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.

Reviews
By
Published
Editor's Choice
(Image credit: © 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.

Nvidia set out to fill the gaps in the budget space and improve performance over the existing lineup. With the GTX 1660 Super, the company has accomplished just that. In our testing, we saw the 1660 Super generally trail the more expensive 1660 Ti. When testing higher, more GPU-dependent resolutions, the 1660 Ti slightly extends its lead in some of these titles, but not by much. The new Super card held its own next to the more expensive Ti, to say the least. 

Price versus performance is an important factor for many users, and we’ve seen that improve with the previous high-end Super cards. The value of the Super cards in reference to performance is much better than the vanilla, non-Super versions that came before them. A quick trip to Newegg shows GTX 1660 cards priced at $225-plus, and the 1660 Ti’s cheapest entry is $259.99. Nvidia’s MSRP for the 1660 Super is $229, which is also the price of the EVGA card we tested today. Without a price adjustment, it’s hard to argue for the 1660 Ti given it lands just slightly ahead of the 1660 Super and currently retails for at least $30 more. 

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
Joe Shields
Joe Shields
Staff Writer, Components

Joe Shields is a staff writer at Tom’s Hardware. He reviews motherboards and PC components.

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