Nvidia’s GTX 1660 Ti : Turing sans RTX

The much anticipated (we guess) GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is now available. It's a fairly straightforward product, but it brings with it a new GPU, the TU116, which is fabricated on TSMC's optimized "12nm" FinFET+ process. That whole chip is enabled in the GTX 1660 Ti, and that lends it 24 streaming multiprocessors containing 1536 shaders, 96 texture units, and 48 render output units (ROPs). The TU116 hooks up to 6GB of GDDR6 memory over a 192-bit bus, just like the GeForce RTX 2060. However, the memory on these cards runs at 12 Gbps instead of the 14 Gbps of the RTX lineup.

EVGA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti XC Black Edition

You'll note that Nvidia used the "GTX" nomenclature instead of Turing's "RTX" on this card, and it has 10-series numbering instead of 20-series. That's because although TU116 is Turing through and through, it lacks tensor cores or RT cores. In other words, it has functionally the same feature set as a last-generation card based on the Pascal architecture. That's not to say that it's the same as a Pascal card, though. Despite being similar in resource apportionment to the GeForce GTX 1060, Nvidia says that enhancements to the Turing architecture make the GeForce GTX 1660 Ti half again as fast and 40% more power efficient at the same clock rate compared to its predecessor.

There's no Founders Edition card this time around; all of the GTX 1660 Ti cards on the market are board partner designs. We don't actually have a card in hand, unfortunately. We're not entirely without the ability to hand you some information, though; we've checked around the web, and the consensus seems to be that this card delivers similar performance to the GeForce GTX 1070 at the lower starting price of $279. If you're still hanging onto some old Maxwell, Kepler, or previous-generation GCN hardware—or god forbid, something from the Fermi or Terascale generations—it could make a pretty solid upgrade at a reasonable price.

Asus ROG Strix GeForce GTX 1660 Ti

Here are the GeForce GTX 1660 Ti reviews we've read and recommend:

We'll have an availability check a bit later rounding up all the cards that came out today. Let us know what you think of the new card in the comments.

Comments closed
    • Durante
    • 9 months ago

    [quote<] In other words, it has functionally the same feature set as a last-generation card based on the Pascal architecture.[/quote<] That's not accurate, is it? E.g. if this is Turing then it has variable rate shading, and that's a pretty significant feature which Pascal lacks.

      • Voldenuit
      • 9 months ago

      Turing also has concurrent INT+FP execution, which Pascal lacks.

      And it has a newer NVenc.

      It’s more accurate to call the 1660Ti ‘Turing minus RTX’ rather than ‘Pascal plus nothing’.

      • RAGEPRO
      • 9 months ago

      Yeah, you and Voldenuit below are both correct on those points. I meant in terms of API support; the GTX 1660 Ti isn’t going to play any games the GTX 1000-series won’t. Poorly-worded on my part. Sorry about that.

    • hiki
    • 9 months ago

    By using tomshardware rankings, and pcpartpicker prices, the card only makes economical sense when paired with a Ryzen 5 2600X

    [url<]https://i.imgur.com/RoivRUv.png[/url<] TH ranks them by lower percentil FPS (not by average FPS)

    • maroon1
    • 9 months ago

    Performance is almost like GTX 1070 but consume less power and smaller. Has 2GB less memory which not a big deal.

    For 280 dollars is not bad at all. Only 20 dollar more than slower RX590 which also consume about 100watt more power at full load than 1660

    • tipoo
    • 9 months ago

    A drum with no head. A pump with no grip. A song with no voice. A Turing without RTX. Still it is mine. Still it is mine.

    Points for reference

      • JustAnEngineer
      • 9 months ago

      [quote=”tipoo”<] [quote="Easar Togita"<] [quote="Anasai of Ryddingwood"<] "A drum with no head. A pump with no grip. A song with no voice. Still, it is mine. Still, it is mine." [/quote<] [/quote<] [/quote<] I had to Google it. I quit reading that series before it got to its 14th book.

        • tipoo
        • 9 months ago

        I’d forgive you for hitting up sparksnotes and skipping to the last three, they were really quite good, and as much as the author passing before he could finish his work sucked, the new author got rid of many of the old annoyances (gender wars nonsense, sniffing, etc)

    • deruberhanyok
    • 9 months ago

    NVIDIA, 6 months ago: “RTX is going to revolutionize PC gaming as we know it! Look at all of the neat things it can do! As more cards get out into the market developers will use it more and more! Don’t be left out!”

