NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Super Releases on Oct 29nd

[W1zzard]

Chinese website ITHome has new info on the release of NVIDA's GeForce GTX 1660 Super graphics cards. According to their website, the release is expected for October 22nd, which seems credible, considering NVIDIA always launches on a Tuesday. As expected, the card will be built around the Turing TU116 graphics processor, which also powers the GTX 1660 and GTX 1660 Ti. Shader counts should either be 1472, because NVIDIA wants to position their card between GTX 1660 (1408 cores) and GTX 1660 Ti (1536 cores). The memory size will be either 4 GB or 6 GB. Specifications of the memory are somewhat vague, it is rumored that NVIDIA's GTX 1660 Super will use GDDR6 chips, just like GTX 1660 Ti — the plain GTX 1660 uses GDDR5 memory. Another possibility is that shader count matches GTX 1660, and the only difference (other than clock speeds) is that GTX 1660 Super uses GDDR6 VRAM.

The Chinese pricing is expected around 1100 Yuan, which converts to $150 — surprisingly low, considering GTX 1660 retails at $210 and GTX 1660 Ti is priced at $275. Maybe NVIDIA is adjusting their pricing to preempt AMD's upcoming Radeon RX 5500/5600 Series. Videocardz has separately confirmed this rumor with their sources at ASUS Taiwan, who are expected to launch at least three SKUs based on the new NVIDIA offering, among them DUAL EVO, Phoenix and TUF3 series.



Update Oct 24th: Seems the actual launch is October 29th, this post has more info: https://www.techpowerup.com/260391/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1660-super-launching-october-29th-usd-229-with-gddr6

View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[Ruru]

"Shader counts should fall somewhere around 1280, because NVIDIA wants to position their card between GTX 1660 (896 cores) and GTX 1660 Ti (1408 cores). "

GTX 1650 has 896 shaders, not GTX 1660. 1660 has 1408 shaders and 1660 Ti has 1536.

 

[Renald]

At 150$ there's probably nothing Super about it ...
Using expensive GDDR6 is also weird for this price point. Something is missing !

 

[W1zzard]

"Shader counts should fall somewhere around 1280, because NVIDIA wants to position their card between GTX 1660 (896 cores) and GTX 1660 Ti (1408 cores). "

GTX 1650 has 896 shaders, not GTX 1660. 1660 has 1408 shaders and 1660 Ti has 1536.

whoops .. that's what i get for not looking it up fixed and slightly expanded

 

[dj-electric]

A 150$ For practically GTX 1660 Ti performance? There about minus 35% chance this will happen.
GTX 1650 Ti should cost 150$, not GTX 1660 Super.
Especially when The new Radeon RX @#^* @^ will already be out, guarding the 249$ price bracket

 

[danbert2000]

So, let's recap:

1650
1650 Ti (rumored, all but confirmed)
1660
1660 Super (this article's new card)
1660 Ti

All these cards are going to be $20-$30 away from each other. What a mess. And it kind of kills the third party cards because you can't really ask for a premium for your fancy OC'ed, cooled-to-the-gills 1660 if there's a Super that is occupying the price point that would make it make sense.

This is a mess for Nvidia. I think they're just throwing shit against a wall to see what sticks before AMD releases the small Navis. But honestly I think that this many options before you even get to the 2060 is just going to cause confusion among customers.

 

[Ruru]

So, let's recap:

1650
1650 Ti (rumored, all but confirmed)
1660
1660 Super (this article's new card)
1660 Ti

All these cards are going to be $20-$30 away from each other. What a mess. And it kind of kills the third party cards because you can't really ask for a premium for your fancy OC'ed, cooled-to-the-gills 1660 if there's a Super that is occupying the price point that would make it make sense.

This is a mess for Nvidia. I think they're just throwing shit against a wall to see what sticks before AMD releases the small Navis. But honestly I think that this many options before you even get to the 2060 is just going to cause confusion among customers.

Well, it's the classic "spend a little more, and you're getting a this and this much better card" situation.

 

[Vayra86]

Well, it's the classic "spend a little more, and you're getting a this and this much better card" situation.

