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)
155 Comments on NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Put Through AoTS, About 16% Faster Than GTX 1060
16% is peanuts
150.00 to 175.00 would make sense 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.
I mean, masses buying what mainstream is, is not something new.
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.
If the performance of 570 or 580 is good enough for you then buy them, they have the best performance/price ratio.What is the current price of GTX1060? It's $210 as shown in the chart in this review: 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?
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.
2060 is >50% faster than 1060 according to this review: 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.
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.
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
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.
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... :-)