GeForce GTX 1660 Tested: 33 Game Benchmark feat. The Division 2

This is our second look at the new GeForce GTX 1660. Not to be confused with the 1660 Ti that was released a month before, both GPUs offer great value at mid-range prices of $220 for the GTX 1660 and $280 for the Ti version.

For those of you who missed it, our day one review of the GTX 1660 featured a dozen games, many of which were recently released titles and in that location the new GPU came out looking similar a gnaw. Today we're expanding the benchmark test to a g total of 33 games to see how it stacks up to the likes of AMD's Radeon RX 580 and 590.

While we don't expect this expanded benchmark test to change much, it should serve every bit a decent buying guide for those tossing up between the GTX 1660 and peradventure the Radeon RX 580. The fact that the new GeForce GPU is some 30% faster in Assassin's Creed Odyssey might not affair much if you lot predominantly play titles such as Strange Brigade, Battlefield Five or Sniper Aristocracy iv, to cite a few examples.

To requite you a improve idea of how these two GPUs and more than compare in a wide range of games, we put together this 33 game benchmark. The focus will be on 1080p, which is the most popular resolution for this kind of GPU, but we've as well tested at 1440p making the entire analysis as as comprehensive as you may want.

Our usual GPU examination system was used, equipped with a Core i9-9900K clocked at 5 GHz with 32GB of DDR4-3200 retentivity. Drivers used include the AMD Adrenalin 2022 Edition 19.two.3 for the Radeon GPUs and Game Prepare 419.35 WHQL for the GeForce cards.

Benchmarks

The first test in today'due south lineup is The Division 2. Information technology'south the kickoff time we're featuring this brand new title in ane of our benchmark features. Rather than using the canned criterion we've recorded operation in-game. We can observe that the GTX 1660 is adept for 68 fps on average at 1080p using the ultra quality preset.

That figure drops down to just 46 fps at 1440p and while playable you'll probably want to do some tweaking here to improve frame rates. Every bit it stands the GTX 1660 was 15% faster than the GTX 1060, only eight% slower than the RX 590.

Assassin'south Creed: Odyssey is a bad title for AMD cards and hither we see the GTX 1660 basically matching Vega 64. But don't expect to see that as well often. The $220 GTX 1660 was just 12% faster than the GTX 1060 6GB, but 28% speedier than the Radeon RX 590.

At 1440p we see a slight shift in the results. The 1660 maintained a reasonable pb over the 1060 and RX 590/580 GPUs, only was seen slipping backside the Vega GPUs by a slim margin.

Next up we have Foreign Brigade which is kind of the reverse of what we just saw. The GTX 1660 is only able to match the GTX 1060 6GB at 1080p, making information technology quite a scrap slower than the Radeon competition. Much the aforementioned is seen at 1440p, with the GeForce 1660 running behind the Radeon RX 570, and so manifestly not a neat result for Nvidia in this championship.

The GTX 1660 is back on top for our Star Wars Battlefront II testing, sitting between the RX 590 and GTX 1070, with 85 fps on average it's in a category of its ain.

Then at 1440p nosotros find a like state of affairs, where the 1660 was 17% faster than the RX 590 and 22% faster than the 6GB GTX 1060. It was as well 15% slower than the GTX 1070.

Moving on to Monster Hunter: Globe, the GTX 1660 is able to friction match the RX 590. We see much the same story at 1440p, and this ways the GTX 1660 was twenty% slower than the Ti version.

Warframe has the GTX 1660 offering a small performance gain over the GTX 1060 6GB as well equally the RX 590. Every GPU tested in this championship was skilful for over 100 fps on average, so it looks similar the win is shared amongst all GPUs for this one.

Things become a little more challenging at 1440p, but withal the GTX 1660 was practiced for a 1% low of 90 fps with an average frame rate of 109 fps. This made it 9% faster than the old Pascal-based GTX 1060.

F1 fans will enjoy what the GTX 1660 has to offering. At 1080p it was xi% faster than the similarly priced RX 590 and eighteen% faster than the older 6GB 1060. It was besides just 16% slower than the GeForce GTX 1070 and Radeon RX Vega 56.

At 1440p it manages to shut the gap to the GTX 1070, while Vega 56 gets a little further away. But overall performance was stiff with 61 fps on boilerplate.

