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

#101
Vya Domus
Confirmed what ? I seriously don't known what are you on about. I simply said the bus width is a critical factor in deciding how the memory assembly will perform coupled with any GPU.
Posted on Reply
#102
EarthDog
Bandwidth's effects. You were replying to onemoar who said bandwidth really doent matter. I supported his assertion (in gaming for what these cards are used for).

Apologies if I jumped in!
Posted on Reply
#103
OneMoar
There is Always Moar
Nkd said:
Really? lol! Games are using more and more ram, not less. Look at hardocp review how the card choked on some of the games with ultra settings and especially RTX on. I wouldn't touch a card with less then 8gb of rams these days. Even 1080p ultra can choke the gameplay experience where you get minimum fps drop and stutter as it has to swap in and out of memory.
rtx is irrelevant for this card doesn't support it and its not fast enough to run it if it was

NEXT
Posted on Reply
#104
notb
efikkan said:
While most agree that Turing could use a little price cut, we still have to acknowledge the fact that production costs in general are increasing.
GPUs are custom made electronics. There is no indivisible production cost that goes up and pushes prices.
Yes, materials and workforce are becoming more expensive, but it simply means you have to make a slightly simpler product. Thanks to general technology improvement it will still be faster.

In other words: for each cost c above some minimal c_0 you can make an optimal GPU (i.e. fastest possible at cost c). Same goes for CPU.
And we know this minimal c_0 is tiny (you can buy "a PC" for $5 these days :-)).

Nvidia obviously doesn't have to increase prices to offer a better GPU than before. They do it, because they can.
Posted on Reply
#105
M2B
Nkd said:
Really? lol! Games are using more and more ram, not less. Look at hardocp review how the card choked on some of the games with ultra settings and especially RTX on. I wouldn't touch a card with less then 8gb of rams these days. Even 1080p ultra can choke the gameplay experience where you get minimum fps drop and stutter as it has to swap in and out of memory.
Agreed.
I would get an RX 570 8GB instead of that shitty VRAM limited stuttery mess RTX 2060. [Sarcasm]
But the problem is that shitty VRAM limited stuttery mess RTX 2060 is faster than all mid-range cards (including Vega 56 and 1070Ti) with 8GB of VRAM at 1440p, so what to do?
Posted on Reply
#106
bug
Nkd said:
Really? lol! Games are using more and more ram, not less. Look at hardocp review how the card choked on some of the games with ultra settings and especially RTX on. I wouldn't touch a card with less then 8gb of rams these days. Even 1080p ultra can choke the gameplay experience where you get minimum fps drop and stutter as it has to swap in and out of memory.
That BFV title looks really suspicious. DX11 sits comfortably within 6GB of VRAM. Yet simply switching to DX12 (no DXR) increases VRAM usage by 30%? With an API that's meant to offer finer grained control so devs can use resources more judiciously, no less. It's just one title, we clearly need to look at more, but this looks like sloppy programming to me.
Posted on Reply
#107
M2B
bug said:
That BFV title looks really suspicious. DX11 sits comfortably within 6GB of VRAM. Yet simply switching to DX12 (no DXR) increases VRAM usage by 30%? With an API that's meant to offer finer grained control so devs can use resources more judiciously, no less. It's just one title, we clearly need to look at more, but this looks like sloppy programming to me.
As far as I know there is only one game that actually needs more than 6GB to run at 1440/ultra without being VRAM limited: Wolfenstein 2.
Posted on Reply
#108
bug
M2B said:
As far as I know there is only one game that actually needs more than 6GB to run at 1440/ultra without being VRAM limited: Wolfenstein 2.
It's tricky to measure that. A smart game engine will fill-up whatever VRAM it finds pre-emptively. But there are no tools to tell you when that happens. The only way to know for sure is to watch whether the performance actually tanks when VRAM is being exhausted or not. I have seen that tested in reviews on TPU (on titles that aren't that demanding to begin with), but not on any other site.
Posted on Reply
#109
efikkan
bug said:
It's tricky to measure that. A smart game engine will fill-up whatever VRAM it finds pre-emptively. But there are no tools to tell you when that happens. The only way to know for sure is to watch whether the performance actually tanks when VRAM is being exhausted or not. I have seen that tested in reviews on TPU (on titles that aren't that demanding to begin with), but not on any other site.
Exactly, allocated memory doesn't mean required memory.
Performance, stuttering in particular, is the indicator of insufficient memory.
Posted on Reply
#110
M2B
bug said:
It's tricky to measure that. A smart game engine will fill-up whatever VRAM it finds pre-emptively. But there are no tools to tell you when that happens. The only way to know for sure is to watch whether the performance actually tanks when VRAM is being exhausted or not. I have seen that tested in reviews on TPU (on titles that aren't that demanding to begin with), but not on any other site.
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-rtx-2060-ray-tracing-turing,5960-7.html

The minimum framerate on the 2060 at 1440p is significantly lower than on vega 56 which is slower on average.
I believe it's VRAM related because Wolfenstein 2 is extremely VRAM hungry in general and is literally unplayable on a 4GB card at 1440p on max settings.
Posted on Reply
#111
Blueberries
notb said:

A GPU is a luxury item? Seriously? And you mix up "latest" with "greatest", right?
Yes. It's a comfort item. You can build a PC without a dedicated GPU, it's not a necessary part, just like a dedicated sound card.
Posted on Reply
#112
notb
Blueberries said:
Yes. It's a comfort item. You can build a PC without a dedicated GPU, it's not a necessary part, just like a dedicated sound card.
It makes no sense. The fact that one can live without a product doesn't make it a luxury. If you apply this condition, what non-luxury items are you left with? Water, vitamins and protein?

