Reviews: GeForce GTX 1660 Ti testing Galore - MSI, ASUS and Palit

Plus by the time the settings are pushed to the point you use all of that 6GB (not allocate) the card will be too weak. Will there be one exception to this? Yes, however that is not a reason to get an overall weaker card.

 

hypothetically speaking......would a 2080ti "4GB" still be faster than a 2060ti 6GB?

keyword: hypothetical.

 

rx580 maybe can have less texture popin and also having a higher resolution textures than 1660 only becouse have more vram, does not have to be faster.

Apex Legends 580 vs 1060
https://i.**********/mknJq5d6/hqdefault.jpg
https://i.**********/LszSP2y4/Untitled.png

 

That's a 1060 not 1660ti much less a 2060 ......

 

It would still be faster. But in case you paired GPU of that performance with that little of VRAM, it would 100% run into situations where VRAM would be limiting factor. (Kind of like GTX 680 2GB.)
(Btw, I tried very hard to look at 2060Ti 6GB, you mentioned earlier. I have bad feeling that I looked so hard that I got it erased from our timeline.)

 

Even if it was, still no indication or proof that vram is causing the fps to be less than the 580. There are games where cards from one side or the other perform better than their tier would suggest. Dirt Rally 2.0 we have the 8gb Vega 64 LC beating the 11gb 1080ti. Whaaaatt.... an 8gb card beating an 11gb one? Like I said, there are always anomalies where the odd game or two does much better with one card brand vs the other.

Spoiler

https://i.**********/tg0L36wy/Dirt20.jpg

 

Sorry about that Bro!.....my ability to see into the future sometimes clashes with the present day topic.

 

the game was programmed that way....
ie:

 

Sure, but not all games sponsored by either side are consistently lopsided in performance like that. Point is, people seem to pick and choose whatever game and point to vram as being the reason for something when it is not.

 

Guys, if you want to see 6GB VRAM limitation scenario. Here is one:
Fill entire VRAM with 256x256 textures. For every frame take list of those textures and run them in ADD, SUBstract, ADD, Substract, ... order and then display resulting 256x256 image.
For next frame randomize order and repeat same ADD, SUB, ... cycling.

At that point you are loading around 5.8GB of textures into GPU as rest is used for buffers and other necessities. What would you learn from this simple scenario?
- GTX 1660Ti has 288GB/s memory bandwidth and can load entire 6GB content 48 times per second (theoretical limit, practical bandwidth will be worse). Before you run into real situation where GTX 1660Ti has to load data from system memory every frame, fps would already drop to 48 at best. And that's pure scenario where we take only memory limits into account.

If GTX 1660Ti produces more than 48fps, You can be sure that even if it had allocated entire 6GB, not all of those data are needed to produce every frame.
= = = =

In benches @alanm shown, there is bit better example, check those 4GB cards which happen to be above 8GB cards. Sadly, there is no 4GB polaris to show that its performance would be practically same as 8GB version. But as 4GB cards are above 8GB even in that kind of heavy game, one does not have to fear 6GB cards memory limitations.

 

Just to be clear i am not saying that vram should not be invested into, the more vram that is "standard" or "common" does theoretically mean developers can plan for it easier, but there does become a point where the amount of ram is absurd. It's the same thing i hear from people buying a laptop: they want 16gb of ram because....its more, just to browse the web.

Personally i am more interested in the speed of ram and technology behind it them i am in increasing the ram, as currently, with current games in mind, that helps performance far more then increasing ram.

I am just tired of seeing people bash products in favor of less performing products because of something that won't help them.

 

What you say is true ... a recent review had a 16gb Radeon VII whose VRAM was completely filled playing Black OPS 4 not able to gain any advantage against an 8gb RTC 2080 FE.

Spoiler: Spoiler

 

For laptop, memory is hard choice. If someone buys laptop with dGPU, then 8GB is enough. If someone buys laptop for non-gaming purposes than even AMD's APUs have no need for more than 512MB dedicated to iGPU, and therefore it is enough.
But if one has APU for gaming, 6+2GB allocation is kind of unpleasant configuration for me (I would likely go for 7+1 setting). APUs can allocate 4GB for iGPU as long as BIOS allows for it.

I really loved idea of that Subor-Z device, it would make lovely notebook. I still have hopes for Navi-7nm-APU in that department. But delay there is likely delay even for Arcturus as thing which had to be fixed in one is likely in another too.

 

Agreed, most people i talk to about laptops are not into gaming, however i thought i read somewhere due to the fact the game will utilize the ram even if its not split as much with the apu, the performance is the same? I'll have to look at it again, as i remember seeing something about that

 

That applies when you have fast enough RAM and slow enough APU. In my time with 2400G, I noticed following:
- Game will Read available "Dedicated" VRAM and allocate appropriately, rest will go to system memory
- > While memory is same, any advanced management of data being moved in and out of "dedicated" will be waste of time
- > Game with no VRAM management will likely run better than one which tries to move data around and have "required set" ready in VRAM
- There is measurable performance difference (Small, but it is there 10%) if RAM runs on 2666MHz or lower and no great timing is used (Which is understandable as one is not going to pair cheap APU with expensive RAM.)

Even in graphs you did show, there is something: 6% max difference in "0.1%"; 5% difference for "1%"; and 2% change in "Average" fps.
With slower ram, whatever management overhead causes this difference gets worse. And notebooks are not exactly know for fast RAM.
(Still does not mean that people should hunt for 16GB RAM to allocate more for APUs. Faster RAM benefits much more.)

 

Meh this is nice and all I guess, but wake me up when there is a 1680ti (2080ti with all the gimmicks removed.)

 

Nice piece of hardware, although I'm still of the opinion that it is a good $50~$100 overpriced with its $279 MSRP, which realistically with after market cards will likely reside anywhere between 280~320€.

~250€ for AIBs and we'd have an absolute winner at our hands, alas pricing tiers are attempted to be still kept and/or pushed further than they've ever been.

As it stands the 2060 GTX is likely the better buy with a marginal price difference at hand.

Likewise, the RX570/580 likely still have the better price : perf ratio as far as the budget choice is concerned.

The RX590 is dead but pretty much has been so since its inception.

Vega 56 likely cannot compete either, for its production is too expensive. Don't expect <=300€ Vega 56s to last for too long.

Given the market saturation situation due to Maxwells and Pascals longlevity I'm not sure if the 1660Ti has much of an appeal at its proposed price point, for I don't see a lot of upgrade incentive for owners of the previous generation of an equally tiered card. The 960 doesn't count though, for it's been trash all along

 

Newegg already sells RX 580 8gb PowerColor RED DRAGON/RED DEVIL @ $180 + 2 free games, sell the games and you almost got free card!
Long Live Competition!
https://i.**********/HnZ5nmms/rx580.jpg

 

^ Unimportant. Everyone should give about a hundred more to get 1660 ti. As I said, a gtx 1660ti under 299 is the new mid range king.

 

Upgrading from RX 580 to GTX 1660Ti is 60% budget increase.
Upgrading from GTX 1660Ti to GTX 2060 is just 25% budget increase.
So by your logic everyone should give the Extra $$ to get RTX 2060.

If you have the $$$ it's easy to say, but on limited budget (= 99% normal 60hz 1080P monitor) going for 1660Ti with 60% higher price without any new free games is not so easy (2 new expensive games on AMD).

Low budget is different story then RTX 2080 VS Radeon VII case.