Turing Discussion Thread

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gig...118-7.html

When the GeForce GTX 1660 Ti first launched, we looked at EVGA’s XC Black Gaming version of the card and observed that it bested the more expensive (and power-hungry) GeForce GTX 1070, along with AMD’s Radeon RX 590. It also served up better value than the remaining GeForce GTX 1060s and higher-end Radeon RX Vega 56. But today’s landscape looks a little different. The 1060s are almost gone, the remaining 1070s make no sense at all, Radeon RX 590s now start in the $210 range ($50 cheaper than before), and Vega 56 boards dip as low as $300.

In that context, asking an extra $20 for a premium GeForce GTX 1660 Ti may be difficult to justify. After all, the Vega 56 is faster, and Radeon RX 590 is quite a bit cheaper. Nvidia recently followed the 1660 Ti up with a vanilla 1660, compounding the Ti’s predicament by starting down at $220 and still serving up playable FHD performance. Or, for $50 more, you can get your hands on a GeForce RTX 2060 with dedicated RT and Tensor cores, plus enough performance in today’s games to make 2560 x 1440 a playable resolution.

In the end, then, GeForce GTX 1660 Ti’s biggest victory happens when you focus most intently on performance per watt and efficiency. The competition from AMD can’t touch it in those disciplines. If you instead turn to absolute performance, the Radeon RX Vega 56 is the faster choice, despite gobbling up more than 200W of power. Or, if you’re on a budget, the Radeon RX 580 sells for less than $200 and fares really well at 1920 x 1080.