    NVIDIA, today: “Mainstream gamers don’t need RTX, so we’ve removed those features from the first Turing-based card that we expect to sell in any significant volume.”

    SIgh. I’m really looking forward to this all turning into a 3-way GPU war next year when Intel enters the market.

      • Krogoth
      • 9 months ago

      Geforce 2/4 MX called. It wants its removal of “future-proof” feature sets (Pixel/Vertex shading) as a selling point back.

        • Concupiscence
        • 9 months ago

        The Geforce2 MX didn’t deserve disdain, at least not initially. Nine months after the Geforce256, Nvidia so comprehensively outclassed its own industry-dominating product that the MX, its budget offering, [i<]was faster and cooler-running than its previous flagship.[/i<] Things began to go askew when Nvidia segmented it into the MX 400 - the vanilla MX with a useless 50 MHz bump to core speeds that required active cooling afterward, for a part whose speed was limited by memory bandwidth alone - and the MX 200, which was hobbled by cheaper, slower memory in a bid to replace the TNT2 M64 parts that Nvidia previously fed to OEMs and the low end of the market. But for its time it was unimpeachable and genuinely exciting. The Geforce4 MX, however, was lamentable. Yes.

      • DPete27
      • 9 months ago

      RT isn’t viable at this performance tier. Plain and simple.

      Also, since AMD’s Navi GPUs will presumably not having RT, Nvidia can’t afford to waste die space (mfg cost) on such features down this far in the product stack.

    • nanoflower
    • 9 months ago

    Sorry to see you didn’t get any cards to review. It’s a bit silly as I just looked and Jayz Two Cents on Youtube has 4 different 1660 TI cards that he’s comparing (and a Vega 56 card). The cards do look to be good performers and at a better price without the DXR features adding to the price.

      • NTMBK
      • 9 months ago

      4 cards for a YouTuber, and 0 for a fantastic site like Tech Report? Jeeze.

      Honestly tempted to boycott PC products that don’t send this site a sample.

        • chuckula
        • 9 months ago

        +3.

        When TR was provided with review samples for the 2080/Ti release I thought the review was quite thorough and certainly fair. As such, I have to wonder about what is going on at Nvidia.

        • TEAMSWITCHER
        • 9 months ago

        Jayz wasn’t particularly kind to the cards either. The +$300 models were simply not worth the extra money. Not when compared to the RTX 2060 which could be had for only $20 more. And while there is certainly a market for people who are not sold on RT and AI cores, they also aren’t the people driving the PC gaming market to new highs… So, Jayz doesn’t really care what GPU they buy. Neither do I.

        • DPete27
        • 9 months ago

        Many HW review sites have a YouTube presence nowadays. I hate to say it, but TR is falling behind the curve in the reader marketing department.

        I’m sure HW companies base samples on site traffic. Not sure where TR stands in that regard.

          • Star Brood
          • 9 months ago

          I’d rather TR remains a small and uncompromised platform of purely scientific reviews instead of caving to peer pressure from dime a dozen YouTube clickbait videos.

            • DragonDaddyBear
            • 9 months ago

            You can help by subscribing!

            • nanoflower
            • 9 months ago

            One doesn’t have to do click bait Youtube videos. Gamers Nexus comes to mind as the best example of someone doing quality Youtube tech videos and running a website with detailed reviews. Personally I only see their videos as I tend to come to TechReport for the detailed reviews but Steve of GN does a good job with his YT reviews. If the Tech Report had someone that was interested in doing YT reviews they could draw in new viewers/readers much like happened with the old podcast.

            • Flying Fox
            • 9 months ago

            GN does sponsorship shoutouts in their videos and then YT adds their own ads. I can’t say I’m a fan but I understand bills need to be paid somehow.

            And I don’t know about you, but I still find I can read in information faster than going through a video. (I am now starting to play the videos faster these days, but I for some key phrases I have to rewind back and replay, which is also a waste of time.)

