Tuesday, January 22nd 2019

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Put Through AoTS, About 16% Faster Than GTX 1060

Thai PC enthusiast TUM Apisak posted a screenshot of an alleged GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Ashes of the Singularity (AoTS) benchmark. The GTX 1660 Ti, if you'll recall, is an upcoming graphics card based on the TU116 silicon, which is a derivative of the "Turing" architecture but with a lack of real-time raytracing capabilities. Tested on a machine powered by an Intel Core i9-9900K processor, the AoTS benchmark was set to run at 1080p and DirectX 11. At this resolution, the GTX 1660 Ti returned a score of 7,400 points, which roughly compares with the previous-generation GTX 1070, and is about 16-17 percent faster than the GTX 1060 6 GB. NVIDIA is expected to launch the GTX 1660 Ti some time in Spring-Summer, 2019, as a sub-$300 successor to the GTX 1060 series.
Source: TUM_APISAK (Twitter)
Add your own comment

155 Comments on NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Put Through AoTS, About 16% Faster Than GTX 1060

#1
biffzinker
btarunr said:
NVIDIA is expected to launch the GTX 1660 Ti some time in Spring-Summer, 2019, as a sub-$300 successor to the GTX 1060 series.
Under $300 would translate to $299 knowing Nvidia's recent pricing shenanigans. /s Hopefully the price is $250.
Posted on Reply
#2
gmn 17
biffzinker said:
Under $300 would translate to $299 knowing Nvidia's recent pricing shenanigans. /s Hopefully the price is $250.
A Turing 1880 ti would be ideal
Posted on Reply
#3
dj-electric
Being only 16% faster than a GTX 1060 6GB, this better be sub 249$
Posted on Reply
#4
OneMoar
There is Always Moar
it needs to be well under the 250 mark to make any sense
16% is peanuts
150.00 to 175.00 would make sense price amd out of the market
Posted on Reply
#5
Zubasa
OneMoar said:
it needs to be well under the 250 mark to make any sense
16% is peanuts
150.00 to 175.00 would make sense price amd out of the market
nVidia's main goal as any company is to maximize profit, not to price AMD out of the market.
If they can sell a card for $300 and still sell all of them, there is no reason to price it any lower.
Posted on Reply
#6
biffzinker
OneMoar said:
150.00 to 175.00 would make sense price amd out of the market
Not likely gonna happen if it's as fast as a 1070.
Posted on Reply
#8
biffzinker
eidairaman1 said:
No dx12?
Are you questioning why it wasn't benched in DX12?
Posted on Reply
#9
Metroid
This card supposed to be sold for under $150, not under $300. Nvidia is not living in the real world anymore after the crypto crazy in 2017 and when it wakes up its share will be worth 50% of what is today, wake up nvidia.
Posted on Reply
#10
eidairaman1
The Exiled Airman
biffzinker said:
Are you questioning why it wasn't benched in DX12?
Yeah, the latest API has been around how long now?
Posted on Reply
#11
darksf
Second Hand 1070 is already sub 300$ go stick your overpriced silicone waffer somewhere.
Posted on Reply
#12
medi01
Zubasa said:
nVidia's main goal as any company is to maximize profit, not to price AMD out of the market.
It doesn't have to "price AMD out" as people happily buy 1.5-2 times slower 1050/1050Ti over 470/570 no matter what, because green.

I mean, masses buying what mainstream is, is not something new.
Posted on Reply
#13
Metroid
Anybody buying this card over a rx 570 or rx 580 is not living in the real world.
Posted on Reply
#14
IceScreamer
Is this really called 1660Ti instead of 1160Ti?
Posted on Reply
#16
THANATOS
I believe everyone who posted a reply in this thread did read the review for 2060 on this site, right?
If you read It, then you should know 2060 is 16-17% faster in FullHD than GTX1070, right?
Then I don't understand why so many of you believe a card with 20% more Cuda cores, TMU and comparable clocks is only 16% faster than GTX1060 when IPC of Turing is already ~10-15% better!
This score is either not accurate or this card doesn't have 1536 cuda or it has noticeably lower clocks which is unlikely.
Posted on Reply
#17
THANATOS
Metroid said:
Anybody buying this card over a rx 570 or rx 580 is not living in the real world.
If the performance of 570 or 580 is not enough for you then you need to buy something stronger than those cards and this card shouldn't be only 16% faster than 1060, read my previous reply for more details.
If the performance of 570 or 580 is good enough for you then buy them, they have the best performance/price ratio.