People that buy GPUs want them either for gaming or for work. I hope we don't have to discuss the latter. And is gaming a "luxurious" hobby now? Really?

And while this is quite fun, where are you going with this? That you have a lot of money to spend on your PC and you don't care about poorer fellows?
Posted on Reply
#113
xorbe
GTX 1060 SC 6GB has been on sale for $210 quite a few times.
Posted on Reply
#114
Midland Dog
gmn 17 said:
A Turing 1880 ti would be ideal
nah i personally say that only 116 sillicon is needed, anything else with turing should be 7nm so they can double the rt ops per sm
Posted on Reply
#115
Mistral
So it's as fast as the RX590, not too bad...
Posted on Reply
#116
Blueberries
notb said:
It makes no sense. The fact that one can live without a product doesn't make it a luxury.
That is literally the definition of luxury.

The 2060 has more performance at an MSRP of $350 than the 1070 at an MSRP of $370. The ridiculous idea that it should be priced at 1060 tier is something you made up in your head.

You want a cheaper GPU? Buy a 10 or 9 series, the fact that you feel entitled to the latest part at whatever price you want is ludicrous.
Posted on Reply
#117
Totally
Blueberries said:
That is literally the definition of luxury.
I and Merriam-Webster, and Oxford literally disagree. Just because one can live without something doesn't qualify it as a luxury. Also as a term Luxury is relatively subjective and not firmly objective.
lux·u·ry
/ˈləkSH(ə)rē,ˈləɡZH(ə)rē/
noun
  1. the state of great comfort and extravagant living.
Posted on Reply
#118
Zubasa
Midland Dog said:
nah i personally say that only 116 sillicon is needed, anything else with turing should be 7nm so they can double the rt ops per sm
Or increase the number of SM / ROP / TMU so you get a meaningful increase in 99% of games instead of just BFV.
You know like 70~100% increase per gen like it used to, instead of the 25~30% we got with Turing.
Posted on Reply
#119
Blueberries
Totally said:
I and Merriam-Webster, and Oxford literally disagree. Just because one can live without something doesn't qualify it as a luxury. Also as a term Luxury is relatively subjective and not firmly objective.
Try extrapolating the words "great comfort" to this context. A luxury item is something you buy out of comfort and not out of necessity.
Posted on Reply
#120
Tsukiyomi91
only one game & claims it's faster than the GTX1060 because of DX12 + A-Sync? not relevant enough to justify the nerfed Turing core. Would just settle with the 2060, water-cool it, OC it & be done with it.
Posted on Reply
#121
Vayra86
Totally said:
I and Merriam-Webster, and Oxford literally disagree. Just because one can live without something doesn't qualify it as a luxury. Also as a term Luxury is relatively subjective and not firmly objective.
Right, but when you apply 'necessity' to something like a GPU you want to use for gaming, you're just a spoiled brat. I think it is a sign of extravagant wealth that you can spend 350 or more on a graphics card just to play some games. That is a crapload of LEGO, right there, that you could also play with. 350 bucks also gets you a short holiday. It also feeds a few people for about a month.

So if you define a gaming GPU not as a luxury, maybe that is a definition of 'entitlement', then.

Blueberries said:
Try extrapolating the words "great comfort" to this context. A luxury item is something you buy out of comfort and not out of necessity.
You're spot on. The endless complaining about price is not only pointless its also a bit sad. Yes its a lot of money, so either save up longer, or don't buy it... There is always going to be some item one might want that is priced out of reach.
Posted on Reply
#122
medi01
Blueberries said:
he ridiculous idea that it should be priced at 1060 tier is something you made up in your head.
After 2 iterations of stagnatn perf/$ with "but it ends with XX", we finally got the reverse version, very amusing.
Bending Over Backward Chronicles: Aggressive Nonsense.
Posted on Reply
#123
Vayra86
medi01 said:
After 2 iterations of stagnatn perf/$ with "but it ends with XX", we finally got the reverse version, very amusing.
Bending Over Backward Chronicles: Aggressive Nonsense.
So you don't buy it. Problem solved... or you can do a medi01 and go full tantrum mode.
Posted on Reply
#124
R0H1T
notb said:
It makes no sense. The fact that one can live without a product doesn't make it a luxury. If you apply this condition, what non-luxury items are you left with? Water, vitamins and protein?

People that buy GPUs want them either for gaming or for work. I hope we don't have to discuss the latter. And is gaming a "luxurious" hobby now? Really?

And while this is quite fun, where are you going with this? That you have a lot of money to spend on your PC and you don't care about poorer fellows?
Yes it is a luxury! Are some people on this forum so deluded that they don't consider mid/high end PC/gaming a luxury?
Totally said:
I and Merriam-Webster, and Oxford literally disagree. Just because one can live without something doesn't qualify it as a luxury. Also as a term Luxury is relatively subjective and not firmly objective.
Tell that to someone who lives on the street or barely gets a meal a day - not because they made bad choices in life, but because they were not born into a privileged family!
Posted on Reply
#125
medi01
Vayra86 said:
Problem
The problem of people "unfairly" complaining about nvidia's price policy exists only in your head and, perhaps, other parts of your body.
Stagnant perf/$ and ever raising prices is not "a problem", but a fact.
If you have problems when people state it, perhaps you should try to figure, why.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment