Nvidia 1600 series to be released soon

Avatar image for urbangamez
#1 Posted by urbangamez (3443 posts) -

there are rumors that 3 cards will be sold the 1660Ti, which is suppose to be 16% faster that a 1060 for $279, 1660 in early march for $229 and a 1650 in late march for $179.

further speculation is that these cards will not have RT cores or have the RT cores disabled or something something no ray tracing. i dont get it it but there must be a market for such cards or else they would not sell them.

thoughts

Avatar image for XVision84
#2 Posted by XVision84 (15065 posts) -

You can't have most of the big benefits of ray tracing at high frames on rtx 2060 (at least without plenty of sacrifices). If they can provide a cheaper non ray traced version with similar performance then I think it would be a smart move.

Avatar image for goldenelementxl
#3 Posted by GoldenElementXL (2665 posts) -

If any of these cards dont require a 6-pin power connection, I’m in for my emulation box. I need something stronger than a 1050 Ti.

Avatar image for horgen
#4 Posted by Horgen (119427 posts) -

How do these compare to RTX 2060?

Avatar image for finix786
#5 Edited by finix786 (5 posts) -

I was actually looking for an upgrade over my GTX 1050. Will be waiting for the benchmarks for 1660ti.

Avatar image for 04dcarraher
#6 Posted by 04dcarraher (23132 posts) -

@horgen said:

How do these compare to RTX 2060?

Much slower, The 1660ti with ashes benchmark shows it setting between GTX 1060 and GTX 1070

Avatar image for pyro1245
#7 Posted by pyro1245 (4568 posts) -
@horgen said:

How do these compare to RTX 2060?

Ikr? RTX 2060 seems like a stellar deal. I guess Nvidia over-corrected after the launch of the high-end cards.

@goldenelementxl said:

If any of these cards dont require a 6-pin power connection, I’m in for my emulation box. I need something stronger than a 1050 Ti.

Yeah?

Hmm... I was thinking of building one with the AMD Raven Ridge APUs.

Avatar image for horgen
#8 Posted by Horgen (119427 posts) -

@04dcarraher said:
@horgen said:

How do these compare to RTX 2060?

Much slower, The 1660ti with ashes benchmark shows it setting between GTX 1060 and GTX 1070

So 2050(Ti) with another name.

Avatar image for PredatorRules
#9 Posted by PredatorRules (12359 posts) -

I heard they're about to release 3 GPUs GTX1660Ti, 16603Gb and 6Gb

https://videocardz.com/newz/nvidia-gtx-turing-teased-by-leaked-photograph

https://wccftech.com/nvidia-geforce-gtx-turing-1660-ti-and-1660-confirmed/

The 1660Ti should be slower than RTX2060 for a price of 350$, AMD should offer RX3080 = hopefully of RTX2070 for the same price point.

Nvidia really flooded the market with all those mid range 2060 variations and as you can see now 1160 as well, I'm not sure what gamers will think about this since it'll be damn confusing, will they buy those or just go straight to 2070?

Avatar image for rmpumper
#10 Posted by rmpumper (417 posts) -

Just skip this whole clusterfuck of a gen and save yourself the money/headache.

Avatar image for R4gn4r0k
#11 Edited by R4gn4r0k (30183 posts) -

@XVision84 said:

You can't have most of the big benefits of ray tracing at high frames on rtx 2060 (at least without plenty of sacrifices). If they can provide a cheaper non ray traced version with similar performance then I think it would be a smart move.

Same for the RTX2080 and 2080ti imho

Just provide cheaper alternatives that offer the power, but not the RTX tech.

Avatar image for XVision84
#12 Posted by XVision84 (15065 posts) -

@R4gn4r0k: The 2080 and Ti have good performance in battlefield v ray tracing without sacrificing usual settings. Dlss would make it even better. Problem is we need a higher sample size. Give it 2 gpu gens and PC's will be knocking ray tracing out of the park (with more reasonable pricing) ;).

Avatar image for R4gn4r0k
#13 Posted by R4gn4r0k (30183 posts) -

@XVision84: I'm all about brute power at the moment. I'm playing Battlefield V at 3440x1440 and 120FPS.

Raytracing would limit me at playing at 60FPS which I just don't want.

Avatar image for XVision84
#14 Edited by XVision84 (15065 posts) -

@R4gn4r0k: I get around 80-90fps w/dxr medium 2560x1440 depending on the map. I don't like battlefield and only use it for rtx testing though so it would be nice to see it in other games (I got battlefield v for free w/my pc parts). Just hoping for similar performance from metro.

Avatar image for R4gn4r0k
#15 Posted by R4gn4r0k (30183 posts) -

@XVision84 said:

@R4gn4r0k: I get around 80-90fps w/dxr medium 2560x1440 depending on the map. I don't like battlefield and only use it for rtx testing though so it would be nice to see it in other games (I got battlefield v for free w/my pc parts). Just hoping for similar performance from metro.

If you want good performance with excellent graphics in Battlefield V, I'd be happy to share my settings with you :)

I tweaked around a bit and now I get 120FPS on average at 3440x1440, only when there is a huge amount of chaos going on do I get slight framedrops.

Avatar image for XVision84
#16 Posted by XVision84 (15065 posts) -

@R4gn4r0k: Thank you but I hardly play battlefield so it really wouldn't be worth your time :)

Avatar image for goldenelementxl
#17 Posted by GoldenElementXL (2665 posts) -

@rmpumper said:

Just skip this whole clusterfuck of a gen and save yourself the money/headache.

Some of us enjoy the headaches though...

Avatar image for npiet1
#18 Posted by npiet1 (1631 posts) -

@rmpumper said:

Just skip this whole clusterfuck of a gen and save yourself the money/headache.

I am, I just following it to keep up. I've got a 6gb 1060 and it serves me well, I've only got a 1080p 60hz monitor anyway not going to do good, until I can upgrade my tv from 4k to 4k 100hz.