Help - 1660ti, 5700xt or 2070 Super

martin363 · 15 Sep 2019 at 04:44

I am struggling. I am lucky in that budget isn't really a consideration, but good value for money and longer life is, and I don't want buyers remorse.

My main rig has a 2080 and I have another 'office' PC with a 970 (and Xeon 1231v3) on a 1440p monitor (@75hz). I want to use the 970 for another project and so am looking to replace the 970 with an alternative 'upgrade'. I game a little on the office PC, but nothing significant. however I am torn between a 1660ti for under £300, a 5700xt for about £400 and a 2070 super for about £540.

I do have a use for CUDA for some transcoding, but do this mostly on my main rig. I may upgrade the Xeon next year to a Ryzen 3600.

The 1660ti probably offers best value, and will meet or exceed my current needs, but I know in a couple of years it will be 'slow', and I will be in the same spot (6gb is also a concern). The 5700xt is therefore the next sensible option, but if I am going to go way over the current 'necessary' to extend life, then I may as well get the 2070 super..... and no doubt will be happy with that for a bit longer, and benefit from the Nvidia software reliability and potential CUDA use.

Please help with your thoughts and opinions, would real value some thoughts.

Orange Nexus · 15 Sep 2019 at 07:24

If you are considering the 1660 ti, why not the 5700? It is much faster. Only a few % slower than the XT.

The 5700 is a 1440 gpu.

martin363 · 15 Sep 2019 at 07:40

Orange Nexus said:
If you are considering the 1660 ti, why not the 5700? It is much faster. Only a few % slower than the XT.

The 5700 is a 1440 gpu.

True, I guess is it about either spending what I need, or spending a lot more for some future-proofing. question is spend less, and do the job, or spend more, but then how much more is sensible, and satisfying.

Orange Nexus · 15 Sep 2019 at 08:03

martin363 said:
True, I guess is it about either spending what I need, or spending a lot more for some future-proofing. question is spend less, and do the job, or spend more, but then how much more is sensible, and satisfying.

I own a 5700 and the XT. I don't see a difference between these two in gaming. In benchmarks, yes, but without staring at the fps - you won't see a difference.

nashathedog · 15 Sep 2019 at 09:00

A 2060s might be worth considering too.

4K8KW10 · 15 Sep 2019 at 09:02

Orange Nexus said:
I own a 5700 and the XT. I don't see a difference between these two in gaming. In benchmarks, yes, but without staring at the fps - you won't see a difference.

Without staring at the FPS, you won't see a difference between RX 5700XT and RTX 2080 Ti.... And perhaps somewhat slower cards than the 5700 XT, too.

Nasher · 15 Sep 2019 at 09:48

Vega still holds up quite well to and they are way cheaper now.

Panos · 15 Sep 2019 at 11:56

martin363 said:
I am struggling. I am lucky in that budget isn't really a consideration, but good value for money and longer life is, and I don't want buyers remorse.

My main rig has a 2080 and I have another 'office' PC with a 970 (and Xeon 1231v3) on a 1440p monitor (@75hz). I want to use the 970 for another project and so am looking to replace the 970 with an alternative 'upgrade'. I game a little on the office PC, but nothing significant. however I am torn between a 1660ti for under £300, a 5700xt for about £400 and a 2070 super for about £540.

I do have a use for CUDA for some transcoding, but do this mostly on my main rig. I may upgrade the Xeon next year to a Ryzen 3600.

The 1660ti probably offers best value, and will meet or exceed my current needs, but I know in a couple of years it will be 'slow', and I will be in the same spot (6gb is also a concern). The 5700xt is therefore the next sensible option, but if I am going to go way over the current 'necessary' to extend life, then I may as well get the 2070 super..... and no doubt will be happy with that for a bit longer, and benefit from the Nvidia software reliability and potential CUDA use.

Please help with your thoughts and opinions, would real value some thoughts.

Define "Potential CUDA use". On what? "Transcoding" is pretty vague subject.

Poneros · 15 Sep 2019 at 12:19

None of the above.

Vega 56. Better & cheaper. And like you say that you game 'little' on it. What's the point in overspending? By the time this reaches the level that the 970 is at now, you're gonna be able to pick up another £200-300 GPU that's gonna be great. In this case paying the prices for those cards makes no sense.

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/powe...hbm2-pci-express-graphics-card-gx-193-pc.html

D1craig · 15 Sep 2019 at 22:40

What is the "reliable" software with nvidia? Just curious as this has never been something I've looked into when making a purchase.

martin363 · 16 Sep 2019 at 03:34

Thanks for all your comments. I think I will go for the 1660ti. As said, in a couple of years I can always switch it out again, and no point in overpaying on possible future use cases.

Orange Nexus · 16 Sep 2019 at 08:56

martin363 said:
Thanks for all your comments. I think I will go for the 1660ti. As said, in a couple of years I can always switch it out again, and no point in overpaying on possible future use cases.

