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.
Moving on to a higher resolution, the first thing we notice after looking through all the graphs is the overall performance delta between the Ti and Super increased slightly. The difference still isn’t much, a few percent at most. Where the Super wins, the difference is almost negligible. It's clear the GTX 1660 Ti can flex its muscle when we lean on the GPU a bit more at the higher resolution.
Regardless of which card is faster, the GTX 1660 Super can easily run 60 fps on most titles. The only games where it fell short were Metro: Exodus and Final Fantasy XV, our resident GPU-killers. All in all, the GTX 1660 Super proved itself to be a worthy 2560 x 1440 card, too.
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.
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 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?
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.
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.
