Mid range Gpu choices

[scoobydoo10uk2000]

In a confused state of which gpu to get on my lowly £230 budget.   A gtx 1070.  Or a gtx 1660 super.  The 1070 has 8gb and 1660 6gb. Butvtge 1660 uses gddr6 unlike gddr5 for the 1070. And the 1660 is newer. Any advice/ opinions welcome. Thanks. 

[Fasauceome]

The 1660 super will outperform the 1070. If you don't need more ram (so basically if you're gaming) then the 1660 super is for you 

[Jurrunio]

1660S is better, it does better with low level APIs like DX12 and Vulkan which will over time, be more common than old DX11.

 

3 minutes ago, scoobydoo10uk2000 said:

The 1070 has 8gb and 1660 6gb. Butvtge 1660 uses gddr6 unlike gddr5 for the 1070

VRAM is the last thing to consider and not as important, unless you're looking at specific GPUs like the 1060 3GB. Benchmarks (i.e. real world performance) is what matters most.

[Marbo]

1660 super if the 2gb vram difference isn't a problem. 

[tdkid]

there are many factors in deciding on what GPU you should buy. I have been looking into this myself as I am about to replace mine. there is a video linus did just before Christmas in which he listed all the best GPUs of 2019. I would take a look at that video before deciding if either is best for you.

[BlackManINC]

6 hours ago, Jurrunio said:

1660S is better, it does better with low level APIs like DX12 and Vulkan which will over time, be more common than old DX11.

 

VRAM is the last thing to consider and not as important, unless you're looking at specific GPUs like the 1060 3GB. Benchmarks (i.e. real world performance) is what matters most.

I'd reckon that vram starts to matter at any resolution that's above 1080P, with settings on high or ultra to boot. If he plans on playing games at 1440P ultra, then vram absolutely matters. Why wouldn't it? Who plays games at 1080P anyway? I can't ever see myself going back to it after my recent evolution to 1440P. 

[Jurrunio]

36 minutes ago, BlackManINC said:

any resolution that's above 1080P, with settings on high or ultra to boot.

High or ultra 1440p on a 1660S/1070 class card, are you out of your mind? Before VRAM limits you, frame rate has already dipped beyond acceptable for games.

 

37 minutes ago, BlackManINC said:

Who plays games at 1080P anyway? I can't ever see myself going back to it after my recent evolution to 1440P. 

Me, poor me who can't afford 1440p hardware. Question?

[BlackManINC]

34 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

High or ultra 1440p on a 1660S/1070 class card, are you out of your mind? Before VRAM limits you, frame rate has already dipped beyond acceptable for games.

 

Me, poor me who can't afford 1440p hardware. Question?

Well, what is an acceptable frame rate to you? With my RX 470, a far inferior card than the 1070 and 1660S, I can accept a sub 60 frame rate in a single player game at 1440P. In Hitman 2 and Sekiro I get anywhere from 40 to 50 fps at 1440P over clocked. Playing Hitman 2 in particular at 1440P was an easy decision since my GPU struggled to maintain 60 fps even at 1080P anyway. 

 

But in online games like Squad I can easily achieve 60 fps high settings at 1440P. The point is, if I can get a decent performance at these settings with a less capable card, then you'll be just fine doing the same with a gtx 1070 and 1660S, especially if you overclock it. Mind you, I can afford a better card, I'm just waiting on AMD to respond to Nvidia with some higher end GPUs, like an RX 5900xt or something. 

 

 

[Jurrunio]

1 minute ago, BlackManINC said:

Well, what is an acceptable frame rate to you?

60fps minimum, higher on average frame rates. That's why I moved from 1080p 60Hz monitor to 144Hz, so I go over 60fps in demanding games and reach 140fps in esports games (as bad as I am in them)

 

6 minutes ago, BlackManINC said:

But in online games like Squad I can easily achieve 60 fps high settings at 1440P. The point is, if I can get a decent performance at these settings with a less capable card, then you'll be just fine doing the same with a gtx 1070 and 1660S, especially if you overclock it.

That's a 4 year old game, not even that impressive graphics wise no matter how high you turn it up today. I do have a GTX 1070, I know its capabilities very well, it barely meet my target performance with a mix of high and very high settings in games like Assassin's Creed Origins, Odyssey, Final Fantasy 15, Rise of the Tomb Raider, Shadow of the Tomb Raider (this one only high settings) and more. These games aren't even that new to begin with.

[MJK9]

so far no game manged to occupy all of the 6gb on my 1660S, highest was in Hitman '16 Bangkok level, short period of time manged to get to 6075mb out of 6144mb

keep an eye on Ti variant , you might find one at cheap price, extra HorsePower is worth it

[BlackManINC]

17 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

60fps minimum, higher on average frame rates. That's why I moved from 1080p 60Hz monitor to 144Hz, so I go over 60fps in demanding games and reach 140fps in esports games (as bad as I am in them)

 

That's a 4 year old game, not even that impressive graphics wise no matter how high you turn it up today. I do have a GTX 1070, I know its capabilities very well, it barely meet my target performance with a mix of high and very high settings in games like Assassin's Creed Origins, Odyssey, Final Fantasy 15, Rise of the Tomb Raider, Shadow of the Tomb Raider (this one only high settings) and more. These games aren't even that new to begin with.

Well Squad is more CPU intensive. I have an R7 3700X, so that just about narrows it down. Hitman 2 on the other hand is an entirely different story. That game is both CPU & GPU intensive. Getting a steady 60 fps even at 1080P is a pipe dream with my card, more or less. I need a new high end GPU badly.