This is fár from classic. What we have now is a midrange with more model names than actual cards on shelves, almost. Its absolutely ridiculous and the only reason is a weird attempt to compensate for all the RTX bullshit.

What also doesn't help is that both companies seem to have plateaud performance wise. If it needs to be faster than 1080ti... yeah. We didn't quite figure that out in any sort of cost effective way. So we get rehashed nonsense to chew on. Its this gen in a nutshell and the main reason to avoid it. Any sort of price cut is actually too late already, the cycle should already be done and over with, and Nvidia should be hyping the next best thing. Turing already launched a year ago..

These Supers are a refresh of a pretty sub optimal Pascal refresh go figure.

 

[Ruru]

This is fár from classic. What we have now is a midrange with more model names than actual cards on shelves, almost. Its absolutely ridiculous and the only reason is a weird attempt to compensate for all the RTX bullshit.

What also doesn't help is that both companies seem to have plateaud performance wise. If it needs to be faster than 1080ti... yeah. We didn't quite figure that out in any sort of cost effective way. So we get rehashed nonsense to chew on. Its this gen in a nutshell and the main reason to avoid it. Any sort of price cut is actually too late already, the cycle should already be done and over with, and Nvidia should be hyping the next best thing.

These Supers are a refresh of a pretty sub optimal Pascal refresh go figure.

I mean that in forums when people are asking opinions for a new graphics card, someone always says "but that's only 20-30 eur/usd more expensive" for a better model.

 

[Ergastolano]

A VGA between a 1660 TI and a 1660 for 150$? too good to be true.

 

[Midland Dog]

pointless, the product. directed by jhh

 

[bug]

So, let's recap:

1650
1650 Ti (rumored, all but confirmed)
1660
1660 Super (this article's new card)
1660 Ti

All these cards are going to be $20-$30 away from each other. What a mess. And it kind of kills the third party cards because you can't really ask for a premium for your fancy OC'ed, cooled-to-the-gills 1660 if there's a Super that is occupying the price point that would make it make sense.

This is a mess for Nvidia. I think they're just throwing shit against a wall to see what sticks before AMD releases the small Navis. But honestly I think that this many options before you even get to the 2060 is just going to cause confusion among customers.

You're assuming the plain 1650 and 1660 will continue to be sold

 

[danbert2000]

You're assuming the plain 1650 and 1660 will continue to be sold

That would actually be the best solution to this situation. Something clean like 1650, 1660 Super, 1660 Ti, 2060, 2060 Super, 2070 Super, 2080 Super, 2080 Ti. Oddly, it would leave only two cards without a "Super" or "Ti" moniker, which makes you wonder, when everything is Super and Titanium, is anything actually special?

 

[Chrispy_]

I've been completely ignoring the non-RTX Turing cards. It's not that I actually care about RTX features, it's just that the 1600-series adds no features that the 1060 didn't have; No extra RAM, no RTX, no DLSS, no Tensor cores, no Turing encode/decode improvements and the performance/$ hasn't changed in the best part of four years!

The 1650Ti or 1660 Super might finally be a match for the old 1060. The only problem is that with nothing new to add, the 1060 is going to walk all over it because you can pick one up from Newegg or similar from as little as $170. You wouldn't though, because the RX570 deals like a new Sapphire RX570 pulse for $120 including a 3 month Xbox game pass make even a $170 GTX 1060 look like a rip-off.

If the 1650 Ti or supposedly superior 1660S launch at $150, it'll completely upset the entire product stack, and that's something I find unlikely because Nvidia hasn't really made a serious effort to undercut AMD on pricing since 2010.

 

[xorbe]

So, let's recap:

1650
1650 Ti (rumored, all but confirmed)
1660
1660 Super (this article's new card)
1660 Ti

All these cards are going to be $20-$30 away from each other. What a mess.

Can we get a 1650 Super Ti?

 

[potato580+]

Can we get a 1650 Super Ti?

yes we can, but probably manufactured by random china brand,(example: hongsun/prototype/macy/bulldozer/etc etc random anywhere)

 

[Fatalfury]

BUT...WHY??

