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

#51
EarthDog
eidairaman1 said:
Yeah, the latest API has been around how long now?
Long enough... but not a ton of games have it yet either. It also brings more of the cpu into things. ;)

phill said:
I think Nvidia need to release a few more in between cards because I'm not sure they have enough...

What a way to confuse the consumer....
Are you serious?

If 5 cards are too much, AMD/Intel CPU selection must make you want to explode. Lololol!
Posted on Reply
#52
Chloe Price
THANATOS said:
How much did 1060 cost at launch? $299 for FE and $249 for custom cards If I remember correctly and after 2 years GTX1060 costs $210.
I will say It once more that It's unreasonable to expect a card 16% faster(It should be more) than 1060 to be priced under $200 while the slower older card(GTX1060) costs $210.

If they want this card to have at least the same performance/price ratio as 2060, then the price needs to be $279 but considering no RT I think It will be $249, but we will see.
Looks like the cheapest GTX 1060s here in Finland are 220 euros for 3GB, and 259 euros for 6GB. Feels ridiculous that 1060 is about 2½yrs old, and they're still going for about their MSRP.
Posted on Reply
#53
bug
phill said:
That I can understand but I thought the new line was RTX 20xx rather than 1160?? Unless it's a completely cut down version of of the 2060 for example that's going to be half the price or something, I'm not sure I understand the reason for the card?

AMD cards are a bit like it I agree, but they aren't going forward leaps and bounds in performance. It just seems like a bit of a waste to release it from my little brain that was all... :)
The new line is RTX 20xx. But since the 2060 can barely push DXR, it's clear any lesser card in that lineup won't be up to the task. If you can't use that hardware, you get rid of it and, if you don't want to be slapped with frivolous lawsuits, you do your best to make the differentiation as clear as possible. In this case, you create a numbering scheme different from 20xx.
Still pretty messy, I agree, but so is the whole movement to push RTRT into the mainstream a little too soon.
Posted on Reply
#54
phill
bug said:
The new line is RTX 20xx. But since the 2060 can barely push DXR, it's clear any lesser card in that lineup won't be up to the task. If you can't use that hardware, you get rid of it and, if you don't want to be slapped with frivolous lawsuits, you do your best to make the differentiation as clear as possible. In this case, you create a numbering scheme different from 20xx.
Still pretty messy, I agree, but so is the whole movement to push RTRT into the mainstream a little too soon.
Ah that's ok then that someone agrees even with my crappy style of english lol :)
Surprised then they didn't just release GTX cards in stead of RTX below 2070... So GTX 2060 then RTX 2070... Might have been a little better but I understand at least were your going :)
Posted on Reply
#55
THANATOS
Vya Domus said:
You do realize this has happened plenty times by this point right ? The 1060 wont remain forever in production.

The 2070 was sold at a lower price than the 1080ti but had comparable performance , how was that possible accordion to your logic ?
If Nvidia wants to sell all of their inventory of GTX1060 then they can't price It higher than It's successor unless they sell all stock before this new card is released.
2070 doesn't have comparable performance to 1080ti. It has weaker performance so It is price is also lower.
Posted on Reply
#56
EarthDog
10% WQHD... about a half tier difference.
Posted on Reply
#57
THANATOS
Chloe Price said:
Looks like the cheapest GTX 1060s here in Finland are 220 euros for 3GB, and 259 euros for 6GB. Feels ridiculous that 1060 is about 2½yrs old, and they're still going for about their MSRP.
If I am correct then MSRP doesn't include VAT, that's why It looks like It costs the same. AMD in this performance range has much better value(more Vram, same performance for less money).
Posted on Reply
#58
bug
phill said:
Ah that's ok then that someone agrees even with my crappy style of english lol :)
Surprised then they didn't just release GTX cards in stead of RTX below 2070... So GTX 2060 then RTX 2070... Might have been a little better but I understand at least were your going :)
Neah, simply changing RTX to GTX wouldn't have been enough. People are that dumb.
Posted on Reply
#59
Chloe Price
THANATOS said:
If I am correct then MSRP doesn't include VAT, that's why It looks like It costs the same. AMD in this performance range has much better value(more Vram, same performance for less money).
Yeah our MSRPs includes VAT always.
Posted on Reply
#60
Nxodus
THANATOS said:
If I am correct then MSRP doesn't include VAT, that's why It looks like It costs the same. AMD in this performance range has much better value(more Vram, same performance for less money).
more RAM that it can't utilize, worse power draw, worse thermals, worse compatibility, worse stability. Sure, AMD is naturally the better choice
Posted on Reply
#61
phill
bug said:
Neah, simply changing RTX to GTX wouldn't have been enough. People are that dumb.
I like to have a bit more hope but maybe that's miss placed :laugh:

Always remember this, higher numbers is better.... :) :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#62
M2B
Existence of this GTX 1060 replacement is actually needed, especially for laptop makers.
Nvidia needs something to compete with RX 590, imagine the day all the 1060s are out of stock, then what does nvidia have in the mainstream market? Nothing other than GTX 1050Ti replacement which obviously isn't going to be strong enough.
Posted on Reply
#63
HD64G
This GPU is made just to win over RX590 priced a bit higher. Simple as that.
Posted on Reply
#64
yakk
Nvidia will price it at whatever it wants, and people will just buy it, not complicated. As long add their marketing and branding help up, no need for them to be competitive at any level.
Posted on Reply
#65
THANATOS
Nxodus said:
more RAM that it can't utilize, worse power draw, worse thermals, worse compatibility, worse stability. Sure, AMD is naturally the better choice
1. no, having more Vram is never a disadvantage
2. yes, the power draw is very high
3. yes, temperature and fan noise is worse
4. worse compatibility? What do you mean?
5. worse stability? What do you mean?