            • Chrispy_
            • 9 months ago

            It’s no coincidence that when you search for “1660Ti review” the Youtube results come before any web results.

            GN’s site success is because of their YT and video sponsorship revenue. I would guess that their website is dead in the water without the YT channel up front and center.

            • Redocbew
            • 9 months ago

            To offer my own anecdata, I certainly have watched more of their videos than I have visited their site. I usually only watch reviews for things like cases though just so I can see what it looks like and make sure the manufacturer hasn’t done anything bonkers. If I want to dig into the dirty details I come here to TR or find some other written review.

            • BIF
            • 9 months ago

            Yeah, subscribe! It’s not that much, and certainly however much or little you’ve received in knowledge is worth [i<]something[/i<].

        • Chrispy_
        • 9 months ago

        It’s sad to say that YouTube is where “reviews” are these days. Traditional written reviews on websites are a dying breed. I can’t say I like it, but that’s where the money and marketing is. Just as print media is dying off, web print (like TR, Anand, etc) have been in decline for half a decade now.

        The great bastions of hardware reviews are falling by the wayside as streamers and ‘tubers are capturing the short attention spans of the next generation audience. Everyone on here is, unfortunately, a dinosaur.

        The sites that seem to garner the most attention from hardware vendors, and thus have the widest selection and earliest reviews of a new product, are the ones that are “video first”, and in some cases (GamersNexus, DigitalFoundry, KitGuru) also supported by a written review of decent quality. This is more of an exception than a rule though, too often a superficial review that is nothing more than a glorified unboxing and simple one-off benchmark is all we get. Any of us could do that at home.

        All too often, the vendors are sending stuff to channels with high subscriber counts, large ad revenues, and blacklist any site that bothers doing a proper test that highlights the downsides of a new launch. AMD, Nvidia, Intel all play the dirty game – it’s called marketing and it’s been a career of lying since long before any of us were born.

      • Mr Bill
      • 9 months ago

      Maybe TR could team up with one of the more tech oriented You’bers and offer to test the card, posting results on TR after the YouTube review airs. And, in exchange, TR shares data for a follow-up YouTuber in-the-millisecond review.

    • Usacomp2k3
    • 9 months ago

    1070 performance is pretty good. If retail prices get to $250 that seems like a good deal.

      • meerkt
      • 9 months ago

      But 1070 is 8GB, versus 6GB here.

        • Usacomp2k3
        • 9 months ago

        Probably won’t make a difference unless you are gaming at 2160p or have high-texture mods installed.

          • meerkt
          • 9 months ago

          Unless one intends to get a new card in a year or two, memory might become an issue. It’s not only for final 2D textures. Graphics engines are moving forward even if it’s x1440 or x1080.

            • Chrispy_
            • 9 months ago

            Far Cry 5 seems to be one of the hungriest games at the moment and that’s using just 2.9GB at 1080p/Ultra/TAA turned up to maximum.

            Chances are good that the 1660Ti is going to run out of graphics performance in newer games long before it runs out of VRAM, expecially since it already needs you turn settings down to hit fluid 1440p performance, which means an even lower VRAM footprint.

            • sweatshopking
            • 9 months ago

            New dawn uses far more when using the hd texture pack, which looks much better imo

            • meerkt
            • 9 months ago

            It’s not always clear if it’s only for higher resolutions, but some games have “recommended” requirements of >=4GB (or is 6/8GB >=6GB?) (for example, [url=https://store.steampowered.com/app/750920/Shadow_of_the_Tomb_Raider/<]Shadow of the Tomb Raider[/url<], [url=https://www.ea.com/en-gb/games/battlefield/battlefield-5/buy/pc-system-requirements<]Battlefield 5[/url<]), 6GB ([url=https://store.steampowered.com/app/517630/Just_Cause_4/<]Just Cause 4[/url<]), and 8GB ([url=https://www.metrothegame.com/PCSpecs<]Metro Exodus[/url<]). Some of the above recommend >4GB on Radeon RX.

    • DragonDaddyBear
    • 9 months ago

    Why no review sample of this card?

      • drfish
      • 9 months ago

      [url=https://morbotron.com/meme/S01E04/908453.jpg?b64lines=V2h5IGluZGVlZD8=<]Obligatory Futurama.[/url<]

        • DragonDaddyBear
        • 9 months ago

        Wasn’t TR stiffed recently with another lack of a review sample?