 

[PanicLake]

Getting rid of failed 1660 ti that where too good to be just a 1660...
Like they did with 2000 series...

 

[TheGuruStud]

More cards to sit in warehouses?

 

[BluesFanUK]

Remember the days when the Ti moniker meant something?

 

[bug]

BUT...WHY??

Same reason as the other supers: as manufacturing matures, the need to disable as many CUs goes away. And probably some repositioning related to Navi.

That would actually be the best solution to this situation. Something clean like 1650, 1660 Super, 1660 Ti, 2060, 2060 Super, 2070 Super, 2080 Super, 2080 Ti. Oddly, it would leave only two cards without a "Super" or "Ti" moniker, which makes you wonder, when everything is Super and Titanium, is anything actually special?

Personally, I would love to see 2060 gone as well. But the 2060 Super is priced so high, it would leave too big a gap in Nvidia's lineup.

 

[Chrispy_]

Getting rid of failed 1660 ti that where too good to be just a 1660...
Like they did with 2000 series...

That's not why the Super range exists for the 2000-series at all.

Leaked benchmarks of the $400 5700 and $450 5700XT blew the $500 2070 and $700 2080 out of the water on the price/perfomance curve.
Nvidia had to compensate, even if it meant losing profits by switching to the larger TU104 die for the 2070S.
AMD counter-compensated by then launching at $350 and $400.

Nvidia is not getting rid of failed dies with the Super lineup, it's actually having to use higher-binned dies and dies from the next model up, just to compete with AMD.
Isn't competition great? We all get more performance and more choice without stupid price hikes.

 

[bug]

That's not why the Super range exists for the 2000-series at all.

Leaked benchmarks of the $400 5700 and $450 5700XT blew the $500 2070 and $700 2080 out of the water on the price/perfomance curve.
Nvidia had to compensate, even if it meant losing profits by switching to the larger TU104 die for the 2070S.
AMD counter-compensated by then launching at $350 and $400.

Nvidia is not getting rid of failed dies with the Super lineup, it's actually having to use higher-binned dies and dies from the next model up, just to compete with AMD.
Isn't competition great? We all get more performance and more choice without stupid price hikes.

Stop that nonsense, Nvidia didn't design and release new cards inside of the month between AMD's announcement and release of Navi. AMD simply tried an unrealistic price point and when the Supers were released, they simply had to cut their prices.

 

[64K]

This is fár from classic. What we have now is a midrange with more model names than actual cards on shelves, almost. Its absolutely ridiculous and the only reason is a weird attempt to compensate for all the RTX bullshit.

What also doesn't help is that both companies seem to have plateaud performance wise. If it needs to be faster than 1080ti... yeah. We didn't quite figure that out in any sort of cost effective way. So we get rehashed nonsense to chew on. Its this gen in a nutshell and the main reason to avoid it. Any sort of price cut is actually too late already, the cycle should already be done and over with, and Nvidia should be hyping the next best thing. Turing already launched a year ago..

These Supers are a refresh of a pretty sub optimal Pascal refresh go figure.

That's what I think about the 16xx series too. The problem is that most people can't afford an RTX card. Mr. Huang admitted a while back that RTX GPU sales had not met expectations. The problem with RTX cards is that you need to spend $500 to $1,200 depending on your resolution to take advantage of the ray tracing. The 16xx series is needed for people who buy entry level and lower midrange GPUs.

I've been hoping that Nvidia would release a 1680 and 1680 Ti without the added costs of the Tensor and RT cores but maybe they still will before the 3xxx GPUs probably coming next year though I'm not sure that would make sense at this point.

 

[Vayra86]

Remember the days when the Ti moniker meant something?

Enlighten me... because it appeared in the 550ti which was uber budget midrange bang/buck material, and it appears in the flagships since forever as the most overpriced option. And there have also been Ti's that were an absolute lemon, ie 660ti with its abysmal balance, or 1050ti, the card that 'just couldn't' really.

Ti is just Nvidia's whore branding suffix, they use it however they please A bit like AMD's X'es.