That Ti is slower but too close to the price of the RTX 2060 non-super. And to the RX 5700, too, which is faster than both. The GTX 1660Ti is comparable to the old GTX 1070 and is also slower than the GTX 1070 Ti.

4K8KW10 · 16 Sep 2019 at 10:05

martin363 said:
Thanks for all your comments. I think I will go for the 1660ti. As said, in a couple of years I can always switch it out again, and no point in overpaying on possible future use cases.

Radeon RX 5700 8GB is 20-30% faster than GTX 1660 Ti 6GB.
Radeon RX 5700 XT 8GB is 40% faster than GTX 1660 Ti 6GB.

martin363 · 16 Sep 2019 at 13:35

4K8KW10 said:
Radeon RX 5700 8GB is 20-30% faster than GTX 1660 Ti 6GB.
Radeon RX 5700 XT 8GB is 40% faster than GTX 1660 Ti 6GB.

And a custom 5700 is about 35% more expensive than a GTX 1660ti, which is itself about 35% faster than a GTX 970, so the performance / value equation does not really favour the 5700.., which is why I left it out my original consideration. The custom 7500xt is about 50% faster that the GTX 1660ti, whilst being about 50% more expensive, so the 5700xt offers a better value alternative, hence I ruled out the 5700. (of OC - £280 vs £370-£380 vs £420).

4K8KW10 · 16 Sep 2019 at 13:55

martin363 said:
And a custom 5700 is about 35% more expensive than a GTX 1660ti, which is itself about 35% faster than a GTX 970, so the performance / value equation does not really favour the 5700.., which is why I left it out my original consideration. The custom 7500xt is about 50% faster that the GTX 1660ti, whilst being about 50% more expensive, so the 5700xt offers a better value alternative, hence I ruled out the 5700. (of OC - £280 vs £370-£380 vs £420).

Something is wrong with your estimates.
GTX 1660 Ti is 279, while RX 5700 is 320. 14.7% price difference for 20-30% performance increase.
And 2GB more VRAM.

Boomstick777 · 16 Sep 2019 at 13:57

I went for a 1660 Ti as stop gap, I bought mine used mind for £180. Actually a lil power house. Like a super charged GTX 1070.

If you can get a cheap one. Def recommend.

martin363 · 16 Sep 2019 at 14:04

4K8KW10 said:
Something is wrong with your estimates.
GTX 1660 Ti is 279, while RX 5700 is 320. 14.7% price difference for 20-30% performance increase.
And 2GB more VRAM.

Sorry, but I can't see a custom 5700 (as I quoted) on OC for less than £368.99? the ref AMD coolers are £320, which no one is advised to buy?

LePhuronn · 16 Sep 2019 at 14:48

martin363 said:
the ref AMD coolers are £320, which no one is advised to buy?

No one advises? That's not true. The talk of the 5700 XT being hot and loud is largely overblown to start with, and that issue is exclusive to the XT anyway. The non-XT has never had the heat and noise "problems".

Your money, of course, but really the sub £500 price point belongs to AMD, you'd be mad to get anything Nvidia.

Panos · 17 Sep 2019 at 09:06

martin363 said:
the ref AMD coolers are £320, which no one is advised to buy?

I have 5700XT AE with the stock fan curve and auto undervolt. The card isn't loud and doesn't have heat or noise issues. Could easily be comparable to my old GTX1080TI Xtreme, which nobody called a loud card, did any?
Or the Vega 64 Nitro.

And wrote many times, in terms of "noise" needs to be defined what pitch it has also. Different noise makes at 40db the whining fan from GTX1080FE/980TI FE/1080Ti FE/Titan(any)/Vega 64/290X blower cooler, different noise makes at 40db moving air through the vents on a 5700XT. Because there is no fan noise, just air moving.

Sure if I shove a microphone to the vents it would capture the moving air and add extra noise to the microphone. But at half meter away from the head, the only thing someone hears is the moving air, like in all high powered AIB 3 fan cooler graphic cards.

Orange Nexus · 17 Sep 2019 at 14:32

Panos said:
I have 5700XT AE with the stock fan curve and auto undervolt. The card isn't loud and doesn't have heat or noise issues. Could easily be comparable to my old GTX1080TI Xtreme, which nobody called a loud card, did any?
Or the Vega 64 Nitro.

And wrote many times, in terms of "noise" needs to be defined what pitch it has also. Different noise makes at 40db the whining fan from GTX1080FE/980TI FE/1080Ti FE/Titan(any)/Vega 64/290X blower cooler, different noise makes at 40db moving air through the vents on a 5700XT. Because there is no fan noise, just air moving.

Sure if I shove a microphone to the vents it would capture the moving air and add extra noise to the microphone. But at half meter away from the head, the only thing someone hears is the moving air, like in all high powered AIB 3 fan cooler graphic cards.

The hot spot on my reference 5700 reaches 82c gaming at stock. This is in an old HAF 912 case. But, then again, my GTX 1060 always went 83c gaming. The thing is the fan at stock is set to max out at 39% no more. Manually setting it to 41%, which is still inaudible, that temp does not see 80c.