Metroid said:
This card supposed to be sold for under $150, not under $300. Nvidia is not living in the real world anymore after the crypto crazy in 2017 and when it wakes up its share will be worth 50% of what is today, wake up nvidia.
What is the current price of GTX1060? It's $210 as shown in the chart in this review: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GeForce_RTX_2060_Gaming_Z/.
Please give me a valid reason why should a faster card cost under $150 when GTX1060 costs a lot more?
Posted on Reply
#18
Blueberries
I don't see the point of this card. The 2060 is at least 30% faster than the 1060 and it's already priced very affordably.

NVIDIA tried to come up with a 2050 ti and realized RT at that level is dumb and now they're saving face by passing it off as a different tier? Just scrap the whole thing before it gets worse.
Posted on Reply
#19
THANATOS
Blueberries said:
I don't see the point of this card. The 2060 is at least 30% faster than the 1060 and it's already priced very affordably.

NVIDIA tried to come up with a 2050 ti and realized RT at that level is dumb and now they're saving face by passing it off as a different tier? Just scrap the whole thing before it gets worse.
Not everyone is willing to pay >€350 for a graphic card at least I am not.
2060 is >50% faster than 1060 according to this review: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GeForce_RTX_2060_Gaming_Z/32.html.
Having RT cores for anything under 2060 is pointless in my opinion so this is a good move. Even keeping the Tensor cores is questionable.

What I don't like about 2060 and this cards is the 192bit bus.
That is a big disadvantage because they can use either 3GB or 6GB of Vram.
They should have used 256bit and then they could use 4GB or 8GB of Vram. With a 33% wider bus they could use a cheaper GDDR5 memory at least for this card.
Posted on Reply
#20
notb
Blueberries said:
I don't see the point of this card. The 2060 is at least 30% faster than the 1060 and it's already priced very affordably.
2060 priced very affordably? It's a mid-range card, placed above the previous generation (1060 was $250 at launch).
So Nvidia now needs 2 chips below - actual successors to 1050 and 1060.

I expected them to just go for 2030 and 2050, but it seems the 2000-series is RTX only.
1660 is going to replace 1060 and, clearly, there has to be some "1550" in the works as well.
Posted on Reply
#22
[XC] Oj101
IceScreamer said:
Is this really called 1660Ti instead of 1160Ti?
I can answer that. It's because it's 16% faster, not 11% faster.
Posted on Reply
#23
bajs11
biffzinker said:
Under $300 would translate to $299 knowing Nvidia's recent pricing shenanigans. /s Hopefully the price is $250.
have to agree with you there
It has been almost 3 years since the release of the Pascal cards
and yet they charge 20% more for a card that is probably only 16% faster
is this a joke?
This thing should be more of a successor to the gtx 1050Ti and sub 200 usd
Posted on Reply
#24
bug
OneMoar said:
it needs to be well under the 250 mark to make any sense
16% is peanuts
150.00 to 175.00 would make sense price amd out of the market
The thing is, when you only have one or two competitors, you're really, really careful not to ruin them. Otherwise you'd become a monopoly and subject to all sorts of extra attention. It's less of hassle to keep them around.
Incidentally (and this is just speculation on my side) that's why Nvidia has surrendered consoles to AMD: to provide AMD a lifeline when they were getting hammered on the PC.
Posted on Reply
#25
notb
bug said:
The thing is, when you only have one or two competitors, you're really, really careful not to ruin them. Otherwise you'd become a monopoly and subject to all sorts of extra attention. It's less of hassle to keep them around.
Exactly like you said and IMO quite a lot of people here don't get this.
No company wants to be a monopolist, unless being owned by the government. Being a monopolist sucks and makes the whole business much more expensive. Not to mention the state would do everything possible to divide such a company anyway.

For Intel it's way more convenient to give AMD their 10% market share - especially if it's not a very interesting part (like HEDT).
We have to wait until AMD gets competitive in mobile solutions, to actually see Intel giving a f... :-)
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment