NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Benchmark Surfaces in AotS Database

The naming is totally not confusing. Nvidia branding department is heavily on moonshine as of late.

Why not make is GTX 2060. This way you have distinction RTX - Ray Tracing cards, GTX non-ray tracing lineup. Customers are familiar with this + it just makes sense. Why mix them up?

 

I'm afraid that wouldn't help much, since people would confuse RTX and GTX, probably thinking 2060 is 2060... although I agree with you in general, GTX 1160 is horrible in terms of numbering and association with the other lineup already established.

 

maybe this is a pascal refresh yet again?

 

Would be super weird. They have the Turing architecture ready but seem to understand that very few people are interested in RTX and DLSS. I still hope this paves the way for the release of more GTX cards performing equally to the 20XX series or else it's just about waiting for Navi...or simply buy that 2080Ti after all

 

It doesn't make sense, they need to push RTX to consumers so it adapts. Giving consumer a choice to buy a new well performing GPU without RTX, is like just giving up on it.

 

im gonna assume these are gonna be oem or mobile parts, much like the gt 300 series , and the gtx 800 series

 

/\
This. It's most likely going to be a gpu series aimed at gaming laptops.

 

The performance is lousy and there’s nothing new. There’s no ray tracing, no AI... And if we turn on DLSS RTX 2060 will crush it. And if we turn on ray tracing RTX 2060 will crush it.

 

I agree but reality is knocking on their door.
- RTX sales are weak, Nvidia is trying very hard to push RTX now with the 2060 but I think its not enough for developers to start spending time on RTX with such a small market.
- Nvidia probably knows a lot about Navi, we had leaks that indicate that Navi will target mid-high range mostly. Nvidia is not going to let that happen.
the exact same thing happened with Polaris, AMD launched polaris and Nvidia replied instantly with the 1060 at 250$ MSRP to destroy the RX 480/470(which worked great)

 

Let's say parrot as avatar and parroting Nvidia's CEO. Why a mere 2060 would need RT Cores or AI. Give us well refined clocks and at 7nm, sold. DLSS? Give me a break.

I still crave for a feature that all Nvidia users will need and use.

 

Agree on this too, but Nvidia is shooting itself itself in the foot if true. Priviledging short term profits instead of building on RTX Ray Tracing possibilities (at least on paper & marketing) is the wrong solution. Nvidia cannot say that AMD Radeon VII is lousy and nothing new and do the exact same thing.

There must be another explanation...

 

They can. because the Vega 7 is "high end", "premium" product while a 200$ gpu is the new nvidia "entry".

 

A lot of people are interested in RTX, just not at that ridiculous price point and low performance.

 

Well it makes sense if they have a stock of GPUs with faulty Tensor cores, this way they can recoup some money instead of trowing the GPUs in the garbage...

Also paying more for ray tracing support is useless right now because very few games are going to use it and the ones that use suffer from dismal performance... Right now ray tracing on the 2xxx cards is laughable at best.

 

Ah poor nvidia, rushed the awful RTX series and still only one game uses it, and it's not that great at all.

Seriously this is a stop gap generation that should be avoided by everyone, the 3000 probably will improve every bit of performance along with maybe acceptable RTX performance, across all cards.

 

IMO RTX is never going to work. not now, not next gen.
This is EXACTLY like any other exclusive nvidia feature we had. Look at Gameworks. its a joke, no one uses it. the adoption is low, perfomance is bad.
The console market is the most important market for developers, there's no doubt.
consoles will never support RTX, ever!
maybe ray tracing capabilities but not RTX!
I think RTX is going to be the next Gameworks until we get a real open source ray tracing implemention using DXR

 

It was not NVidia's merit to have more 1060 sales than 480/470 at that time. It is simply because in gamers there is: "for games, it's NV rather than AMD", which is a complete BS. 470/480 was a better priced product with the same performance as the 1060 3/6 GB while having 1/2 GB more VRAM for the more VRAM hungry games. At default, it consumed more power (~30-40W) and more heat (~5-6 degrees C) which could be manually tweaked in its driver so it nearly consumed the same as the 1060 without losing power. Plus those "NV has better drivers" BS.. Come on. Gamers should be informed that they should equally consider AMD cards if there is an equivalent one against a specific NV (of course the high-end section is currently out of reach for AMD, but from entry level to high there is an alternative - with much better game bundles for months).

 

20% faster than 1060 is nothing impressive but its enough to match the rx590 and if its priced the same or some miracle be even cheaper thats a win for nvidia.