3440x1440p shadow of the tomb raider
This also allows for very compact card designs, such as PNY XLR8 card we used for testing. The GTX 1660 Ti is also an efficient card, with a modest 120W TDP that compares favourably to the 150W GTX 1070 and 175W RX 590.
This means that the card will be a little more future-proof than its Pascal predecessors, even if full-fat RTX cards are likely to remain relevant for longer. Specifically, new shader models should allow for increased performance in games that support them, such as Variable Rate Shading in Wolfenstein 2: The New Colossus. While the lack of RT and Tensor cores mean that RTX and DLSS are off the table, other Turing features that don't rely on this dedicated hardware have made it in. In this article, we'll show you exactly what sort of frame-rates you should expect in a selection of recent titles.īefore we get into the results, let's briefly cover what you get with the GTX 1660 Ti over the GTX 1060 beyond an uptick in raw performance. In essence, the new GPU should offer performance between the GTX 1070 and RTX 2060, at a lower price than both: £259 in the UK and $279 in the US. The ball is now in Nvidia's court to respond with either a price drop or a sooner reveal of its upcoming Volta GPUs, because AMD is back with a compelling choice for enthusiast gamers.The GTX 1660 Ti seems to be what many in the gaming community have been asking for: an affordable Nvidia graphics card that leaves out real-time ray tracing and DLSS but still delivers the increased performance of the Turing architecture. Still, this doesn't prevent the card from being arguably faster than the GTX 1080 for $50 less. It also consumes a bewildering amount of power and runs a bit warm. While the RX Vega 64 is a really good card, it's a bit hard to get super excited since it's coming out more than 14 months after the GTX 1080 and doesn't completely trounce it. AMD says that it's an ideal card to max out ultra-wide 3440x1440p monitors, and we'd agree and say that's where its sweet spot is. The most graphically demanding games will give it a tough time. It won't be able to max out every single 4K game, though. As a matter of fact, it runs slightly better at 4K given our results. Those people may be disappointed with the RX Vega 64, as Nvidia's leading $700 graphics card still remains in a league of its own, but it does largely live up to AMD's claim that it's competitive with the $550 GeForce GTX 1080. Some people were hoping that AMD's leading Vega GPU would outperform the GeForce GTX 1080 Ti.
As you’ll see from our benchmarks below, however, teraflop count doesn't tell the whole story.
The RX Vega 64 is a 12.7 teraflop card, which trumps Nvidia’s equivalent GPU by 3.8 teraflops. For reference, the GTX 1080's GDDDR5X VRAM is capped at 320GB/s. This allows the card to deliver up to 483.8GB/s of memory bandwidth. It's clocked at 945MHz, but what makes it really efficient is its really wide 2048-bit memory bus. HBM2 is a new type of "3D" VRAM, which means it's memory that's densely stacked vertically.
It uses 8GB of second-generation high-bandwidth memory (HBM2) for video RAM. These are some of AMD's highest clock speeds to date, and the company says the card is tuned for high frequencies and should be able to boost higher than those numbers if it gets adequate power and cooling. In terms of core and boost clocks, it's clocked at 1274MHz and 1546MHz, respectively. Like AMD's RX 480 and RX 580 Polaris GPUs before it, Vega graphics cards are based on a 14nm FinFet production process. The RX Vega 64 partially gets its name from the fact that it has 64 compute units. should only be used as a frame of reference against other cards within the same family for an apples-to-apples comparison. Note: Specs like stream processors, CUDA cores, and core clocks, etc.