The 1660 is almost 13% faster than the 1650 Super across this testing. If we look at the AMD side using a 5500 XT (Gigabyte 8GB model), the 1660 is almost 9% faster and similarly priced.
For this set of cards, we tested at 1080p using ultra settings as well as medium settings. This gives us a good look at the cards working where they were intended to, while still trying to reach that magic 60 fps-plus metric many strive for. Jumping up to a higher resolution, even 2560x1440, uses more memory and would require turning down image quality settings even further in order to maintain reasonable frame rates.
Running at the Ultra settings, the Zotac GTX 1660 Amp’s performance ranged from 38 fps in Metro Exodus, up to 103 fps in the Forza Horizon 4 benchmark. Borderlands 3 and Ghost Recon Breakpoint sat under 60fps, alongside Metro. The rest of the titles were higher -- either very close to 60 fps or well above. Outside of a couple of games, 60 fps using Ultra type settings is certainly possible.
This is a terrible card for the above mentioned price. I just bought a 1660 super (zotac, basic version). Never goes above 74 degrees running full tilt for 3 hours (synthetic load) goes down to 70 after 10 mins
And I have cheap ass fans in my case that barely push any air out of the case... (And the stock intel cooler that just pumps out all the CPU's heat into the case)
Ambient temps are around 28 degrees at my place and it's quite humid.
Save your money and go with the 1660 super.
Edit: fixing a typo
Why would anyone consider paying $240 for a 1660 (non-SUPER) at this point, when a 1660 SUPER will perform 10-15% better and can be had for the same price or less? Zotac only offering 2 years of warranty coverage when most other manufacturers offer 3 doesn't help either.
The 1660 cards priced close to $200 make sense, but anything priced much over $210, not so much, seeing as you might as well go for a notably faster SUPER variant at that point.