LABS TEST / GRAPHICS CARDS
A
t a glance, the GTX 1660 seems to be
a sensible next step up over the GTX
1650 Super, with more stream
processors and ROPs for just £30 more.
However, its use of GDDR5 RAM holds it back.
This older RAM standard uses more power
and, despite this card having a wider 192-bit
memory interface than the 128-bit interface of
the GTX 1650 Super, its slower speed means
you only get the same overall memory
bandwidth as the cheaper card.
All that said, its performance is still decent,
thanks to the sheer horsepower of the TU116
GPU at its heart, despite it having had two
streaming multiprocessors disabled. In our
tests, it managed to stay above 60fps in
Battlefield V at 1080p, which is decent for
this price of card. It fared less well in our otherNVIDIA GEFORCE
GTX 1660 /£180 inc VAT
SUPPLIER scan.co.ukmore demanding tests, but still delivered
around 40fps in most games at 1080p. Crank
down the detail settings in these games and
you’ll comfortably be looking at over 60fps.
The GTX 1660 also fairly consistently
beats the AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT 8GB,
although notably, it loses out to the cheaper
AMD Radeon RX 590. As such, for pure
gaming performance, the older AMD card is
the better bet, even if it does draw a ridiculous
amount of power.
Another reason some may be tempted
by this Nvidia card, though, is that it’s the
cheapest way of getting hardware ray tracing
support. You don’t actually get dedicated
RT cores in the GPU, but Nvidia has enabled
ray-tracing support via the standard CUDA
cores. Unfortunately, the combination of
an already modest card combined with the
extra demands of ray tracing means you
won’t exactly be pushing the limits of even a
60Hz monitor. In Battlefield V with ray tracing,
this card hit 27fps (99th percentile) and a
34fps average, dropping to 15fps and 21fps
respectively at 2,560 x 1,440.
What really hurts the appeal of the GTX
1660, though, is the proximity in price of the
much more capable GTX 1660 Super. For just
£19 more, you get a big uplift in performance
thanks to its faster GDDR6 memory.
Meanwhile, a single 8-pin PCI-E power
socket is required to get the card going, sothose with only the very cheapest power
supplies may require an upgrade – the
cheapest PSU on overclockers.co.uk, for
instance, has only a single 6-pin PCI-E cable.
However, the GTX 1660 is pretty power-
efficient, especially compared with the
Radeon RX 590, and it doesn’t require an
enormous amount of cooling power.Conclusion
The addition of hardware ray-tracing support
broadens the appeal of the Nvidia GeForce
GTX 1660 over other cheaper graphics
cards. However, you likely won’t be playing
many games with this feature for long, as
performance is woeful. General rasterisation
performance is decent for the money, but the
GTX 1660 Super makes far more sense for just
an extra £20, and the cheaper Radeon RX 590
is also faster if you want to save some cash.SPEC
Graphics processor Nvidia GeForce GTX 1660,
1530MHz base clock, 1785MHz boost clock
Pipeline 1,408 stream processors, 48 ROPs
Interface PCI-E 3
RT Cores 0
Tensor Cores 0
Memory 6GB GDDR5, 2GHz (8GHz effective)
Memory interface 192-bit
Bandwidth 192GB/sec
Outputs/inputs Usually 3 x
DisplayPort 1.4, 1 x HDMI 2b
Power connections 1 x 8-pinVERDICT
A versatile, affordable graphics card, but its
reliance on GDDR 5 memory means it’s not
a standout bargain.THE FORCE
+^ Reliable 1080p^
gaming performance
+^ Hardware ray-
tracing support
+^ 6GB of memoryTHE SCHWARTZ-^ No dedicated RT cores^
-^ Slow GDDR5 memory
-^ Only £19 more
for much better
performance
PERFORMANCE
36 / 50RAY TRACING
1 / 10OVERALL SCORE
70 %%
EFFICIENCY
9 / 10VALUE
24 / 30LABS TEST / GRAPHICS CARDS
A
t a glance,theGTX 1660 seemstobe
a sensiblenextstepupovertheGTX
1650 Super,withmorestream
processorsandROPsforjust£30more.
