Upgrade from GTX670 to GTX1660 or 1660Ti?

[timread]

I'm in a similar position to Buztafen - thinking of upgrading an aging GPU, in my case a GTX670, to a newer affordable GPU. Rather than hijack his thread, does anyone have any recommendations? Here's my scenario: spec as per 'My System'. I am happy enough with the rest of the PC for now, but may build a new PC next year. I currently game on my 1920x1200 Dell U2412M. Mainly FPS-style games: Assassin's Creed Odyssey, Tomb Raider (Shadow and Rise), TF2, No Man's Sky, Skyrim, Batman:Arkham City. I can see that AC:Odyssey is getting very close to using all of my GTX670 VRAM on Medium, and the game stutters at times.

I'd like to be able to game in 1080p in High/Ultra settings, but am considering upgrading to either a 1080p/144 or 1440p/144 monitor in the next year. 4K gaming would require a much more costly upgrade of the entire PC as well as an expensive monitor upgrade, which my pocket is not ready for yet.

Would a GTX 1660 suffice, or would a 1660Ti be more future-proof considering my potential upgrade on the monitor front to 1440p/144?

Anything else I should be considering? I have been using Nvidia cards for quite a few years. I respect the AMD underdog and have used their GPUs in the past (ATI Radeon 9500PRO IIRC) but I am keen to keep my rig quiet, and I don't like the idea of using a higher-powered and louder-cooled AMD card.

[Stukes]

For 1440p @ 144hz I dont think a 1660ti would be enough. They're good 1080p cards and they're mostly good at 1440p, but not if you're looking for 144hz. If you're happy to lean on freesync/gsync then you'll have a better experience, but they're probably less future-proof than a 1070 due to less onboard memory.
AMD is mostly out of the picture with their current lineup, as they are kind of hot & noisy. You could play the silicon lottery with Vega and undervolt, but if you get a sample that doesn't you'll end up frustrated.
A 2060 would cope, but it's starting to get pretty expensive. You could wait for Navi, but who knows what performance that's actually going to deliver.

It's an awkward resolution to buy for at the moment. There are a heap of 144hz 1440p screens out there but to hit 144hz@1440p in some of the titles you're talking about you almost need a 1080ti.
Realistically, your best bet is most likely the 1660ti and turning settings down a little once you get that new screen.

[sig]

1660 ti price is to high, pay litte more and you have 2060 (the king of power / price). 1660 without ti is probably to weak for you.

[The Hand]

I have a sneaking suspicion there might be a modest price cut on RTX cards coming since Nvidia will want as high an adoption of RTX as possible and the games bundle deal has just ended too at least on Amazon, Scan, Ebuyer. Either a price cut or new games bundle is coming for RTX cards imo.

[thewelshbrummie]

Would a GTX 1660 suffice, or would a 1660Ti be more future-proof considering my potential upgrade on the monitor front to 1440p/144?

Short answer, neither would do the job. 1440p @60Hz is a push for the Ti so expecting decent frame rates at 144 is unrealistic.

Ultimately it depends on what settings you run games at and whether you're willing to compromise on quality for frame rate but I'd suggest the 2070 at a more realistic starting point for 1440p/144 and high settings and even that likely won't be enough. Obviously results are game dependent but if the 144fps is the target, anything less probably won't get anywhere near your target frame rate. The 2060 is a capable 1440p/60 card but expecting it to manage more frames per second is optimistic.

I'd suggest either 1080p/144 or 1440p/60 - for which a 2060 would be the minimum I'd suggest for both situations.

[timread]

I hadn't realised that 144Hz would make such a big impact on the required performance of the GPU. I obviously need to do more research. Perhaps I should lower my sights to 1080p@60Hz for now and plan a bigger upgrade when I build a new gaming PC.

[timread]

If I dial back my expectations to 1080p/60fps, does that mean that a 1660 or 1660Ti would suffice? The reviews I have read suggest that the 1660 is good for 1080p and around the £200 price point but some games may dip below 60fps at high/ultra. The 1660Ti manages better but as far as I can see is a bit overpriced for the performance at around £265-£270.

