5 will be more powerful than a Vega 64. Feel better now?
bitbydeath
Member
No. That’s still speculation.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Good thing Intel is getting in the GPU market, maybe they can actually compete against Nvidia
Wait, the highest priced CPU manufacturer is all of the sudden going to have economical GPU prices? I would put my money more on them price fixing the market together, if AMD were out of the picture (which they won't be, thankfully).
thelastword
Banned
RX 590 vs 1660
RX 580 vs 1660
RX 590 can be had for $219 with three games right now......RX 580 can be had with two games at $189
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod...on=rx 590&cm_re=rx_590-_-14-202-327-_-Product
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod...on=rx 580&cm_re=rx_580-_-14-150-794-_-Product
Now 1660 is based on new turing architecture, whilst the 580/590 are based on Polaris arch that has been there for a few years and even had a sucessor after....Yet the AMD card's performance in current DX12 titles is ridiculous, it's clocks are definitely not as high as Turing either.......That 1650 will be a turd of a card by all indications.....There's no way the 1660 seperates itself in the future when more vulkan and dx12 titles surface, especially not with 2 less GB of Vram...It will be even worse with the 1650 vs RX 580 8GB .....Hell, the RX 570 may beat the 1650 in many titles...
RX 580 vs 1660
RX 590 can be had for $219 with three games right now......RX 580 can be had with two games at $189
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod...on=rx 590&cm_re=rx_590-_-14-202-327-_-Product
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod...on=rx 580&cm_re=rx_580-_-14-150-794-_-Product
Now 1660 is based on new turing architecture, whilst the 580/590 are based on Polaris arch that has been there for a few years and even had a sucessor after....Yet the AMD card's performance in current DX12 titles is ridiculous, it's clocks are definitely not as high as Turing either.......That 1650 will be a turd of a card by all indications.....There's no way the 1660 seperates itself in the future when more vulkan and dx12 titles surface, especially not with 2 less GB of Vram...It will be even worse with the 1650 vs RX 580 8GB .....Hell, the RX 570 may beat the 1650 in many titles...
IbizaPocholo
NeoGAFs Kent Brockman
DynamiteCop!
Banned
Let's lay this out properly.
- RX 590 = overclocked RX 580
- RX 580 = overclocked RX 480
- RX 480 = reconfigured R9 390X
- R9 390X = overclocked 290X
mcz117chief
Member
I got a 970, would you recommend this as a proper upgrade or just get 2070?
mcz117chief
Member
The one problem I have with AMD cards is that I often read about incompatibilities, how some games don't work properly, atc. with Nvidia cards I have less stress whether the game will work properly, so I would rather pay a bit more and have a peace of mind.
Shotpun
Member
1660 / 1660 Ti for 1080p/60fps, 2070 for 1440p/60fps or 1080p/120-144fps
Note that some 1660 models can be easily overclocked to Ti levels if you are comfortable with that. If you are rocking 1080p/60fps a RTX 2070 would obviously be faster than 1160 / 1160 Ti and thus last longer, but RTX stuff is brand new and no-one knows how commonly its features are going to be used in the future, even if it takes off the first generation of RTX line might get stomped over surprisingly quickly by the next generation.
Edit: typos galore.
Last edited:
Shadowcoust
Member
Nah, you should be going at least 2060 if you're upgrading. Gotta keep in mind cpu bottleneck as well.
The 1660 is really only designed for peeps building an entirely new low-mid range rig.
Last edited:
mcz117chief
Member
I got an i7 cpu so I'm fine, but I have a 5 year old GPU which is by now obviously my biggest bottleneck.
llien
Member
7nm is around the corner, early 2020 the latest, so those with patience should better wait.
And for "but you can always wait" argument: the next node will be 5nm and 3nm. AMD estimates transition to those node to happen in 5 year (!!!) cadence.
So "wait for 5nm" would be a multi-year experience.
Meanwhile ray tracing dust would settle and we'd see if dedicated hardware is worth it or not.
And for "but you can always wait" argument: the next node will be 5nm and 3nm. AMD estimates transition to those node to happen in 5 year (!!!) cadence.
So "wait for 5nm" would be a multi-year experience.
Meanwhile ray tracing dust would settle and we'd see if dedicated hardware is worth it or not.
There was actually a bump in the process. (14nm+ would be the honest name, they called it 12nm)
Last edited:
IbizaPocholo
NeoGAFs Kent Brockman
Mattyp
Gold Member
Depends how old a card you want to buy, 1080+80ti will manage. Or the 2070. Personally wont touch AMD cards.
SonGoku
Member
resolution is only one part of the equation for a proper next gen leap gpu power is needed, the min i see next gen going for is 12tf anything less would cripple the machines
true but $200 mark midrange chips tend to release last or will Navi do it backwards?
Last edited:
kikonawa
Member
I have a r290 Serieus question what upgrade should i take to have a real whortwile upgrade.
