Should I get a GTX 1060 or 1660ti, or RX590?

[Assassinhidblade]

Hi! I recently got a Ryzen 2200g and currenlty still using my old GTX 750 ti.

Im planning to upgrade since most games I play can barely run 40-50fps on medium or lower setting.

Budget is around 350 dollar. I'm struggling wether to get 1060 or 1660 since the price between them aren't that far off, but I could just get Rx590 for less and use the extra money to save or something.

Just need some opinion around here, thanks!

[UTFapolloMarine]

you can get a rx580 and put the other cash towards a game just throwing suggestions

[FUBAR]

1660

[Cloudy]

GTX 1660 Ti, may cost the most of the three but you'll thank yourself later. It will last longer before you need to update your GPU again. Yes you wont get as many free games with it and it will cost a little more, but it is the main part driving your game's graphics. If you are gaming often then its worth the extra coin to get the better GPU.

[ugafan]

1660 ti is the best card under $300.

rx 590 is the value option at $230 and 3 free games.

[Rumpelcrutchskin]

GTX 1660 Ti is far better then other choices and will last you longer.

[Double Deez Nuts]

Escrito originalmente por Rumpelcrutchskin:

GTX 1660 Ti

what is this supposed to be, the new 1060?

[Jinn-Gon Qui]

The GTX 1660 Ti will help in the long run.

[Assassinhidblade]

Thanks for the suggestion! Seem like 1660 is the better option here lol

[Monk]

Could also look at a vega 56, they can be had sub £300, are as fast as the 1660ti and has 8GB of vram.

[al3bgex]

Plssss dont go for a 1660 oder 1660ti ! Save ure money and get a vega 56 it has much more power more vram and its more futureproof actually games in fhd does use max 5 gb vram now

[Cloudy]

Escrito originalmente por AMD_VIP_ Fanboy :P:

Plssss dont go for a 1660 oder 1660ti ! Save ure money and get a vega 56 it has much more power more vram and its more futureproof actually games in fhd does use max 5 gb vram now

Your username speaks volumes

[Jinn-Gon Qui]

Escrito originalmente por Monk:

Could also look at a vega 56, they can be had sub £300, are as fast as the 1660ti and has 8GB of vram.

Escrito originalmente por AMD_VIP_ Fanboy :P:

Plssss dont go for a 1660 oder 1660ti ! Save ure money and get a vega 56 it has much more power more vram and its more futureproof actually games in fhd does use max 5 gb vram now

Vega 56 also tends to overheat and requires more wattage.

[xSOSxHawkens]

Escrito originalmente por Cloudy Canadian:

GTX 1660 Ti, may cost the most of the three but you'll thank yourself later. It will last longer before you need to update your GPU again. Yes you wont get as many free games with it and it will cost a little more, but it is the main part driving your game's graphics. If you are gaming often then its worth the extra coin to get the better GPU.

Though I agree with you on *most* of what you say, you are banking on the *wrong* card to last longer for the *wrong* reasons.

One acronym... VRAM...

If you are actualy going to argue long lasting game-able use, the 580/590 8GB *will* offer usable FPS for longer than the 16xx line because it has 8GB VRAM vs 6.

Rather than argue I will just point out already existing examples.

GTX-670 4GB vs 680 2GB.

The 680 *is* the more powerfull core, and so long as the games dont need more than 2GB VRAM the 680 will have a higher FPS, even past the VRAM limit it *might* hold a higher "average"...

BUT...

Go look up reviews on the 680-2GB using games that push 3.5-4GB VRAM use. Even *if* it can pull off a decent average the minimums are trash due to constant stuttering and frame loss due to VRAM buffer.

Meanwhile a 670-4GB is about 10-15% slower than a 1050ti, but having 4GB Vram and a decent enough core power, it pulls a *consistant* and playable FPS.

Another example would be the 960-2GB (almost unusable with little resale value) vs the 960-4GB (nearly identical to the 1050ti).

Escrito originalmente por 𐌌𐌉𐌕𐌇𐌓𐌀𐌔:

Escrito originalmente por Monk:

Could also look at a vega 56, they can be had sub £300, are as fast as the 1660ti and has 8GB of vram.

Escrito originalmente por AMD_VIP_ Fanboy :P:

Plssss dont go for a 1660 oder 1660ti ! Save ure money and get a vega 56 it has much more power more vram and its more futureproof actually games in fhd does use max 5 gb vram now

Vega 56 also tends to overheat and requires more wattage.

Vega's overheating is more a myth than people think. They are hot, but so is the RTX line, people seem to forget that... People make it out to more than it is...

But they *do* suck down the watts :)

Source: Vega 64 Reference model in main rig ;)
(and before fanboi claims get called, NV in rig 2 and 3, with Intel/Intel/AMD cores)
Fairly even balance between all vendors lol :)



VRAM is king now days. the 8GB card *will* offer bare minimum playable FPS longer. Period. There is not a big enough difference in the cores, and 6GB is *not* enough (FC5 @1080P maxed can push upwards of 7GB lol)...

[Jinn-Gon Qui]

Escrito originalmente por xSOSxHawkens:

Escrito originalmente por 𐌌𐌉𐌕𐌇𐌓𐌀𐌔:

Vega 56 also tends to overheat and requires more wattage.

Vega's overheating is more a myth than people think. They are hot, but so is the RTX line, people seem to forget that... People make it out to more than it is...

But they *do* suck down the watts :)

Source: Vega 64 Reference model in main rig ;)
(and before fanboi claims get called, NV in rig 2 and 3, with Intel/Intel/AMD cores)
Fairly even balance between all vendors lol :)

As far as I'm concerned, the RTX series is as disappointing as the Vega series. I'm not surprised about the heating factor of the RTX series, too.

[Cloudy]

Escrito originalmente por xSOSxHawkens:

Escrito originalmente por 𐌌𐌉𐌕𐌇𐌓𐌀𐌔:

Vega 56 also tends to overheat and requires more wattage.

But they *do* suck down the watts :)

Source: Vega 64 Reference model in main rig ;)
(and before fanboi claims get called, NV in rig 2 and 3, with Intel/Intel/AMD cores)
Fairly even balance between all vendors lol :)

*Odd* *flex* *but* *okay*