However,itsuseofGDDR5RAMholdsit back.
ThisolderRAMstandardusesmorepower
and,despitethiscardhavinga wider192-bit
memoryinterfacethanthe128-bitinterfaceof
theGTX 1650 Super,itsslowerspeedmeans
youonlygetthesameoverallmemory
bandwidthasthecheapercard.
Allthatsaid,itsperformanceis stilldecent,
thankstothesheerhorsepoweroftheTU116
GPUatitsheart,despiteit havinghadtwo
streamingmultiprocessorsdisabled.Inour
tests,it managedtostayabove60fpsin
BattlefieldV at1080p,whichis decentfor
thispriceofcard.It faredlesswellinourother
NVIDIA GEFORCE
GTX 1660 /£180inc VAT
SUPPLIER scan.co.ukmore demanding tests, but still delivered
around 40fps in most games at 1080p. Crank
down the detail settings in these games and
you’ll comfortably be looking at over 60fps.
The GTX 1660 also fairly consistently
beats the AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT 8GB,
although notably, it loses out to the cheaper
AMD Radeon RX 590. As such, for pure
gaming performance, the older AMD card is
the better bet, even if it does draw a ridiculous
amount of power.
Another reason some may be tempted
by this Nvidia card, though, is that it’s the
cheapest way of getting hardware ray tracing
support. You don’t actually get dedicated
RT cores in the GPU, but Nvidia has enabled
ray-tracing support via the standard CUDA
cores. Unfortunately, the combination of
an already modest card combined with the
extra demands of ray tracing means you
won’t exactly be pushing the limits of even a
60Hz monitor. In Battlefield V with ray tracing,
this card hit 27fps (99th percentile) and a
34fps average, dropping to 15fps and 21fps
respectively at 2,560 x 1,440.
What really hurts the appeal of the GTX
1660, though, is the proximity in price of the
much more capable GTX 1660 Super. For just
£19 more, you get a big uplift in performance
thanks to its faster GDDR6 memory.
Meanwhile, a single 8-pin PCI-E power
socket is required to get the card going, sothose with only the very cheapest power
supplies may require an upgrade – the
cheapest PSU on overclockers.co.uk, for
instance, has only a single 6-pin PCI-E cable.
However, the GTX 1660 is pretty power-
efficient, especially compared with the
Radeon RX 590, and it doesn’t require an
enormous amount of cooling power.Conclusion
The addition of hardware ray-tracing support
broadens the appeal of the Nvidia GeForce
GTX 1660 over other cheaper graphics
cards. However, you likely won’t be playing
many games with this feature for long, as
performance is woeful. General rasterisation
performance is decent for the money, but the
GTX 1660 Super makes far more sense for just
an extra £20, and the cheaper Radeon RX 590
is also faster if you want to save some cash.SPEC
Graphics processor Nvidia GeForce GTX 1660,
1530MHz base clock, 1785MHz boost clock
Pipeline 1,408 stream processors, 48 ROPs
Interface PCI-E 3
RT Cores 0
Tensor Cores 0
Memory 6GB GDDR5, 2GHz (8GHz effective)
Memory interface 192-bit
Bandwidth 192GB/sec
Outputs/inputs Usually 3 x
DisplayPort 1.4, 1 x HDMI 2b
Power connections 1 x 8-pinVERDICT
A versatile, affordable graphics card, but its
reliance on GDDR 5 memory means it’s not
a standout bargain.THEFORCE
+Reliable1080p
gamingperformance
+Hardwareray-
tracingsupport
+6GB of memory
THESCHWARTZ- NodedicatedRTcores
- SlowGDDR5memory
- Only £19 more
for much better
performance
PERFORMANCE
36 / 50RAY TRACING
1 / 10OVERALLSCORE
70 %%
EFFICIENCY
9 / 10VALUE
24 / 30