Nvidia now have a Super version of the GTX 1660, but how does it compare to the 1660
Ti and which should you get? I’ve compared 15 games at 1080p and 1440p to show you the
differences and help you decide.
Let’s take a look at how the 1660 Super and 1660 Ti differ in terms of specs, note
that things like clock speeds will vary between specific cards, these are just the reference
specs for each. The older 1660 Ti has 9% more CUDA cores, however the Super has slightly
higher base and boost clocks. The Ti has more texture units, and although both have 6GB
of GDDR6 memory, the newer Super version is faster.
For the testing I’m using the MSI Gaming X version of both the GTX 1660 Super and GTX
1660 Ti, so results should be fairly comparable. Both of these have a small out of the box
overclock, expect slightly different results with different models.
The system that I’m testing with has an Intel i7-8700K CPU overclocked to 5GHz on
all cores in an MSI Z390 ACE motherboard, along with 16GB of DDR4-3200 CL14 memory running
in dual channel. You can check the links in the description for details on all of the
components as well as for up to date pricing. The same drivers and Windows updates were
used for all testing, so let’s get into the games.
Control was tested running through the start of the game, with the same test pass completed
each time. Although the 1660 cards are aimed at 1080p gaming, I’ve also thrown in 1440p
results too as some games are definitely capable. With the high preset, at 1080p the 1660 TI
was just 2.7% faster than the 1660 Super, and 4.5% ahead at 1440p.
Shadow of the Tomb Raider was tested with the game’s built in benchmark. At 1080p
the Ti was 3.6% ahead of the Super, increasing to a 5.5% lead at 1440p.
Apex Legends was tested with all graphical settings at maximum, and at 1080p there was
basically no difference between the two, but then with the higher 1440p resolution there
was a larger 7% improvement to average frame rate with the 1660 Ti.
Borderlands 3 was tested with the game’s benchmark tool, and this title was seeing
an above average increase to performance with the Ti, granted it’s still a somewhat small
difference, with the 1660 Ti just 5% ahead at both resolutions in average FPS.
Battlefield 5 was tested in campaign mode with the highest ultra preset. There wasn’t
much difference between the two with this game, just a 2.6% boost at 1080p with the
Ti and 2.8% at 1440p.
Assassin’s Creed Odyssey was tested with the built in benchmark, and I typically find
this test to be more CPU dependent, which probably explains why there was basically
no difference between the Super and Ti here.
I’ve tested Fortnite with the new Chapter 2 map, the replay feature was temporarily
removed when I did this testing, so I played through the same part of the game in the same
way for each test. At 1080p the 1660 Super saw the biggest improvement out of all games
tested with a 7.8% improvement to average FPS, though the 1440p difference was lower,
putting the Ti just 3% ahead.
Ghost Recon Breakpoint was tested using the built in benchmark at very high settings,
and was another with minimal differences between the two. The Ti was just 1.2% faster at 1080p
in average FPS, doubling to a 2.4% improvement at 1440p, granted this is only a 1 FPS change.
Overwatch was tested playing in the practice range, and this game saw the second largest
improvement with the Ti out of all games tested, though it was only about 6% ahead of the Super.
PUBG was tested using the replay feature, with the exact same replay file used for each
test. No noticeable differences here, at 1080p the results are basically within margin of
error, and then at 1440p the difference is still small with a 2.6% advantage to the Ti
in average FPS.
Rainbow Six Siege was tested with the built in benchmark. Just looking at the results
I want to say there’s basically no major differences, because as we’ve seen there’s
hardly any difference between the Ti and Super. Despite this, this game was above average
out of the titles tested, with the Ti coming out 3% ahead at 1080p and 5% ahead at 1440p.
The Witcher 3 was tested with ultra settings, and like most other games hardly any real
difference between the Super and Ti. At 1080p the Ti was just 2.5% ahead of the Super, rising
ever so slightly to 2.6% higher at 1440p.
Strange Brigade was tested as a Vulkan title using the built in benchmark. The differences
in this game were below average, with just a 2% improvement on the Ti at both 1080p and
1440p resolutions.
I’ve tested CS:GO with the Ulletical FPS benchmark, as I wanted to see how a game that
typically favours CPU power would behave. At 1080p there was a small 1.1% improvement
to average FPS with the Ti, however a larger 8% rise to 1% low was noted. At 1440p the
change to average FPS rose a little, with the Ti now 4% ahead of the Super.
Far Cry New Dawn was tested with the game’s benchmark tool. At 1080p there was just a
3.3% improvement with the Ti, lowering to a 2.4% higher average frame rate at 1440p.
In terms of overall improvement, over all 15 games on average the GTX 1660 Ti was performing
about 3% better when compared against the GTX 1660 Super in terms of average FPS. As
you can see, the results can vary quite a bit between specific game, however realistically
there wasn’t much practical performance difference between them.
When we step the resolution up to 1440p the difference only changes slightly, on average
the GTX 1660 Ti is now 3.7% ahead of the GTX 1660 Super on average, so not too much of
a change there with the higher resolution. I don’t think either of these are a great
choice for 1440p gaming, though some games do run fine, it’ll come down to settings
and what frame rate you want to target.
As for the differences in total system power draw the system with the 1660 Super was actually
using 6% more power from the wall when under the same test. I thought these were odd results,
so checked with Steve at Hardware Unboxed, and he had the Super as using 5% more power
in a different game, I suggest checking out his video if you want to see more 1660 Super
results.
Temperatures were quite close, with the Ti just 1 degree higher, again in the same F1
2019 test. The results should be quite comparable, as I used MSI’s Gaming X version of each
with the same cooling design.
Now for the final difference, the price. I suggest checking updated prices using the
links in the description, as prices will change over time. The MSRP is meant to be $230 USD
for the Super and $280 for the Ti, so $50 or 21% more money for the Ti. The MSI Gaming
X Super I’m using is meant to be $249 USD, while the 1660 Ti Gaming X currently goes
for $308, so 23% more money for the Ti in that case.
Here in Australia MSI’s 1660 Super Gaming X that I’ve tested is going for $439 AUD,
while the same version but 1660 Ti is $499 AUD, or 13.6% more money.
In my opinion the new GTX 1660 Super is better value, in my country you need to pay around
13% more money to go for the Ti, or apparently 20% more in the US, and on average it’s
only offering 3% better performance at 1080p. As we just saw in most games the results were
very close, which makes the 1660 Super seem like a strange release, why not just drop
the price of the Ti instead or something?
In the end the 1660 Super is giving almost the same levels of performance, you’re just
not practically going to notice a 3% or so performance difference, so due to the cheaper
price of the newer 1660 Super it would be my pick between the two if I was buying today.
With that said though, if you can find a 1660 Ti on a good sale, it could be worthwhile
for the lower power draw.
Let me know which you’d pick and why down in the comments, GTX 1660 Super or 1660 Ti?
This specific comparison is of course only relative between these two cards, I’ll be
doing more comparisons in the future once the 1650 Super and AMD’s new options come
out, so if you’re new to the channel consider getting subscribed for future tech videos
like those.