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
POST A COMMENT

157 Comments

View All Comments

  • C'DaleRider - Friday, February 22, 2019 - link

    Good read. Thx. Reply
  • Opencg - Saturday, February 23, 2019 - link

    gtx at rtx prices. not really a fan of that graph at the end. I mean 1080 ti were about 500 about half a year ago. the perf/dollar is surely less than -7% more like -30%. as well due to the 36% perf gain quoted being inflated as hell. double the price and +20% perf is not -7% anand Reply
  • eddman - Saturday, February 23, 2019 - link

    They are comparing them based on their launch MSRP, which is fair.

    Actually, it seems they used the cut price of $500 for 1080 instead of the $600 launch MSRP. The perf/$ increases by ~15% if we use the latter, although it's still a pathetic generational improvement, considering 1080's perf/$ was ~55% better than 980.
    Reply
  • close - Saturday, February 23, 2019 - link

    In all fairness when comparing products from 2 different generations that are both still on the market you should compare on both launch price and current price. The purpose is to know which is the better choice these days. To know the historical launch prices and trends between generation is good for conformity but very few readers care about it for more than curiosity and theoretical comparisons. Reply
  • jjj - Friday, February 22, 2019 - link

    The 1060 has been in retail for 2.5 years so the perf gains offered here a lot less than what both Nvidia and AMD need to offer.
    They are pushing prices up and up but that's not a long term strategy.

    Then again, Nvidia doesn't care much about this market, they are shifting to server, auto and cloud gaming. In 5 years from now, they can afford to sell nothing in PC, unlike both AMD and Intel.
    Reply
  • jjj - Friday, February 22, 2019 - link

    A small correction here, there is no perf gain here at all, in terms of perf per dollar. Reply
  • D. Lister - Friday, February 22, 2019 - link

    Did you actually read the article before commenting on it? It is right there, on the last page - 21% increase in performance/dollar, which added with the very decent gain in performance/watt would suggest the company is anything but just sitting on their laurels. Unlike another company, which has been brute-forcing an architecture that is more than a decade old, and squandering their intellectual resources to design budget chips for consoles. :P Reply
  • shabby - Friday, February 22, 2019 - link

    We didn't wait 2.5 years for such a meager performance increase. Architecture performance increases were much higher before Turing, Nvidia is milking us, can't you see? Reply
  • Smell This - Friday, February 22, 2019 - link

    DING !
    I know it's my own bias, but branding looks like a typical, on-going 'bait-and-switch' scam whereby nVidia moves their goal posts by whim -- and adds yet another $100 in retail price (for the last 2 generations?). For those fans who spent beeg-buckeroos on a GTX 1070 (or even a 1060 6GB), it's The Way You Meant to Be 'Ewed-Scrayed.
    Reply
  • haukionkannel - Saturday, February 23, 2019 - link

    Do you remember how much cpus used to improve From generation to generation... 3-5%...
    That was when there was no competition. Now when there is competition we see 15% increase between generations or less. Well come to the future of GPUs. 3-5 % of increase between generations if there is not competition. Maybe 15 or less if there is competition. The good point is that you can keep the same gpu 6 year and you have no need to upgrade and lose money.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now