NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Put Through AoTS, About 16% Faster Than GTX 1060

[R0H1T]

I sense an issue.
We're discussing the main example of this happening. Intel didn't buy AMD because of anti-monopoly regulations (unless you have a better explanation).
But you say that it couldn't have been the reason, because these regulations don't work on Intel.
With this kind of logic we'll never get to anything constructive.

Anti-monopoly regulations don't mean you can't be a monopolist. Their only role is to protect competition, but competition must exist in the first place.
If you're an only supplier of some product (because no one else knows how to do it or isn't interested) you are a monopolist, but anti-monopoly laws don't apply.

In fact legal system is what actually makes monopolies possible through copyright, patents and concessions. ;-)

So now you're literally accusing Intel and Nvidia of being better at doing business than AMD. Is this really what you intend?
It's like if you accused a runner for winning unfairly, because he trained harder or has better body proportions. Because in your perfect world all runners should have identical bodies and train exactly the same.

Both Intel and AMD can do top-notch CPUs. But Intel is better at selling them. And selling is the core ability in any business.

I'm not sure what issue you're talking about.

I never said buying AMD, more like burying them.

No I said Intel got away with anti monopolistic, unfair trade practices in the past - same can be said of MS & they were even more blatant, arguably Google as well.

There is no law preventing natural monopolies that develop over time in more mature markets, or market segments. Let alone many places around the world that don't have (m)any anti monopoly laws in the first place.

Right, like I said. Competition or consumers?

Read again what I wrote, Intel certainly & possibly Nvidia(?) got away with much worse in the past - what makes you think the US DoJ or EU will step in if Intel/Nvidia lower their prices to such an extent that AMD becomes irrelevant? No, I thought so!

Let's not go there, I know AMD have their share of a chequered past but is it something you wanna be defending, even if it is Intel or Nvidia?

Right & let's not forget the power of $ that got them in that place, aside from lots of superior products (last decade) & shady deals.

 

[EarthDog]

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.

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!

 

[Ruru]

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.

 

[bug]

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.

 

[phill]

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

 

[THANATOS]

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.

 

[EarthDog]

10% WQHD... about a half tier difference.

 

[THANATOS]

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).

 

[bug]

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.

 

[Ruru]

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.

 

[Argyr]

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

 

[phill]

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

Always remember this, higher numbers is better....

 

[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.

 

[HD64G]

This GPU is made just to win over RX590 priced a bit higher. Simple as that.

 

[Deleted member 158293]

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.

 

[THANATOS]

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.

 

[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

 

[bug]

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.

 

[Ruru]

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.

 

[Deleted member 158293]

Yeah, that's the problem with Nvidia, they're not competitive.

Great example

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[bug]

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.

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).

 

[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…

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.

 

[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!