This is our second look at the new GeForce GTX 1660. Not to be confused with the 1660 Ti, which was released a month earlier, both GPUs offer an outstanding price at mid-range prices of $ 220 for the GTX 1660 and $ 280 for the GTX 1660 Ti version.
For those of you who missed it, the GTX 1660 featured a dozen games in our first test, many of which were recently released and the new GPU looked like a champion. Today we extend the benchmark test to a total of 33 games to see how it fits in with AMD's Radeon RX 580 and 590.
While we do not expect this advanced benchmark test to change significantly, he should serve as a decent buying guide for those who picked up between the GTX 1
To give you a better idea of how to compare these two GPUs and more in a wide range of games, we've put together this 33-game benchmark. The focus is on 1080p, the most widely used resolution for this type of GPU, but we've also tested at 1440p to make the entire analysis as complete as you want it to be.
Our used a standard GPU test system equipped with a Core i9-9900K clocked at 5 GHz with 32 GB of DDR4-3200 memory. The drivers used include the 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's the first time we do it with this brand new title in one of our benchmark features. Instead of using the benchmark benchmark, we recorded the performance in the game. We can observe that the GTX 1660 with the ultra-quality preset averages at 1080p for 68 frames per second.
This figure drops to only 46 frames per second at 1440p. You can still improve on this although it is playable frame rates. As it stands, the GTX 1660 was 15% faster than the GTX 1060, but 8% slower than the RX 590.
Assassin's Creed: Odyssey is a bad title for AMD cards and here we see the GTX 1660, which essentially fits Vega 64. But do not expect that too often. The $ 220 GTX 1660 was only 12% faster than the GTX 1060 6 GB, but 28% faster than the Radeon RX 590.
At 1440p, we see a slight shift in results. The 1660 kept a reasonable lead over the 1060 and RX 590/580 GPUs, but lagged behind the Vega GPUs by a narrow margin.
Next we have Strange Brigade of what we just saw. The GTX 1660 can only compete with the GTX 1060 6 GB at 1080p and is thus somewhat slower than the Radeon competition. The same goes for 1440p, with the GeForce 1660 behind the Radeon RX 570, so obviously not a great result for Nvidia in this title.
The GTX 1660 is back in the Star Wars Battlefront II test between the RX 590 and the GTX 1070. With an average of 85 frames per second, they are in their own category.
At 1440p we find a similar situation in which 1660 was 17% faster than the RX 590 and 22% faster than the 6GB GTX 1060. It was also 15% slower than the GTX 1070.
Continue with Monster Hunter: World. The GTX 1660 can match the RX 590. At 1440p we see the same story, which means that the GTX 1660 was 20% slower than the Ti version.
Warframe offers a small increase in performance with the GTX 1660 over the GTX 1060 6GB and the RX 590. Each GPU tested in this title averaged over 100 fps. So it looks like the profit is shared for all GPUs.
Things get a bit more difficult with 1440p, but the GTX 1660 was still good for a 1% low of 9 0 fps at an average frame rate of 109 fps. This made it 9% faster than the old Pascal-based GTX 1060.
F1 fans will be pleased with 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 6GB 1060. It was also only 16% slower than the GeForce GTX 1070 and Radeon RX Vega 56.
 With 1440p, the gap to the GTX 1070 closes, while the Vega 56 is a little further away. The overall performance, however, was strong at an average of 61 frames per second.
The last game for which we discuss the results is The Witcher 3. Here, the GTX 1660 complies with the RX 590, but surprisingly runs 3% slower than the old GTX 1060 6 GB. Performance was no better at 1440p, as the 1660 was just 1060 and roughly on par with the Radeon RX 590.
GTX 1660 Radeon RX 590
Here is an overview of all 33 games tested, comparing the GTX 1660 and Radeon RX 590 at 1080p. The GeForce GPU was on average 5% faster than an 8% win in our original test of 12 games. While the performance margin has shrunk a bit, the new Turing GPU gained 16% more in 16 of the 33 games tested than what it won with a margin of 5% or more.
Meanwhile, the RX 590 was up 5% margin or more in just 5 games. Although AMD has adjusted the prices to the GTX 1660, they must go beyond the GTX 1660 better than the RX 590.
GTX 1660 vs.. GTX 1060 6GB
Compared to the previous generation GTX 1060 we see a dramatic difference. The margin fell from 21% in our first 12-game test (first review) to 14% back 33 games. That's a big difference, and as expected, 1660 generally does much better on newer titles. Older games such as The Witcher 3, World of Tanks, Project Cars 2 and so on do not offer the Turing architecture any great advantage over Pascal.
GTX 1660 vs.. GTX 1660 Ti
Comparing the GTX 1660 Ti to the GTX 1660 Ti, the Vanilla 1660 is 15% slower, equaling the previous test in which the non-Ti model came in 13% slower. Of course, we also saw times when the margin rose to 20% or more, and we've seen this in half a dozen titles.
Cost per frame and final thought
Perhaps one of the keys The results of this review compared to what we saw a week ago are not just the number of games tested. As Nvidia clearly undercut the competition, a week for AMD was enough time to respond and adjust prices, including seen some changes. On the other hand, the changes are not dramatic, and GTX 1660 cards are actually selling at the planned price of $ 220.
The RX 580 has dropped from $ 200 to $ 190, which is no big deal, but the Radeon is still a success alternative for some. Essentially, you can save ~ 10% of the graphics cards to reduce 10% of the performance. The RX 590 has been significantly reduced with numerous models now available for $ 220. This GPU is ultimately set to the price at which it should have started. Considering that it's a bit slower than the 1660, but about the same price, its value is not quite as good.
The only clear winner for AMD is the RX 570, but that's about 25% slower than the GTX 1660, so they are not exactly in the same performance class. In the meantime, the RX 580 from the best value for money option under $ 250 has become a pretty tough sell.
Of course, it's best to look at the performance in the games you play. If you mainly play DiRT 4 or Battlefield V, the RX 590 is the better choice. Otherwise, as we have just seen, there are far more games where the GTX 1660 convinces of the Radeon GPU.
For those who plan to buy and keep their graphics card for 2-3 years, and have no idea what things will look like. Just look at the track for 6-12 months, power consumption is a consideration value. Not because we're worried about the electricity bill, but because a more efficient graphics card is a quieter graphics card, and in your case it's also friendlier with other components because it does not give off so much heat on them.
The GTX 1660 has increased the consumption of our test system to 262 watts. That's a 12% saving compared to the RX 570 and almost 30% less than the RX 580 and 590. If we look at the power consumption for the graphics cards alone, those margins would increase significantly, indicating that Turing GPUs are significantly higher Be Better Notice
Despite some price adjustments, our recommendation to the original review has not changed. The biggest change came from the amount of games tested. The advantage of the GTX 1660 over the RX 590 has shrunk, while the price of the 590 has also declined somewhat. The two are now even.
It was quite shocking that the GTX 1660's lead over the GTX 1060 6GB shrank from 21% to only 14%. Regardless, the 1660 was never intended as an upgrade option for owners of the GTX 1060, but perhaps it's a reasonable buy for older cards like the GTX 960, which we're likely to explore soon.