          • leor
          • 9 months ago

          Jeff did the last GPU review, who’s on deck to do the next one?

      • Leader952
      • 9 months ago

      Wouldn’t have mattered even if they had a review sample as reviews here seem to take a week more than other site take to do a review. Just look at past reviews to see those delays.

        • leor
        • 9 months ago

        Look at the quality here vs elsewhere…

          • Leader952
          • 9 months ago

          I’m sorry but if the review is a week or two late and isn’t any better then it is pretty useless.

          Tech Review groupies here continue that old tired (and false) “quality here vs elsewhere” line even though there are many quality reviews online on the NDA release day.

        • derFunkenstein
        • 9 months ago

        Vega VII was on release day.

          • Leader952
          • 9 months ago

          Take a better look at previous ones to see the overall trend of being late.

            • MOSFET
            • 9 months ago

            I guess I fit in here because I’ve never bought a GPU on release day. If my mind was set on that anyway, I probably wouldn’t wait for a review – I would either be on my way to Fry’s, or I would have preordered.

    • ColeLT1
    • 9 months ago

    Why not call it GTX 2050ti? GTX means no RTX, and it slots in directly below the 2060 in perfomance/power. Is naming confusion a requirement for marketing departments?

      • Krogoth
      • 9 months ago

      They want to make it look like an upgraded “1060” and make 2xxx series branding RTX-only.

      • MathMan
      • 9 months ago

      Because then others would complain that Nvidia on purpose made people get tricked into thinking it’d supported ray tracing. Because GTX and RTX is too close.

      They can’t win on this.

      • Anovoca
      • 9 months ago

      Because G[b<]T[/b<]X[b<]166[/b<]0 ti is more clever. Edit: nm, chip name is 116. dyslexia strikes again!

      • qmacpoint
      • 9 months ago

      Would’ve made sense to call it the GTX1160, and have RTX follow with 21xx – but this is the world we live in 🙂

        • Flying Fox
        • 9 months ago

        I’m also scratching my head on that one too. The only thing that I can think of is that they are now setting a [i<]maximum[/i<] of 3 more generations before the 1x series and 2x series to merge or for everything to be RTX.

          • Krogoth
          • 9 months ago

          It is because “11” is a bad number for branding and marketing purposes. It is too close to 1 and also in some cultures it stands for “snake eyes” which is considered to be highly unlucky.

            • Chrispy_
            • 9 months ago

            But turning things up to 11 is a good number for branding and marketing purposes. It is one better than the ‘perfect ten’ and in some cultures it stands for sexy legs or is lucky by virue of not being the number 13.

            ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

          • qmacpoint
          • 9 months ago

          This actually makes a lot more sense than any theory so far. Hooray for team “green”!

    • Krogoth
    • 9 months ago

    It is basically a 1070 that has better DX12 performance due to Turing’s architectural improvements. It is hardly a game changer at its price point. It is not fast enough to justify upgrading that aging 1060, RX480 and RX580 on a budget. People who are still on older hardware are just better off waiting until 7nm refreshes unless their GPU is dying.

      • sweatshopking
      • 9 months ago

      if their gpu is dying use the warranty.

        • Krogoth
        • 9 months ago

        The chances are good that warranty is expired on that Maxwell-era or older GPU platform.

          • sweatshopking
          • 9 months ago

          Maxwell, sure. I thought you were saying that for 480s or 1060s, but I getcha

        • highlandr
        • 9 months ago

        My GPU is dying, but it’s a 290. I missed my regular upgrade cycle due to the crypto boom, and even still it’s hard to find a card a lot better in the $200 range. This looks interesting at $280, and even more so because it will drive down current card prices (see Vega 56 pricing reaction) below what they were yesterday.

        • Firestarter
        • 9 months ago

        mine was 6 years old when it died

      • TEAMSWITCHER
      • 9 months ago

      “aging 1060?” “aging RX580?” What is the point of buying new low price cards every two years? You might as well just buy a more expensive card and keep it a while. You’ll save money in the long run, and enjoy better performance and features.

