The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Review, Feat. EVGA XC GAMING: Turing Stakes Its Claim at $219
by Ryan Smith & Nate Oh on March 14, 2019 9:01 AM ESTFinal Fantasy XV (DX11)
Upon arriving to PC earlier this, Final Fantasy XV: Windows Edition was given a graphical overhaul as it was ported over from console, fruits of their successful partnership with NVIDIA, with hardly any hint of the troubles during Final Fantasy XV's original production and development.
In preparation for the launch, Square Enix opted to release a standalone benchmark that they have since updated. Using the Final Fantasy XV standalone benchmark gives us a lengthy standardized sequence to utilize OCAT. Upon release, the standalone benchmark received criticism for performance issues and general bugginess, as well as confusing graphical presets and performance measurement by 'score'. In its original iteration, the graphical settings could not be adjusted, leaving the user to the presets that were tied to resolution and hidden settings such as GameWorks features.
Since then, Square Enix has patched the benchmark with custom graphics settings and bugfixes to be more accurate in profiling in-game performance and graphical options, though leaving the 'score' measurement. For our testing, we enable or adjust settings to the highest except for NVIDIA-specific features and 'Model LOD', the latter of which is left at standard. Final Fantasy XV also supports HDR, and it will support DLSS at some later date.
Final Fantasy V is another strong title for NVIDIA across the board, and the GTX 1660 is in a very comfortable slot between the GTX 1660 Ti and RX 590. The GTX 1060 6GB lost out to the RX 590 here, but here the GTX 1660 overtakes the RX 590. By the looks of the 99th percentiles, the GTX 1060 3GB is clearly struggling with its limited 3GB framebuffer at 1440p.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
77 Comments
View All Comments
oleguy682 - Thursday, March 14, 2019 - link
Not really sure this works as a 970 replacement. I'll have to peruse Bench to see what the difference between the 960 and 970 were to see if it's worth the money. Might need to wait another generation.... or refresh.Ryan Smith - Thursday, March 14, 2019 - link
On which note I've gone ahead and unlocked the GTX 1660 cards in bench.https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2456?vs=21...
The GTX 1660 is a good bit faster than the 970, but it may not be enough to satisfy your needs. Then again, this is a $219 card versus a $329 card.
nathanddrews - Thursday, March 14, 2019 - link
Going by current Newegg prices - the GTX 1070 and Vega56 can be had for just under $329 (original 970 pricing) and are both literally 2X faster in many Bench scenarios than the 970.0ldman79 - Thursday, March 14, 2019 - link
Considering the 970 is $100 on ebay right now...Roughly 85% of the performance.
nathanddrews - Thursday, March 14, 2019 - link
You can justify anything using used pricing. In a freak bit of luck, I got two used 1080Ti GPUs for $400 each last October, virtually eliminating any possible price/performance comparison. Assuming the OP bought the 970 new, it's a fair comparison to look at current $329 cards.Gigaplex - Thursday, March 14, 2019 - link
It's irrelevant what they paid for the 970. They already have it, so it's effective cost on whether to upgrade is what they can get for it when they sell it, or if they don't sell it, $0.Old Dog - Friday, March 15, 2019 - link
Of course it's not. He's not talking about going out and buying a 970 today at that price. The real question is if the increase in performance is worth the $150 or so it'll cost him to upgrade (assuming he nets ~$80 by selling the 970 for $100 on eBay. (I'm afraid that price is about to take a hit though.) This is the same question we're all asking ourselves. Original price of our current cards is irrelevant. It's all about current value.0ldman79 - Saturday, March 23, 2019 - link
^^This.Current value is all that really matters. "What is it worth today?" while I'm building my system.
Tech doesn't hold on to value. $1,000 Extreme Edition CPUs become worthless right about the same time the $200 midrange CPU does typically. The current Core ix going from dual core up to 28 core may throw a kink in that statement, but historically it has held true.
0ldman79 - Saturday, March 23, 2019 - link
I'm saying for the money the 970 isn't a bad deal.If the price drops more then that deal improves, SLI and go about your day.
I'm not talking about valid comparisons, apples to apples, none of that, just saying that today if I need a video card a used 970 is very cheap and performs pretty well. If you've already got one then SLI is a cheap upgrade.
For any of my broke buddies I'm recommending the 970. I'm not sure what I'd recommend new right now, I guess that ultimately comes down to the budget of the build. 2060 is looking pretty good though. It'll be much better in about six months after the price drops (hopefully).
Hrel - Saturday, March 30, 2019 - link
My R9 280x still maxes or nearly maxes everything I play. Simply for power and thermal upgrades, as well as DX features, I'll probably "upgrade" to a GTX 1660, but that card is so much faster than this one, on less power, and this one already does everythingI need it to so....That's the biggest problem I see for GPU manufacturers. Why do I need more GPU when there hasn't been a half decent game released in 10+ years?
I play Dark Souls 3, Rocket League, KSP and Mordhau. Mordhau is the most demanding but it looks great even at medium. Civilization is a great game, that already runs great. I just installed KOTOR with a ton of mods, that was fun, think it came out in 2003. Wanna do Mass Effect modded out next, what was that, 2008?
I don't think anyone needs a RTX anything, or anything above the GTX 1660ti. But more power to the people who buy that stuff, keep these guys funded I love their work! I'm just not rich enough to buy stuff without need motivating it. So when every modern game is udder crap, or from an Indie developer who knows how to code so it runs on 10 year old hardware... there's just no need for much more GPU power.