The last game we're discussing the results for is The Witcher 3. Here the GTX 1660 is matching the RX 590 but surprisingly runs 3% slower than the old GTX 1060 6GB. Performance wasn't any amend at 1440p, where the 1660 simply matched the 1060, placing it roughly on par with the Radeon RX 590.

Performance Summary

GTX 1660 vs. Radeon RX 590

Here is the breakdown of all 33 games tested, comparing the GTX 1660 and Radeon RX 590 at 1080p. The GeForce GPU was on average v% faster, down from an 8% win in our original 12 game examination. So while the performance margin has shrunk a little, the new Turing GPU withal came out on top and did so winning by a five% margin or greater in 16 of the 33 games tested.

Meanwhile the RX 590 was faster by a v% margin or greater in just 5 of the games. Even though AMD has cut pricing to match the GTX 1660, they'll demand to do better than that for us to recommend the RX 590 over the GTX 1660.

GTX 1660 vs. GTX 1060 6GB

Nosotros come across a dramatic difference when comparison to the previous generation GTX 1060. The margin dropped from 21% in our initial 12 game sample (day i review) to just 14% with all 33 games. That's a big deviation and as suspected the 1660 generally does much better in newer titles. Older games such every bit The Witcher 3, Globe of Tanks, Projection Cars two, so on don't hand the Turing architecture much of an advantage over Pascal.

GTX 1660 vs. GTX 1660 Ti

Finally when comparing head to head with the GTX 1660 Ti, the vanilla 1660 is 15% slower and that'south very much in line with the previous test which saw the non-Ti model come up in 13% slower. Of course, we likewise saw times where the margin grew to xx% or more than, and we saw that in half a dozen titles.

Cost per Frame and Closing Thoughts

Perhaps one of the key findings from this review compared to what we saw a week ago is non just the number of games tested, but because Nvidia clearly undercut the competition, a week has been enough time for AMD to react and adjust prices, so our cost per frame comparing has seen some changes as well. On the upside, changes are not dramatic, and GTX 1660 cards are indeed selling at the intended $220 MSRP already.

The RX 580 has dropped downward from $200 to $190 which is not a huge deal, but withal makes the Radeon a viable alternative for some. Essentially you tin can save ~10% on the cost of the graphics menu to have 10% of the performance shaved off. The RX 590 has seen a heftier price cut with numerous models now bachelor at $220. This GPU is finally down to the price it should have launched at. Given it'southward a picayune slower than the 1660 merely costs nearly the same, it'due south not quite as practiced in terms of value.

The only articulate cut winner for AMD right now is the RX 570, simply that'due south roughly 25% slower than the GTX 1660 so they aren't exactly in the same operation category. Meanwhile the RX 580 has gone from being the best value sub $250 option, to a somewhat tough sell.

Of class, it's all-time to look at performance in the games you lot'll be playing. If you're primary playing DiRT iv or Battlefield V, then the RX 590 is a amend option. Otherwise, every bit we just saw at that place are far more games where the GTX 1660 gets the better of the Radeon GPU.

For those of you planning on ownership and keeping your graphics card for 2-3 years and take no idea how things will expect fifty-fifty only half-dozen-12 months down the track, power consumption is worth keeping in mind. Not considering nosotros're worried about the power nib, just because a more efficient graphics card is a quieter graphics card, and it's as well more than friendly to other components in your instance as it's not dumping every bit much heat on them.

The GTX 1660 pushed our test system's consumption to 262 watts. That's a 12% saving compared to the RX 570 and virtually thirty% less than the RX 580 and 590. If nosotros were looking at power consumption for the graphics cards alone those margins would increase significantly, making it clear Turing GPUs are much better in this regard.

So in spite of a few pricing adjustments, our recommendation has non been altered from the original review. The biggest alter has come up from the sheer book of games tested. The GTX 1660's lead over the RX 590 shrunk, while the 590'due south toll likewise shrunk a little. So those 2 are more evenly matched now.

Information technology was pretty shocking to run into the GTX 1660'due south atomic number 82 over the GTX 1060 6GB shrivel upwardly from 21% to just fourteen%. Regardless, the 1660 was never intended to exist an upgrade choice for GTX 1060 owners, but perhaps it is a reasonable purchase for those running older cards like the GTX 960, which we'll probable explore presently.