This is our second look at the new GeForce GTX 1660. Not to be confused with the 1660 Ti that was released a month earlier. Both GPUs offer excellent value for money at medium prices of $ 220 for the GTX 1660 and $ 280 for the Ti version.
For those of you who missed it, there was a dozen games in our first test of the GTX 1660, many of which were recently released as titles, and that's where the new GPU came out and looked like a champion. Today we're extending the benchmark test to a total of 33 games to see how it can measure up to AMD's Radeon RX 580 and 590.
While we don't expect this advanced benchmark test to change significantly, it should serve as a decent buying guide for those switching between the GTX 1660 and maybe the Radeon RX 580. The fact that the new GeForce GPU is about 30% faster Assassin's Creed Odyssey may not play a big role if you mainly play titles like Strange Brigade, Battlefield V or Sniper Elite 4, to name just a few.
To give you a better idea of how these two GPUs and more can be compared in a variety of games, we've put together this 33 game benchmark. The focus will be on 1080p, the most popular resolution for this type of GPU. However, we also tested 1440p to make the entire analysis as comprehensive as possible.
Our usual GPU test system was used, which was equipped with a Core i9-9900K, which was clocked with 5 GHz and 32 GB DDR4-3200 memory. The drivers used include AMD Adrenalin 2019 Edition 19.2.3 for the Radeon GPUs and Game Ready 419.35 WHQL for the GeForce cards.
The first test in today's lineup is The Division 2. It is the first time that we are presenting this brand new title in one of our benchmark features. Instead of using the predefined benchmark, we recorded in-game performance. We can see that the GTX 1660 with the Ultra Quality preset is good for an average of 68 fps at 1080p.
That number drops to just 46 fps at 1440p. While it's playable, you should probably make some adjustments here to improve frame rates. Currently, the GTX 1660 was 15% faster than the GTX 1060, but 8% slower than the RX 590.
Assassins Creed: Odyssey is a bad title for AMD cards, and here we see the GTX 1660, which basically fits Vega 64. But don't expect to see that too often. The $ 220 GTX 1660 was only 12% faster than the GTX 1060 6GB, but 28% faster than the Radeon RX 590.
At 1440p we see a slight shift in the results. The 1660 had a reasonable lead over the 1060 and RX 590/580 GPUs, but slipped significantly behind the Vega GPUs.
Next up is Strange Brigade, which is exactly the opposite of what we just saw. The GTX 1660 can only keep up with the GTX 1060 6 GB at 1080p, which makes it a bit slower than the Radeon competition. The same applies to 1440p, with the GeForce 1660 running behind the Radeon RX 570, which is obviously not a great result for Nvidia in this title.
The GTX 1660 is again at the top in our Star Wars Battlefront II tests and lies between the RX 590 and the GTX 1070. With an average of 85 fps, it is in a separate category.
Then we find a similar situation at 1440p where the 1660 was 17% faster than the RX 590 and 22% faster than the 6 GB GTX 1060. It was also 15% slower than the GTX 1070.
At Monster Hunter: World, the GTX 1660 can keep up with the RX 590. At 1440p we see almost the same story, and this means that the GTX 1660 was 20% slower than the Ti version.
Warframe has the GTX 1660, which offers a small performance gain compared to the GTX 1060 6 GB and the RX 590. Each GPU tested in this title was good for over 100 fps on average, so the win appears to be shared by all GPUs.
It gets a bit more difficult at 1440p, but the GTX 1660 was still good for a 1% low of 90 fps with an average frame rate of 109 fps. It was 9% faster than the old Pascal-based GTX 1060.
F1 fans will enjoy what the GTX 1660 has to offer. At 1080p, it was 11% faster than the similarly expensive RX 590 and 18% faster than the older 6 GB 1060. It was also only 16% slower than the GeForce GTX 1070 and the Radeon RX Vega 56.
At 1440p, he manages to close the gap to the GTX 1070, while Vega 56 is a little further away. However, the overall performance was strong with an average of 61 fps.
