It’s solely been eight months since Nvidia’s GeForce GTX 1660 graphics card first got here out, however already it’s bought a Super-fied successor within the type of the GTX 1660 Super. I’ve already gone into a fairly detailed breakdown of how each playing cards examine in my Nvidia GeForce GTX 1660 Super review, however generally it’s simply simpler to see issues specified by some good bar charts, isn’t it?
Below, I’ve put each playing cards face to face throughout quite a lot of games at each 1080p and 1440p to see precisely what they’re manufactured from and, most significantly, how a lot sooner Nvidia’s Super-charged GTX 1660 is in comparison with its decidedly not Super (however nonetheless very a lot best graphics card-worthy) sibling. To the bar charts!
GTX 1660 vs 1660 Super: How we check
Like my normal bar chart comparisons, the purpose right here is to see how each playing cards stack up throughout quite a lot of resolutions and graphics settings. Since these are each playing cards on the lower-end of the value spectrum, I haven’t included any 4K outcomes on this specific check as a result of, effectively, these aren’t meant as 4K graphics playing cards. Instead, I’ve centered on the place their foremost strengths lie: top-end 1080p gaming, and mid-tier 1440p gaming.
To check every card, I paired them with my Intel Core i5-8600Ok CPU and 16GB of Corsair Vengeance 2133MHz RAM and put them by means of my basic benchmarking suite, taking a mean body fee from both their very own built-in benchmarking instruments or from my very own repeated guide gameplay checks. The games embrace Assassin’s Creed Odyssey, Metro Exodus, Total War: Three Kingdoms, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, The Witcher III, Monster Hunter: World, Forza Horizon Four and Final Fantasy XV.
For this specific check, I’ve used Zotac’s GeForce GTX 1660 Super Twin Fan and Asus’ GeForce GTX 1660 Phoenix playing cards, as these had been those despatched to me for overview. Both playing cards are on the cheaper finish of their respective classes, and I left each of them working at their inventory reference speeds. As a consequence, they need to be pretty consultant of their respective households, however you could discover costlier playing cards obtain barely sooner outcomes than what I’ve detailed beneath. With all that in thoughts, let’s get to these pretty charts.
GTX 1660 vs 1660 Super: 1080p benchmarks
Admittedly, neither the GTX 1660 or GTX 1660 Super are actually Ultra-grade 1080p playing cards. They could make a good fist of it, however as you may see beneath, you’re not going to get 60fps from them at this sort of high quality setting (except, after all, you solely play Forza Horizon 4). Still, bar Metro Exodus, which is a pig to run on any type of lower-end graphics card, you may see that you just’re nonetheless getting a fairly playable common of no less than 45fps most often, and a few even stretch into within the mid-50s.
As it’s also possible to see, nevertheless, the precise quantity of enchancment you’re getting with the GTX 1660 Super right here is fairly minimal. Some would possibly have the ability to inform the distinction between 52fps and 58fps in Shadow of the Tomb Raider, or 56fps and 62fps in Final Fantasy XV, however with out assistance from a body fee counter, I wasn’t capable of inform which one was working smoother just by sight.
The efficiency hole begins to open up a bit extra if you transfer all the way down to High high quality settings, admittedly, however I’m not satisfied you’re going to see a tangible distinction right here, both, in all honesty. You undoubtedly received’t in the event you’ve solely bought a normal 60Hz monitor, for instance, and once more, I’m undecided my eyes are fast sufficient to see an considerable distinction between, say, 72fps and 81fps in one thing like Monster Hunter: World.
The solely game in my benchmarking suite the place you would possibly see a possible distinction is in Metro Exodus, because it’s typically round that 40-55fps zone that jumps just like the one I’ve recorded above are felt most keenly. However, that’s hardly an excellent motive to go for the GTX 1660 Super over the soon-to-be cheaper GTX 1660 (which Nvidia have confirmed is because of be getting a worth reduce quickly to make it a extra apparent entry-point into the 1660 household). I imply, sure, you would possibly as effectively go for the Super whereas each playing cards price the identical amount of cash, however when that worth reduce kicks in, I simply don’t assume the Super is basically value the additional expense.
GTX 1660 vs 1660 Super: 1440p benchmarks
The Super makes a barely stronger case for itself if you transfer as much as 2560×1440, however as soon as once more the advantages you’re getting are fairly minimal. As acknowledged above, neither card are actually meant for max Ultra settings at this decision, however I assumed I’d embrace them anyway as some extent of comparability.
As you may see above, the Super does present a barely smoother expertise on these specific settings, however in apply they really feel simply as juddery as one another. Indeed, The Witcher III confirmed no enchancment in any way, with each playing cards producing precisely the identical minimal and most body charges throughout my testing.
It’s a really comparable image if you transfer all the way down to High high quality, too. Again, the GTX 1660 and GTX 1660 Super are actually able to enjoying games at this sort of high quality setting, however as soon as once more the Super fails to make a lot of an impression. Indeed, the one game the place I noticed a very dramatic enchancment was in Shadow of the Tomb Raider, which shot up by an enormous common of 10fps. However, even this victory is curtailed by the truth that the common GTX 1660 can nonetheless hit a easy 57fps, which is greater than sufficient for normal 60Hz monitor homeowners. You would possibly have the ability to see the distinction if in case you have a excessive refresh fee monitor, however for most individuals the common GTX 1660 places in a extra succesful efficiency on this respect.
Again, the one game the place that further energy would possibly profit you is in Metro Exodus, as even my drained eyes can inform the distinction between 35fps and one thing nearer to 40fps. The similar goes for taking part in on Medium settings as effectively. Metro confirmed a tangible enchancment from 45fps as much as 52fps right here (see beneath), however the soar from 52fps to 58fps in one thing like Monster Hunter: World wasn’t practically as noticeable.
As a consequence, the GTX 1660 Super has left me moderately underwhelmed general, because it merely doesn’t supply a large enough enchancment over its non-Super sibling to justify its existence. As I discussed above, Nvidia’s worth reduce for the GTX 1660 doesn’t appear to have taken impact simply but, so in the event you’re completely determined to improve your graphics card proper now then it could make sense to choose the Super. When it does occur, although, these seeking to save themselves some money will nearly actually be simply as proud of the common GTX 1660 as a substitute.
GTX 1660 vs 1660 Super: Conclusion
Overall, then, each playing cards supply just about equivalent efficiency throughout the board. Both excel at enjoying games on High high quality settings at 1080p, and each are greatest at dealing with a mixture of Medium to High graphics settings at 1440p. The Super might be able to ship mildly increased common body charges general, however the features you do get from that card merely aren’t sufficient to push you over into the subsequent high quality establishing. For that, you’re going to wish the costlier GTX 1660 Ti (and I’ll be doing an identical comparability piece between the GTX 1660 Super and GTX 1660 Ti tomorrow).
As such, I don’t actually see any have to go for the GTX 1660 Super over the GTX 1660 proper now, as your minute-to-minute gaming expertise doesn’t actually change a lot. Instead, I’d wait till Nvidia’s worth reduce for the GTX 1660 kicks in, after which choose up one on a budget.