Cpu : i5 3570
Ram :8 gb
Armorian
Banned
What mobo do you have?
Change CPU to 3770 (k) or 2600k - 4 more threads will give you good upgrade in many games and if you can OC it's even better
Buy Nvidia GPU, 1660 should work great, AMD drivers have high CPU overhead in DX11 and your 290 is killing this i5 you have.
This should work great untill NG consoles arrive, after that who knows what CPU power will be needed to maintain 60fps in ports of PS5/X4 games.
Last edited:
Shadowcoust
Member
If AMD stepped up their game, yeah sure.
Tesseract
Banned
i don't see amd pushing along technologies like s-sync
Shadowcoust
Member
Depends on what resolution you're competing at. For realism sake 1080p would be anywhere between 25-35% slower than the 2060 I think. Gotta look at the benchmark vids again to confirm
SonGoku
Member
so slower than 2060 then?
Thanks i thought it was a 2060 without rtx bits
Last edited:
Shadowcoust
Member
Yeah the naming is just confusing at times really. I guess they wanted to not name anything with RTX tech as a 2xxx.
It's essentially the 1060 6GB refreshed. Slightly faster, but sold at a very reasonable MSRP.
Kenpachii
Member
Like i already stated in the last thread about this card. The card has no future. 6gb is OK for now but frankly will be outdated the moment next gen hits where most likely 8gb is going to be the absolute minimum as current gen games already require 4gb+ v-ram on even 1080p resolutions at ultra settings.
I personally will wait on 16gb 300 buck cards that probably will launch in a year or two.
Because that " peasant" resolution provides super high framerates.
144hz 1080p shits all over 4k let alone 240hz. It also makes your GPU a lot more cheaper if you plan on going the budget route. U also sit a lot more closer and having a 30+ inch screen right in front of your face is completely useless.
Not to forget that 4k / gsync screens with low latency ( yea good luck with consoles lol ) screens costs a fortune which nobody cares for even remotely at this point.
There is zero reason to move towards higher resolutions and if you want to on PC going higher then 1440p is just burning your money and performance for no reason.
But it's nice that sony's PR works well on them and people actually bought into it to sell there 4k tv's.
1080p PC gaming shits all over 4k console gaming.
GL dealing with that low setting, dynamic " 4k" and sub 30 fps with insane input lag and no half decent control setup on a TV that pushes even more input lag that is also riddled with motion blur.
But maybe next gen you will get that glorious " 60 fps" lamo.
I personally will wait on 16gb 300 buck cards that probably will launch in a year or two.
Because that " peasant" resolution provides super high framerates.
144hz 1080p shits all over 4k let alone 240hz. It also makes your GPU a lot more cheaper if you plan on going the budget route. U also sit a lot more closer and having a 30+ inch screen right in front of your face is completely useless.
Not to forget that 4k / gsync screens with low latency ( yea good luck with consoles lol ) screens costs a fortune which nobody cares for even remotely at this point.
There is zero reason to move towards higher resolutions and if you want to on PC going higher then 1440p is just burning your money and performance for no reason.
But it's nice that sony's PR works well on them and people actually bought into it to sell there 4k tv's.
1080p PC gaming shits all over 4k console gaming.
GL dealing with that low setting, dynamic " 4k" and sub 30 fps with insane input lag and no half decent control setup on a TV that pushes even more input lag that is also riddled with motion blur.
But maybe next gen you will get that glorious " 60 fps" lamo.
Last edited:
SonGoku
Member
Yeah just checked nvidias site, seems to have the new turing arc making it more efficient.
True but we are a good 2 years away from that and people buying a $200 card don't expect to play max settings.
Last edited:
DynamiteCop!
Banned
With an R9 290 a Vega 64 would be like a 110% increase in compute performance. I currently have one now, if you're curious how games perform shoot me a list of some and if I have them I'll run them at whatever resolution and settings you want and share the results.
Armorian
Banned
Yeah but you probably don't have old ass i5 in your PC.
DynamiteCop!
Banned
I have a 2600k
Armorian
Banned
I have a 2600k
So do I
DX12/Vulcan is fine but this processor is hammered by AMD drivers in CPU heavy scenarios in DX11. Few years ago I went from 290 to GTX970 and saw some big performance gains in some games despite both GPU's being similiar in power. You should upgrade your platform to fully use this Vega.
DynamiteCop!
Banned
It seems fine to me to be completely honest.So do I
I average like 120 FPS in Devil May Cry V at 2560x1440 at max settings, 78 FPS at Ultra+ settings on Forza Horizon 4 etc.
Armorian
Banned
Both games are DX12
Have you tried any recent AC game or WD2? This is what happens to AMD GPU's in ACOd on 2600k (stock):
DynamiteCop!
Banned
I have not, any other games like this I could give it a try on? Also I'm not at stock, I'm at 4.2 Ghz.Both games are DX12