        • Krogoth
        • 9 months ago

        The mainstream market depends on frequent sales for that strong revenue. That’s why 1660 exists. Nvidia needed a refresh and a way to get rid off of sub-par TU106 yields (I suspect some 1660s sold will actually use TU106 silicon with defective tensor cores that are fused).

          • TEAMSWITCHER
          • 9 months ago

          Do you not ACTUALLY read about any of this stuff? The GTX 1660Ti is based on a new TU116 core.

            • Krogoth
            • 9 months ago

            Yes, but it doesn’t stop Nvidia from selling defective TU106 chips as “1660s”. TU116 are just cheaper to make at the fab. Both camps have historically have sold in defective silicon under lesser brand names mixed with newer silicon.

            • DancinJack
            • 9 months ago

            He does that. Says things with zero evidence, then changes his point once people point out facts to him. It’s really weird.

            I will say, he’s not always wrong or off-base, but those are the exception for him rather than the rule.

        • dragontamer5788
        • 9 months ago

        I don’t think the RX580 or 1060 were “low priced cards”. Those were solidly mid-range. I think buying mid-range every 2 years makes more sense to any 1080p gamer out there.

        The bottom-end of the market: the Rx550 or 1030 are too barebones, but still useful for those who only play Rocket League, Factorio, or Cuphead (solid games in their own right). Actually, those are the games I play most of the time.

        The only reason why I have a bigger card than that is because I also do some Video Editing / 3d Modeling. But I actually am not a big fan of the giant 3d atmosphere games (ex: Witcher 3) that require these stronger GPUs.

          • Chrispy_
          • 9 months ago

          It’s called the “sweet spot” for a reason; best performance/$

          I agree that buying a high end card once ever six years is very poor value. A $600 card will get you amazing performance for two years, okay performance for two years, and probably poor performance if it doesn’t fail within the last two years.

          Meanwhile, a $200 card will give you okay performance for two years and then you get a new card with a new warranty and new architecture and the latest feature support and fans that don’t end up sounding like their bearings have been wearing away for two, four, or six years.

          Look at it this way. Four years ago, you’d have bought the latest and greatest GTX 980 for $549, and on a six year plan you’d still be hoping it worked by February 2021. The 980 was an anomaly in high-end cards because it was remarkably power-efficient for a high end card (the upcoming 980Ti was the super-expensive, power-hungry beast.)

          If you’d have bought a “sweet spot card” instead of the 980, you’d have a GTX 960, an R9 285, or a 280X. At around $200 they provided 60% or more of the performance of the 980. Sure, you’d be running on “high” presets instead of “ultra” but for your first two years that would be pretty much the only compromise necessary.

          After 18 months, an $199 4GB RX 480 catches your eye. It’s 90% the speed of a GTX 980 in OpenGL/DX11, it has the same VRAM quantity, but it supports DX12 and seems to run circles around the 980 in Vulkan/DX12 titles. If you’d bought that you’d still be $150 better off than if you’d bought the 980 and you get new fan bearings, new features, new warranty, oh – and new free games (bonus!) Perhaps you waited this one out until 2 years and went for the GTX 1060 6GB instead. Not really the ‘sweet spot’ for performance/$ but close enough.

          Here we are now at the four year mark and with your 2-3 year old RX480/GTX1060 you’re wondering if you should upgrade again. Benchmarks say no, you’re actually still fine with either of those cards but hey – if you’re feeling the itch you could always grab a 1660Ti or Vega56 which has been dropped in price by AMD to compete. Yep, new fan bearings, new warranty and new free games again. Sure, you’re $100 over budget compared to the 980 you would have bought, but that 980 is now fried, tired, worn-out, out of warrant, and nearly worthless on eBay/Craigslist. Meanwhile you have either passed on two GPUs to other PCs in your household or recuperated way more than $100 by selling them on.

      • Voldenuit
      • 9 months ago

      [quote<]It is not fast enough to justify upgrading that aging 1060, RX480 and RX580 on a budget.[/quote<] See [url<]https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-1660-Ti-Review-EVGA-and-MSI-Cards-Tested/Synthetic-Benchma[/url<] 36%, 32%, 45% and 43% faster than 1060 in FC5, SOTTR, ME:SoW and F1 2018. Ppl on 960 and 970s especially (still the 5th and 6th most common cards in Steam Survey) would get a massive performance increase, as well as 'we're-not-calling-it-Freesync' support.

