Nvidia GeForce GTX 1660 Super Review: Ti-Like Performance for Less

Nvidia’s new Super card soars close to the performance of the GTX 1660 Ti.

By Joe Shields
published
Editor's Choice
(Image: © EVGA)

Why you can trust Tom's Hardware Our expert reviewers spend hours testing and comparing products and services so you can choose the best for you. Find out more about how we test.

Reaching or exceeding 60 fps is the typical goal of a PC gamer. This threshold, many feel, brings smooth gameplay and an enjoyable gaming experience. Nvidia designed the GTX 1660 Super to play modern titles at or beyond the 60 fps threshold with the common 1920 x 1080 resolution. In our testing, the EVGA GTX 1660 Super SC reached that watermark without issue across all of our benchmarks. It even passed 100 fps frequently in some titles, so you can use it as a budget high refresh video card as well. 

The 1660 Super held its own against the GTX 1660 Ti, landing just slightly behind in most titles, and trading punches in others. At 1080p, the 1660 Ti took six titles, while the 1660 Super was faster in four (albeit not by much). That said, the difference wasn’t much in either direction, amounting to a couple of fps/percent.

Unfortunately, we didn’t have a GTX 1660 on hand in time to get current comparison numbers of that card for this review. We realize this is a significant gap in testing, but we’re working steadily on filling any gaps for future reviews. That said, we know from the previous testing that the GTX 1660 is roughly 10% slower than the 1660 Ti, and the latter does end up sliding between the cards at this resolution, just as Nvidia claims.

The Division 2

Image 1 of 3
(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)

Strange Brigade

Image 1 of 3
(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)

Shadow of the Tomb Raider

Image 1 of 3
(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)

Metro: Exodus

Image 1 of 3
(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)

Grand Theft Auto V

Image 1 of 3
(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)

Forza Horizon 4

Image 1 of 3
(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)

Final Fantasy XV

Image 1 of 3
(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)

Far Cry 5

Image 1 of 3
(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)

Battlefield V

Image 1 of 3
(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)

The Witcher 3

Image 1 of 3
(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)

MORE: Best Graphics Cards

MORE: Desktop GPU Performance Hierarchy Table

MORE: All Graphics Content

Joe Shields
Joe Shields
Motherboard Reviewer

Joe Shields is a Freelance writer for Tom’s Hardware US. He reviews motherboards.

9 Comments Comment from the forums
  • WildCard999
    Pretty good for the money although I was hoping Nvidia would of released a dual fan reference version like the other Super cards.
    Reply
  • hannibal
    Well... Nvidia is actually redusing prices... Good! Competition is good!
    Reply
  • TJ Hooker
    I don't know if I've ever seen a TH graphics card review that had so few cards being compared. Leaving out the 1660 non-super seems odd, as does the lack of RX 590 (and 580). Even a Vega 56 would have been a good addition IMO.
    Reply
  • WildCard999
    TJ Hooker said:
    I don't know if I've ever seen a TH graphics card review that had such few cards being compared. Leaving out the 1660 non-super seems odd, as does the lack of RX 590 (and 580). Even a Vega 56 would have been a good addition IMO.
    https://www.techspot.com/review/1935-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1660-super/

    Covers a good amount of GPU's & games for 1080P/1440P.
    Reply
  • King_V
    TJ Hooker said:
    I don't know if I've ever seen a TH graphics card review that had such few cards being compared. Leaving out the 1660 non-super seems odd, as does the lack of RX 590 (and 580). Even a Vega 56 would have been a good addition IMO.

    I think it's because of the new testing platform, thus the results on the new platform don't correspond correctly with the results from the previous platform?
    Reply
  • TJ Hooker
    King_V said:
    I think it's because of the new testing platform, thus the results on the new platform don't correspond correctly with the results from the previous platform?
    Ah, yeah that makes sense. Looking at the RX 5700 XT Nitro+ review they did the same thing there.
    Reply
  • hussainali88
    I think there is a mistake on the first page. The Memory Capacity for all 1660 all variants should be 6GB not 8GB.
    Reply
  • King_V
    I'm actually relieved to find out that it actually uses about the same, or slightly less power, than the 1660Ti. It seems like the 120W rating of the 1660Ti was slightly understated, and the 125W rating of the 1660 Super is about spot on. Maybe the 1660Ti should've been listed with a 130W rating?

    In any case, it does seem like the performance/price lands solidly in favor of the Super, and they're about tied in efficiency.
    Reply
  • RodroX
    HI, I think on the table by the first page of the article, were it said 8GB, shouldn't be 6GB instead?
    Reply