[PC-LAD]

The problem is with reviewers is that they get complacent in the fact they think the current generation of upper tear graphics is what you need to have for the best gaming experiance. Here is my take. I had a 970 which would play at 1440p 60fps medium in many games droping to 50 everynow and then, 120hz gaming waas playable at high in every esports title with room to spare (dont use 144hz as there is just no need). SO with a 1660ti which is there abouts a 980ti which is is about 95% of the way to a 1070 (elaborate I know). You will be able to play most tiltles at high 1440p 60fps or your 144hz 1080p high in esports (but I'dstick with the 120 for leg room). Then it comes down to price. You can get a used 980ti for about 160 if you look around HWSUK sub reddit is good, a used 1070 can be got for about 190 (£230 new) or a 1660ti just a wee bit less performance than that 1070 for £250 but won't look the best. Final verdict - I'd get a 1660ti as it's resale value will be longer and if a bigger upgrade is iminant the resale value won't dwindle that much. forgot to mention i'm playing at 100fps on medium ow with my 660ti a whole 1 out of wack

[rob4001]

I'd save money and go with a 1660 its a good 1080p card that will get you around 60 fps you won't notice any minor frame dips. Ultra setting in games is a waste of time with a massive performance hit for a hardly noticeable gain high settings are fine. Loads of youtube videos demo this. As said before 144hz are for esports twitch shooters so unless thats your goal totally pointless for you.

Also looking at your machine specs the money you saved from gpu can go for upgrades to cpu and mboard and memory as that 2500k is getting close to end of life from a gaming perspective and 16gb should be a minimum for AAA going forward.

[Kernel]

I am looking at getting the GTX1660 as well now.

[loccothan]

Or consider Vega 56 + FreeSync 2 HDR
Or wait little more for Navi launch (7.7.2019)

[DanceswithUnix]

I hadn't realised that 144Hz would make such a big impact on the required performance of the GPU.

*sigh*, it doesn't and I think there is some really bad advice being handed out here by people who I guess have never used a 1440p 144Hz monitor.

Most of the monitors in this house are 144Hz, albeit only mine is 1440p. You can't judge 144Hz monitors like 60Hz, they just aren't the same. With a 60Hz monitor you have to hit 60Hz all the time or it becomes horrible and stuttery. With 144Hz you really don'y have to do that, the frame rate can drop without really bad effects.

That's ignoring the fact that such monitors will have FreeSync (or Gsync if you can afford it), which improves things even more.

My monitor was a bit clunky when driven by an R9 380, but surprisingly some games were very playable even with something that low end. But 1440p on a 27" monitor is lovely to play on and really good for work, I would say go for it.

[kalniel]

*sigh*, it doesn't and I think there is some really bad advice being handed out here by people who I guess have never used a 1440p 144Hz monitor.

Most of the monitors in this house are 144Hz, albeit only mine is 1440p. You can't judge 144Hz monitors like 60Hz, they just aren't the same. With a 60Hz monitor you have to hit 60Hz all the time or it becomes horrible and stuttery. With 144Hz you really don'y have to do that, the frame rate can drop without really bad effects.

I wondered about that actually. You've still got to use a whole number of frames right? So that's what, 7ms, 14ms, 21ms (144, 72, 48fps) etc. so is the improvement because you've got the intermediate 48fps before 36, while a 60hz monitor has to drop straight to 30?

Or are you saying the unsync'd tearing is less noticeable?

[DanceswithUnix]

I wondered about that actually. You've still got to use a whole number of frames right? So that's what, 7ms, 14ms, 21ms (144, 72, 48fps) etc. so is the improvement because you've got the intermediate 48fps before 36, while a 60hz monitor has to drop straight to 30?

Or are you saying the unsync'd tearing is less noticeable?

I believe that's what is going on, I always have Vsync on as I can't stand tearing so I couldn't say if it is less noticable. When I first got my panel AMD didn't support Freesync in borderless windowed mode, but with two monitors I preferred playing Elite in that mode so I could mouse over to the other monitor to look up trades & use Discord. It was very playable like that even with a 2GB R9 285, I suspect is was hitting 72fps, dipping to 48.

[timread]

That makes sense. So if I stick with 1080p@60Hz then a 1660 or 1660Ti would suffice but upgrading to a 1440p/144Hz monitor would require an RTX 2060 or higher to reach >60fps at 1440p, up to 144fps.

I've read reports of reliability issues with the RTX 2060. Have these been ironed out or are there any particular RTX 2060 brands/cards I should avoid. Based on the GPU manufacturers thread I would be considering a Gigabyte or EVGA card (I have a GTX670 Windforce that has been great).

[Porthos2020]

I'd wait for Navi if you can, only a clue more Months down the line. Also if you don't mind the extra power consumption, 1070s are starting to drop in price now and worth considering.