Nvidia GeForce GTX 1660 Ti models with 3GB on the way

[Ozaron]

The 2060 only has 6GB lmao, that's barely enough for 1080p gaming.

Either you've completely ignored what's been said here or you genuinely believe that every GPU must be priced based on its performance in theoretic games years after its release date at maximum quality. That's crazy. You're talking to someone who uses a 4GB card to play GTA V at 1440p regularly - GTA's not a new game but it is a worst case scenario for Fury, for a variety of reasons, and I'm averaging 80-100 FPS at high, with a VRAM capacity you're suggesting is "nowhere near enough".

If you only play games with ALL OF 8x MSAA / SSAA, maxed out textures, bloom, godrays, motion blur, and so on; then sure, 6GB isn't enough even at 1080p. But you're saying that games are impossible to play otherwise, which is a fallacy. Again, choosing to turn on everything, is a premium concept kept for premium price tiers, not a 1660Ti, not an RTX 2060, but an RTX 2080 or better. That's why they get the memory.

It should be expected that a card is matched with the amount of VRAM that it can utilize, not artificially handicapped to sell more units in the long-run.

Why? Aside from the fact this card would have perfectly reasonable functionality at less than extreme quality settings, who exactly is going to stop NVidia or AMD or anyone from setting limitations on their cards as they see fit, at pricing tiers they choose to set? These companies exist to make money. Not provide the perfect product, always. You must know that low-end cards have traditionally had variants with ridiculous memory capacity they could never realistically make use of (with bloated price tags, no less) and you haven't complained about that?

Edit: You're also conveniently forgetting that you could get a good 1080p gaming card for $200 three years ago. For this new card to have a reason to exist, it has to perform better, not equally.

Prove to us that you could get the same performance 3 years ago at $200 brand new, that $200 now gets you.

[Usernamist]

Either you've completely ignored what's been said here or you genuinely believe that every GPU must be priced based on its performance in theoretic games years after its release date at maximum quality. That's crazy. You're talking to someone who uses a 4GB card to play GTA V at 1440p regularly - GTA's not a new game but it is a worst case scenario for Fury, for a variety of reasons, and I'm averaging 80-100 FPS at high, with a VRAM capacity you're suggesting is "nowhere near enough".

You can't keep conflating your imaginary theoretical examples with real ones. Pick one and stick with it, and maybe you'll form a coherent thought. I've only talked about real-world, current games. I'd suggest you stick to reality as well, since it'll make it a lot easier for me to respond.

If you only play games with ALL OF 8x MSAA / SSAA, maxed out textures, bloom, godrays, motion blur, and so on; then sure, 6GB isn't enough even at 1080p. But you're saying that games are impossible to play otherwise, which is a fallacy.

Don't claim I said things I never have just to fit your narrative.

Again, choosing to turn on everything, is a premium concept kept for premium price tiers, not a 1660Ti, not an RTX 2060, but an RTX 2080 or better. That's why they get the memory.

Your concepts aren't based on anything concrete. I implore you to examine why you think the way you do. Also, the 2080 only has 8GB, so even your own example is wrong.

Aside from the fact this card would have perfectly reasonable functionality at less than extreme quality settings, who exactly is going to stop NVidia or AMD or anyone from setting limitations on their cards as they see fit, at pricing tiers they choose to set? These companies exist to make money. Not provide the perfect product, always.

Ever heard of consumers?

You must know that low-end cards have traditionally had variants with ridiculous memory capacity they could never realistically make use of (with bloated price tags, no less) and you haven't complained about that?

Can you stop changing the argument? Nobody mentioned low-end cards. And again, quit making assumptions that soley fit your narrative. FWIW though, more memory can always be utilised, just not in games. Less memory can't, ever.

Prove to us that you could get the same performance 3 years ago at $200 brand new, that $200 now gets you.

You've honestly baffled me with this one. Who's "us"? Why are you asking me to prove that? Fine, I'll bite:

This card from 3 years ago
https://www.videocardbenchmark.net/g...X+1060&id=3548

And THIS card (which is actually more expensive at the moment) have THE EXACT SAME PERFORMANCE
https://www.videocardbenchmark.net/g...X+1060&id=3548

[Usernamist]

OOf, that was a lot to unpack.
Protip: If you have to resort to making things up to form all your arguments, you're usually wrong (or just really, really bad at arguing)

[The Hand]

I will disagree, for those of us who play competitively. Textures are not that big of a deal, yea games can look nice but in action, it can be hard to notice unless you are lowering resolutions. I play overwatch at medium 1080p on a 660ti and get 120fps (shocking I know). But that consumes no more than 1.5gb of vram. I could go 1440p high no problem on my 970 and I have no doubt that the 1160ti will provide an adiquite experiance if it is for the masses of esports gamers and those who want to play at 1080p high.

Yes on Rainbow 6 Siege medium textures only uses 2GB of vram, High only uses 3GB. Coupled with a freesync monitor the 3GB variants might be fine for esports, considering many players have textures on low as standard anyway.

[Pleiades]

This card from 3 years ago
https://www.videocardbenchmark.net/g...X+1060&id=3548

And THIS card (which is actually more expensive at the moment) have THE EXACT SAME PERFORMANCE
https://www.videocardbenchmark.net/g...X+1060&id=3548

Your links seem to be the same? Or have I missed something?

[Usernamist]

Your links seem to be the same? Or have I missed something?

He asked what ~200 could get you then and now. Unfortunately, the 1060 is the only $200 card Nvidia has released in the last 3 years lol

[DanceswithUnix]

Do we know what silicon the 1660ti uses?

If it is the 2080 silicon recycled yet again, then it would be totally capable of running with 4GB of vram by just not disabling a quarter of the ram channels. Though they would probably use slower ram to avoid the punters getting any benefit from a wider bus.

[persimmon]

What percentage of an rtx2060 (excluding the ray tracing stuff) will the 1660ti be ? better than 85%? less than 70% ? around 75-80% is my guess , thus on a pound for pound basis, making the rtx2060 better value.
3gb seems stingy but compression, and 1080p, probably be ok. For LDC.

[proaudio]

Why they need 3Gb ?! "640Kb is all you ever going to need", right?

We've come a long way since needing that much