For the price of 1050Ti 4GB you can buy a ~45% faster RX570 8GB with 3 games included.
I think RX570 is a much better choice than 1050Ti.
RX580 vs GTX1060 It is more or less a tie in my opinion.
Posted on Reply
#66
XiGMAKiD
GTX 1660 Ti, let me guess it's gonna be priced at $280 and the GTX 1660 at $240 with performance equal to GTX 1060
Posted on Reply
#67
bug
yakk said:
Nvidia will price it at whatever it wants, and people will just buy it, not complicated. As long add their marketing and branding help up, no need for them to be competitive at any level.
Yeah, that's the problem with Nvidia, they're not competitive. :kookoo:
Posted on Reply
#68
Chloe Price
THANATOS said:
1. no, having more Vram is never a disadvantage
2. yes, the power draw is very high
3. yes, temperature and fan noise is worse
4. worse compatibility? What do you mean?
5. worse stability? What do you mean?

For the price of 1050Ti 4GB you can buy a ~45% faster RX570 8GB with 3 games included.
I think RX570 is a much better choice than 1050Ti.
RX580 vs GTX1060 It is more or less a tie in my opinion.
And you can sell those games and then you can say that the card was cheap as bread.
Posted on Reply
#69
yakk
bug said:
Yeah, that's the problem with Nvidia, they're not competitive. :kookoo:
Great example
Posted on Reply
#70
Vayra86
A few weeks ago nobody believed a word of this rumor. lol.

It has its consequences though, and those aren't very good for the RTX proposition in a broad sense. This will stall adoption at least to some degree and it will make devs scratch their head when they decide to implement RTRT or not.
Posted on Reply
#71
EarthDog
Why? In my head, it's a better decision to do this than to strap RT/TC to a card which literally doesnt have enough horsepower to run it and jack the price up.

RT capabilities will come down in price as time goes on. Remember these are almost 4 months old, not 4 years. :)
Posted on Reply
#72
bug
Vayra86 said:
A few weeks ago nobody believed a word of this rumor. lol.

It has its consequences though, and those aren't very good for the RTX proposition in a broad sense. This will stall adoption at least to some degree and it will make devs scratch their head when they decide to implement RTRT or not.
Developers seem to have a problem moving to DX12 in general (BFV with DX12, an API designed to offer more fine grained control, eats more VRAM than with DX11!), I don't think the mid range of this generation will have an impact on them deciding to do the legwork or not. Nvidia's partner programs will have a much bigger impact on that.

EarthDog said:
Why? In my head, it's a better decision to do this than to strap RT/TC to a card which literally doesnt have enough horsepower to run it and jack the price up.

RT capabilities will come down in price as time goes on. Remember these are almost 4 months old, not 4 years. :)
I'm pretty sure he's thinking installed base.
In my mind, this generation only serves as proving ground, so devs can see what's possible, with the installed base to come with future iterations (again, 7nm can't come soon enough).
Posted on Reply
#73
efikkan
Why do people fall for these kinds of "leaks" every time?
As I've pointed out many times before, unreleased products don't show up with a product name, they just display the device ID. The actual product name don't show up until the product release drivers. So whenever we see "leaks" like this, we know they are fake.

We went through this for months ahead of Turing, with loads of fake news from Videocardz and Wccftech about "1180" and "1180 Ti". But as always, we forgive and forget.
This time they've even managed to create a mock-up image of "RTX 1660 Ti". They don't even try to make it convincing…

IceScreamer said:
Is this really called 1660Ti instead of 1160Ti?
It doesn't make any sense with the 16-series cards…
I wouldn't trust anything sources like Wccftech, Videocards, etc. "leaks" without any real sources. All the information about "1660" so far has been fake.
Posted on Reply
#74
unikin
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti 6GB -> 1536 CU + 1770 MHz/6000 MHz -> 5.44 TFLOPs = $279
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti 6GB -> 1280 CU + 1785 MHz/4000 MHz -> 4.57 TFLOPs = $250

If true, NVidia just pooped on us again. Waiting +2 years for 15-20 % performance increase? Shame, shame, shame on you NGreedia!
Posted on Reply
#75
bug
unikin said:
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti 6GB -> 1536 CU + 1770 MHz/6000 MHz -> 5.44 TFLOPs = $279
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti 6GB -> 1280 CU + 1785 MHz/4000 MHz -> 4.57 TFLOPs = $250

If true, NVidia just pooped on us again. Waiting +2 years for 15-20 % performance increase? Shame, shame, shame on you NGreedia!
I wonder what do you have to say about RX 590 with its 10% improvement over the RX 580, a year and a half later.

Also, great job pulling specs from where the sun don't shine.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment