It's not too late, Nvidia. You can still put some DDR 4 on there.

srsbsnsIt's not too late, Nvidia. You can still put some DDR 4 on there.

'

Don't give them any ideas, please!

Uhm I don't really see reason for this card, 1660 core config with gddr6 will be too close to 1660ti. Maybe they will adjust the pricing, something like 1660 $199, 1660S $219 and 1660ti $249 or is this meant to replace ti with lower msrp?

Hey Nvidia, only new card you need because of competition is cut down tu116 core, cut down memory to 128bit, bundle that with some 14GBps gddr6 and release that card as gtx1650 Super/Ti moniker and you are done.

jabbadapUhm I don't really see reason for this card, 1660 core config with gddr6 will be too close to 1660ti. Maybe they will adjust the pricing, something like 1660 $199, 1660S $219 and 1660ti $249 or is this meant to replace ti with lower msrp?

Hey Nvidia, only new card you need because of competition is cut down tu116 core, cut down memory to 128bit, bundle that with some 14GBps gddr6 and release that card as gtx1650 Super/Ti moniker and you are done.

Too close? I expect nothing but surpassing the GTX 1660 Ti. This is a clear replacement.
How? Well, have you even seen what happens when you even push on the GDDR5 of the GTX 1660? These are memory speed starved:
www.techpowerup.com/review/msi-geforce-gtx-1660-gaming-x/33.html

Stock is 8Gbps GDDR5, OC is memory at 10Gbps. Guess what's gonna happen with 14Gbps?

What is an AMP model?

Colonel SandersWhat is an AMP model?

Has a port on it's plate for your guitar/bass :confused:

Seriously it's what they refer to as an "Amped up" model meaning it runs at higher speeds than a typical example of the card model would. I have two of those (Older cards) that I've had for years now, always worked great and still do.

Bye DVI.

jabbadapUhm I don't really see reason for this card, 1660 core config with gddr6 will be too close to 1660ti. Maybe they will adjust the pricing, something like 1660 $199, 1660S $219 and 1660ti $249 or is this meant to replace ti with lower msrp?

Hey Nvidia, only new card you need because of competition is cut down tu116 core, cut down memory to 128bit, bundle that with some 14GBps gddr6 and release that card as gtx1650 Super/Ti moniker and you are done.

The latter, every s version was a replacement. Even if your suggestion was gold, you have to consider that fab time is extremely precious, cutting down dies means less dies going to GPUs that they were originally meant for which doesn't make sense as that is a whole lot of work for no gain/loss and would be better off just price cutting the 1660ti.

I hope that the new RX 5500(T) will have the same range of performance and a cost under 200€/$... And bye bye Nvidia in this market segment.

Is this gonna be 1070 ti level?

mahoneyIs this gonna be 1070 ti level?

No. The 1660ti is neck and neck with the GTX 1070. This will be a bit under that.

NihilusNo. The 1660ti is neck and neck with the GTX 1070. This will be a bit under that.

Erm.. Thats the normal 1660 already. This has to be faster than the 1660ti to even make sense

To clear out the confusion, is the 1660 super suppose to be a higher tier than the 1660 ti or is it an upgraded 1660 with GDDR6 memory ?

NihilusNo. The 1660ti is neck and neck with the GTX 1070. This will be a bit under that.

it has to be super, and also implied gddr6, am sure it will perform equally 1070ti maube abit faster on few games:)

Solid State Soul ( SSS )To clear out the confusion, is the 1660 super suppose to be a higher tier than the 1660 ti or is it an upgraded 1660 with GDDR6 memory ?

Well that is the thing, no one but Nvidia knows that for sure. In my perspective it can't be faster than 1660ti, just because performance between naming is now set 2080ti > 2080S > 2080.

mahoneyErm.. Thats the normal 1660 already. This has to be faster than the 1660ti to even make sense

No, gtx1660 is a bit faster than RX 590 and gtx1660ti is in same ball park as gtx1070.

TotallyThe latter, every s version was a replacement. Even if your suggestion was gold, you have to consider that fab time is extremely precious, cutting down dies means less dies going to GPUs that they were originally meant for which doesn't make sense as that is a whole lot of work for no gain/loss and would be better off just price cutting the 1660ti.

While yeah cutting dies takes a way dies from higher value products. But they have done that in the past(gtx650ti) and if there's enough working dies with IMC deficits, making new sku from them might become economically feasible. Another point for such a product is that Nvidia bundles dies with the gddr memory package and sells that to AIBs. Sure tu116+6xgddr5 might cost the same as tu116+4xgddr6, but gddr6 price has came down since introducing of gtx1660.

dj-electricToo close? I expect nothing but surpassing the GTX 1660 Ti. This is a clear replacement.
How? Well, have you even seen what happens when you even push on the GDDR5 of the GTX 1660? These are memory speed starved:
www.techpowerup.com/review/msi-geforce-gtx-1660-gaming-x/33.html

Stock is 8Gbps GDDR5, OC is memory at 10Gbps. Guess what's gonna happen with 14Gbps?

This. The 1060 6GB was the exception to the rule that Nvidia's x60 is always struggling with VRAM.

Seems like the Kepler refresh similarities continue... :P

Been there once, staying fár away since. A balanced card lasts so much longer, its worth investing.

Vayra86This. The 1060 6GB was the exception to the rule that Nvidia's x60 is always struggling with VRAM.

Seems like the Kepler refresh similarities continue... :p

Been there once, staying fár away since. A balanced card lasts so much longer, its worth investing.

Well yeah 1060 6GB was more balanced for sure. Though 1060 6GB successor($299 msrp FE, $249 msrp for ref, which you could not buy in ages after release) is 1660ti($279 msrp), which ain't that much bottlenecked by it's gddr6 VRAM. 1660($219 msrp) is successor for 1060 3GB($199), which has more severe deficit than 1660 with vram. At least with 1660 you could do something about it, but with 1060 3GB you have to fiddle with settings to lower vram consuming.

And yeah gddr5x versions still showed that there was more performance to get from those with higher mem BW.

As opposed to GDDR3? PR stunt is that is what it is.
Anywho, how will it perform for its price not that my gtx1050 screens to be replaced, but... .

dj-electricToo close? I expect nothing but surpassing the GTX 1660 Ti. This is a clear replacement.
How? Well, have you even seen what happens when you even push on the GDDR5 of the GTX 1660? These are memory speed starved:
www.techpowerup.com/review/msi-geforce-gtx-1660-gaming-x/33.html

Stock is 8Gbps GDDR5, OC is memory at 10Gbps. Guess what's gonna happen with 14Gbps?

And the 1660 Ti could also be OCd by 13%, so the Ti will be faster anyway. And thinking of the 2080-2080S-2080Ti, this S will be slower than the 1660Ti for sure.

B-RealAnd the 1660 Ti could also be OCd by 13%, so the Ti will be faster anyway. And thinking of the 2080-2080S-2080Ti, this S will be slower than the 1660Ti for sure.

does that mean the S represent "slower"?!
kay make sense:kookoo:

jabbadapWell yeah 1060 6GB was more balanced for sure. Though 1060 6GB successor($299 msrp FE, $249 msrp for ref, which you could not buy in ages after release) is 1660ti($279 msrp), which ain't that much bottlenecked by it's gddr6 VRAM. 1660($219 msrp) is successor for 1060 3GB($199), which has more severe deficit than 1660 with vram. At least with 1660 you could do something about it, but with 1060 3GB you have to fiddle with settings to lower vram consuming.

And yeah gddr5x versions still showed that there was more performance to get from those with higher mem BW.

so whichs better, gddr fiv or six?:wtf:

potato580+does that mean the S represent "slower"?!
kay make sense:kookoo:


so whichs better, gddr fiv or six?:wtf:

GTX 1660 Super was never claimed to be slower than a standard GTX 1660. By some, its even suspected to surpass the Ti model. Read the comments in this very thread, carefully, to know why.
google tells me GDDR6 is better, but im not entirely sure of a 14-16Gbps memory is truly faster than a 8-9Gbps one.

To bad it wont make use of copper and quality materials.

jabbadapWell yeah 1060 6GB was more balanced for sure. Though 1060 6GB successor($299 msrp FE, $249 msrp for ref, which you could not buy in ages after release) is 1660ti($279 msrp), which ain't that much bottlenecked by it's gddr6 VRAM. 1660($219 msrp) is successor for 1060 3GB($199), which has more severe deficit than 1660 with vram. At least with 1660 you could do something about it, but with 1060 3GB you have to fiddle with settings to lower vram consuming.

And yeah gddr5x versions still showed that there was more performance to get from those with higher mem BW.

That and if you look back...

960... starved, horrible card, obsolete in 1,5 ~ 2 years for new games
760... starved, horrible card, obsolete even faster
660... asymmetrical VRAM setup, obsolete rather fast, SLI was impossible to get stutter free
550ti... same shit
During Pascal you could think Nvidia had done away with it, I mean even 1060 3GB wasn't horrible except for not being a 4GB card;
... and there was 1660 :D

potato580+so whichs better, gddr fiv or six?:wtf:

Depends on how wide the bus is that comes with it

Why is there a need for a third card in the exact same tier is beyond me. Calling this one "Super" is literately the equivalent of flame decals on a car, Nvidia is pioneering ricer video cards.

Vya DomusWhy is there a need for a third card in the exact same tier is beyond me. Calling this one "Super" is literately the equivalent of flame decals on a car, Nvidia is pioneering ricer video cards.

This should be a move to refresh a product with more relevant memory type. I don't think the GTX 1660 GDDR5 card is going to stay around for much longer.
One thing im a bit unsure about is the future of the GTX 1660 Ti. The new GTX 1660 Super might get a 249$ Price tag while retiring both the standard and the Ti models of the GTX 1660.