The last game we are discussing the results for is The Witcher 3. Here the GTX 1660 corresponds to the RX 590, but surprisingly runs 3% slower than the old GTX 1060 6 GB. The performance was not better with 1440p, since the 1660 only matched the 1060 and was therefore roughly on the level of the Radeon RX 590.
GTX 1660 vs. Radeon RX 590
Here is the breakdown of all 33 games tested, comparing the GTX 1660 and Radeon RX 590 to 1080p. The GeForce GPU was 5% faster on average than 8% in our original 12-game test. While the performance margin has declined somewhat, the new Turing GPU has still prevailed and won with a profit margin of 5% or more in 16 of the 33 games tested.
In the meantime, the RX 590 was 5% or more faster in just 5 games. Even though AMD has lowered prices according to the GTX 1660, they have to do it better so that we can recommend the RX 590 over the GTX 1660.
GTX 1660 vs. GTX 1060 6 GB
We see a dramatic difference compared to the previous generation GTX 1060. The margin decreased from 21% in our first sample of 12 games (first day review) to only 14% in all 33 games. That makes a big difference and, as suspected, the 1660 generally performs much better in newer titles. Older games like The Witcher 3, World of Tanks, Project Cars 2 etc. don't offer the Turing architecture much of an advantage over Pascal.
GTX 1660 vs. GTX 1660 Ti
If you compare head to head with the GTX 1660 Ti, the vanilla 1660 is 15% slower and largely corresponds to the previous test, in which the non-Ti model came 13% slower. Of course, we also saw times when the margin rose to 20% or more, and we saw that in half a dozen stocks.
Cost per frame and final thoughts
Perhaps one of the most important results of this review compared to what we saw a week ago is not only the number of games tested, but because Nvidia clearly outperformed the competition, a week was enough time for AMD to respond and to adjust prices The comparison of costs per frame has also changed. On the other hand, the changes are not dramatic, and GTX 1660 cards are actually already selling at the intended price of $ 220.
The RX 580 has dropped from $ 200 to $ 190, which is not a big deal, but for some, it makes the Radeon a viable alternative. In essence, you can save ~ 10% of the graphics card cost to save 10% of performance. The RX 590 has seen a heftier price drop with numerous models that are now available for $ 220. This GPU is finally due to the price at which it should have been launched. Since it is a bit slower than the 1660, but costs roughly the same, it is not quite as good in terms of value.
The only clear winner for AMD at the moment is the RX 570, which is however about 25% slower than the GTX 1660, so it is not exactly in the same performance category. In the meantime, the RX 580 has evolved from the cheapest option under $ 250 to a somewhat difficult sale.
Of course, it's best to look at performance in the games you're going to play. If you mainly play DiRT 4 or Battlefield V, the RX 590 is the better choice. Otherwise, as we've just seen, there are far more games where the GTX 1660 outperforms the Radeon GPU.
For those of you who plan to buy and store your graphics card for 2-3 years and have no idea how things will look even 6-12 months later, power consumption is worth considering. Not because we are concerned about the electricity bill, but because a more efficient graphics card is a quieter graphics card and is also friendlier to other components in your case, since it does not give off as much heat to them.
The GTX 1660 increased the consumption of our test system to 262 watts. This corresponds to a saving of 12% compared to the RX 570 and almost 30% less than the RX 580 and 590. If we only looked at the power consumption for the graphics cards, these margins would increase significantly, which makes it clear that Turing GPUs are much better consider in this regard.
Despite some price adjustments, our recommendation has not changed from the original rating. The biggest change is due to the sheer volume of the games tested. The GTX 1660's lead over the RX 590 has shrunk, while the price of the 590 has also shrunk somewhat. So these two are now more evenly coordinated.
It was quite shocking to see that the GTX 1660's lead over the GTX 1060 6 GB shrank from 21% to just 14%. Regardless, the 1660 was never meant to be an upgrade option for GTX 1060 owners, but maybe it is a sensible purchase for those who use older cards like the GTX 960, which we are likely to look into soon.