        • Concupiscence
        • 9 months ago

        It’s still less than a 50% jump over a 1060/RX 480/580 – maybe enough to smooth out a 1080p title that was struggling, but not a transformative experience. It would be much nicer than that for anybody holding on to all but the fastest Maxwell parts, but I can’t very get excited about it.

      • ptsant
      • 9 months ago

      I wouldn’t say that. Using BF1 as an example, the jump from a 580 to the 1660 is from 67 to 85 fps at 1440p. It’s even better from the 1060 (62 -> 85). That’s quite significant, a solid 20+%. I definitely think that the 2060 or Vega 56 is a better upgrade from the 580/1060 tier. But if the price is right, an extra 20% is enough to last another 2-3 years at the same resolution.

        • leor
        • 9 months ago

        None of the performance marks you mentioned are deal breakers. I’d much rather NOT spend money on a 20-25% performance jump if I could wait for this pricing bubble to settle down and get a much higher boost in 6-9 months.

          • ptsant
          • 9 months ago

          What makes you think that you’ll get a +50% boost at the same price point in 6-9 months? Turing has barely touched the perf/$ ratio, maybe with the sole exception of the 2060. The fact is the market is stagnating, in the absence of competition.

          Let’s hope Navi changes that, but that remains to be seen.

            • leor
            • 9 months ago

            Navi will change that if only to have more competition in the market. Right now things are pretty much as bad as they can possibly be, in the absence of AMD releasing a new card (I’m not counting the 590 or the Radeon VII), Nvidia has run amok with pricing and not really offered anything interesting unless you’re very excited about ray tracing.

            I’m counting on a mix of increased competition, the release of new products, and holiday or back to school sales to bring things down something that resembles sane levels.

            I shudder to ponder this as the new normal…

      • DoomGuy64
      • 9 months ago

      The turing features make it a solid upgrade over the slower 1060/480 GPUs, maybe not the higher end models. It also can fully utilize its extra ROPs, unlike the 1060, which sadly few review sites accurately reported on. If you have a 1070, keep it. If you can get a 1070/Ti at a discount, maybe consider it over a 1660, as the higher specs outclass the performance improvements. That said, it’s nice that Nvidia is finally delivering some affordable mid range cards.

    • chuckula
    • 9 months ago

    Look Ngreedia, we appreciate that you want to have a panicked response to Navi.

    But could you show just a tad more… panic in the response? Cutting the RTX-2080 to $300 or so would be a start.

      • TEAMSWITCHER
      • 9 months ago

      Oh really? Where is Navi?

        • Krogoth
        • 9 months ago

        It probably had some serious hardware flaws that needed to be address with another re-tape. That’s why AMD RTG didn’t bother to reveal or even tease it at CES. They had Radeon VII as a placeholder.

          • TEAMSWITCHER
          • 9 months ago

          Radeon VII simply isn’t a gaming card.. It was designed for something else and repurposed for gaming as a half-hearted attempt to keep AMD’s name in the game. I think Navi is in serious trouble… It’s so late that Nvidia can price shift their entire line-up down … and make it impossible for Navi to enter the market at a high enough MSRP to recoup R&D costs. At this point .. AMD would probably save money by simply abandoning Navi.

            • Krogoth
            • 9 months ago

            AMD RTG isn’t abandoning Navi because it is being used in the PS5 and Xbox One’s successor. It will be able to recoup the costs from gaming consoles. We will probably see more of it in semi-integrated and iGPU solutions rather as discrete GPUs.

        • allreadydead
        • 9 months ago

        In a galaxy far, far away…

          • K-L-Waster
          • 9 months ago

          … this is Turing’s father’s brother’s cousin’s uncle’s former roommate.

            • Krogoth
            • 9 months ago

            Which makes them?

            • K-L-Waster
            • 9 months ago

            Absolutely uncompelling.

      • Krogoth
      • 9 months ago

      Nvidia needs to go to the glue-side if they want to crush AMD RTG once and for all.

        • freebird
        • 9 months ago

        Apparently Glue jokes are now not GPC as in Graphically Politically Correct.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This