facebook rss twitter

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1660 vs. GTX 1060 vs. GTX 960

by Tarinder Sandhu on 20 March 2019, 14:01

Tags: NVIDIA (NASDAQ:NVDA), Gigabyte (TPE:2376)

Quick Link: HEXUS.net/qad5nq

Add to My Vault: x

Conclusion

One's viewpoint of the Nvidia GeForce GTX 1660 depends entirely on perspective....

Nvidia has launched the GeForce GTX 1660 specifically to target the meat of the PC gaming market. Priced from £200, its silicon construction is eerily similar to the last-generation GTX 1060 from a back-end perspective. The big change rests with employing front-end Turing Cuda cores that are more efficient than Pascal.

Gamers don't tend to care about the machinations of how a company such as Nvidia enables performance. What they do care about is that a £200 card ought to offer excellent performance at a FHD resolution and adequate framerate at QHD. In essence, they are searching for a PS4 Pro- or Xbox One X-like gaming experience on a computer monitor.

Framed in these terms, GeForce GTX 1660 is decent. Every one of our tested games runs smoothly at 1080p, and if you have an adaptive-framerate monitor, there's every reason to believe that QHD will be smooth, too. Coming from running a much older card or integrated graphics? The GeForce GTX 1660 effectively turns your PC into a leading-edge console.

This commentary sounds rather good for Nvidia, especially in a graphics package that can be small, quiet, and cool, as shown by the Gigabyte OC card. Then there's technology such as variable-rate shading that, now part of DX12 and if implemented well, gives Turing a nice leap up from Pascal for no perceivable loss in image fidelity. Sounds rosy.

Yet critical analysis also reveals that GTX 1660 isn't that much faster than the GTX 1060 released way back in 2016, albeit at a higher street price. Should gamers expect more revolution rather than evolution in the midrange space? You'd hope so, and a PC base unit costing a grand and housing a GTX 1660 - a typical setup for a graphics card of this ilk - ought to run rings around an Xbox One X, right?

One's viewpoint of the Nvidia GeForce GTX 1660 depends entirely on perspective. It's a solid card for someone rocking a much older GPU, but at the same time, doesn't do enough, right now, above the Pascal generation to warrant immediate upgrade. Swings and roundabouts.

Building a new gaming PC south of a grand, or upgrading an older one, and want to play at a FHD resolution with excellent image quality? GeForce GTX 1660 is a safe bet.

HEXUS.where2buy*

The Gigabyte GeForce GTX 1660 OC graphics card is available from Scan Computers.

*UK-based HEXUS community members are eligible for free delivery and priority customer service through the SCAN.care@HEXUS forum.



HEXUS Forums :: 15 Comments

Login with Forum Account

Don't have an account? Register today!
Performance increase
GTX 560Ti vs GTX 660 : 2011 > 2012 - 120% Faster (1 year)
GTX 660 vs. GTX 760 : 2012 > 2013 - 120% Faster (less than 1 Year)
GTX 760 vs. GTX 960 : 2013 > 2015 - 110% Faster (2 Years)
GTX 960 vs. GTX 1060 : 2015 > 2016 - 182% Faster (1 year)
GTX 1060 vs. GTX 1660 : 2016 > 2019 - 116% Faster (3 year)

What the F happened in 2016?
I didn't follow the GPU market back then, was some competing AMD card around?
Rx480 meant they had to do something.
As MonkFish said, the AMD Polaris parts (RX470/480) offered a very compelling price/performance ratio when they launched in 2016 (before prices got silly). However, nvidia had essentially let this happen with a series of pitiful releases as you show in your table. The 960 in particular was appalling (essentially they tried to capitalise on the good press the 970 was generating).

I've only ever (that I can remember) returned one graphics card because it was pathetic, and the 960 holds that honour. Mine was both pathetic, and misbehaved on displayport with the monitor it was bought to drive. Thankfully AMD had released the 470 by then, and it made an attractive alternative for about 20ukp more.
I think you both missing the point here.
The RX480 (Jun 29th, 2016) was released in the 10xx series period, just after the 1070 (Jun 10th, 2016).
The 1060 was already planned like all the other x60 cards. To prompt that huge jump in performance from 900 to 1000 series something must have going on way before, you don't design a GPU chipset in a month.
Was it the Radeon R9 3xx series that made the pressure for that big jump in performance to nVidia cards?
Was nVidia holding back doing little 20% steps because they didn't have any competition?
Now they are back at little steps because AMD didn't came out with some remarkable competition?

Too many questions :)
Any reason why the Founders edition of the 10series was used against 2 AIB (one of which, the subject of this article, is overclocked)? Why not use the best of all 3 series? I'm pretty sure there's 1060s out there which are more powerful & quieter & less hot than the FE edition..