These are just the reference specs for each model. The 1660 is coming out ahead in pretty much all aspects: more cuda cores higher base and boost clock speeds, plus nvidia snoo occurring architecture. However, both have the same 6 gig of gddr5 memory. Finn, the testing I'm using the msi gtx 1660 gaming x and anna seuss gtx 1066 gig dual fan card, so both have a small factory overclock expect slightly different results with different models. The system that I'm testing with has an Intel i7 8700 K, CPU overclocked to 5.0 gigahertz and an MSI, is at '0 gaming per Kelvin motherboard, along with 16 gig of T Force, Nighthawk seal 16 memory from Team Group running a ddr4 3200 in dual channel check. The links in the description for details on all of the components as well as for up to date, pricing, the same windows updates game updates. An Nvidia driver for 19.3 5 were used for the testing, so let's get into the results. Let'S start out with Apex legends which was tested with all settings maxed out in all upcoming graphs. I'Ve got the gtx 1660 shown by the top bar in red, while the older gtx 1060 is shown below in purple, while the two different resolutions 1080p in 1440p. As shown on the left in terms of average FPS, the 1660 was 15 ahead of the 1060 at 1080p. However, only 5 ahead at 1440p Assassin's Creed Odyssey was tested with the built in benchmark using high settings, and the 1660 was coming out ahead here, 7, faster in terms of average frame rate over the older 1060 at 1080p, rising up to eleven percent improvement at 1440p Battlefield five was tested in campaign mode rather than multiplayer as it's easy to consistently reproduce the test run.

I found both cards to deliver a fairly playable experience with high settings even with 1440p, though. Realistically I had lower settings of that resolution for this game at 1080p. The 1660 was 17 ahead of the 1060 and just under 20 ahead at 1440p, though it's worth noting the difference to 1 low, which was consistent, far cry, new dawn was tested with the built in benchmark with high settings, and once again the 1660 was coming out Ahead in all results at 1080p, the 1660 was 13.7 percent faster than the 1060 and then a little further ahead at 1440p at 14.6, far cry 5 was also tested with the built in benchmark with high settings, and this game was seeing higher FPS over the newer. Far Cry new dawn just shown for average framerate there was a 10 percent boost at 1080p and almost 14 percent at 1440p with a 16 60. However, this was another test where the one percent lows were looking better on the 1060 fortnight was tested using the replay feature with the exact same replay on both graphics cards. This was another game that I thought was easily playable on either card, even at 1440p, with high settings and use as it's pretty well optimized. At 1080p, the 1660 was performing 10 ahead of the 1060 and just under 9 percent faster at 1440p, though less difference in the 1 lower with the 1060 once again, winning there at 1080p Metro Exodus was tested with the built in benchmark at high settings.

The actual game performs a fair bit ahead of this, so this is more of a synthetic test rather than representative of actual gameplay, but it does allow me to accurately compare between the two graphics cards. With that in mind, the 1660 was 10.9 ahead of the 1060. Rising to twelve point two percent faster at 1440p shadow of the Tomb Raider, was also tested using the built in benchmark with high settings. This seems to be more of a graphically intensive test. As out of bowl games tested, it saw the second biggest improvement with the 1660 at 1080p. The 1660 was 18.7 ahead of the 1060, then 21.4, ahead, 1440p Rainbow six siege was tested using the built in benchmark at high settings with the 50 render scale and taa in use, as these are default with the built in presets. This is a game that I found to prefer invidious neutering architecture, so we're, seeing the largest improvements out of all of the games tested with the 1660, which was coming out 28 ahead of the 10th 60 at 1080p and 31 of 1440p. If you play a lot of Rainbow six, definitely check out a Turing based card, csgo was tested with the Aletta Kalev PS benchmark, and both cards were delivering very high frame rates as usual, although out of all 16 games, this one saw the smallest change between the Two with no major differences, there was a larger difference to the 1 lows with the 1660 further ahead of the 1060 and I'd argue in a game like this, once you've already got higher average FPS.

This becomes more of an advantage as you get fewer dips over, which was tested in the practice range, as I can easily perform the same test run compared to playing with bots or other players, which will differ every time. Both of these cards were capable of providing a great experience at 1440p, even with ultra settings in use, as it is a well optimised game in terms of the differences at 1080p. The 1660 was just 4 ahead of the 1060 and 2.5 ahead of 1440p. So no major differences in this game. Pub G was tested using the replay feature with the exact same replay at high settings and just under the 60fps sweet spot was possible with the 1660, though, of course possible would be achievable with lower settings. As for the differences at 1080p, the 1660 was 15 ahead of the 1060 in average FPS and 11.8, faster at 1440p, with fairly decent improvements to 1 low same with the 1660 as well 22 at 1080p and 18 of 1440p watchdogs, 2 was a resource, intensive game And was tested with high settings. In my opinion, this one doesn't need a high frame rate to play. I can get by with a solid 30 FPS, so birth cards were giving me a playable experience at 1440p. As for the differences at 1080p, the 1660 was 10.6 ahead of the 1060, rising slightly to 12 ahead at 1440p, Ghost Recon was tested with the built in benchmark and high in use and is another resource heavy game.

Despite this, the 1660 was almost averaging 60 FPS. In this test at 1440p, though, some of that would have caused speed, jutsu my overclocked 8700 K. As for the differences, the 1660 was 11.5 ahead of the 1060 at 1080p and 11 percent higher at 1440p. The Witcher 3 was tested with her works. Disabled and, like most other games, was playable at both 1080p and 1440p, even with high settings and use with the 1060 just able to maintain above 60 FPS at 1080p. The 1660 was 18 ahead of the 1060 and 16 ahead. At 1440p, strange Brigade was tested with the built in bench mark using Vulcan, with a sink computer, enabled maxed out at Ultra settings at 1080p. The 1660 was 17 ahead of the 1060 and 16 ahead. At 1440p, but what's more interesting is the 1 load from the 1660 wasn't, far behind the average FPS of the 1060 at 1080p and was basically the same at 1440p in terms of overall improvement overall 16 games tested with the 1080p resolution. On average, the GTX 1660 was performing 13 better when compared with the GTX 1060 in terms of average FPS, we can see Rainbow. Six siege is coming out far ahead, as mentioned, it really seems to work well with cheering. However, even if we don't include that result, we're still looking at a 12 percent improvement on average with the 1660 in these games at 1440p on average over the same 16 games, the GTX 1660 was now scoring 13.

1 higher average frame rates when compared with the GTX 1060, so only just slightly more when compared to the 1080p results just shown again if we don't include the huge boost from rainbow 6 we're, still looking at a 12 percent improvement on average, with the 1660 over the 1060 here's. What we're, looking at in terms of synthetic benchmarks, I've just tested 3d marks by a strike time, spy and VR macchia now for the final difference, the price I suggest, checking updated prices using the links in the description as prices will change over time. At the time of recording in the US, my MSI gaming, x16 60 is going for 200 50 US dollars. However, entry level 1660s start at 219 u.s. dollars. The 1066 gig seems to go from 200 US dollars and up. It really varies by the model and remember there is a three gig model of the 1060, which is cheaper than what I'm showing here, but also performs worse we're, not considering that here my exact 1060 model is sold on Newegg. That is either overpriced through an external company or still costs more than a 1660 for an open box one. So, unless you're getting a good price on a 1060 in general, the newest 1660 seems worth picking and is what I'd go for today, especially given it performs better too. If you've already got a 1066 gig, is it worth upgrading to the 1660? I think it depends on the game, but in general, not really as you're, only getting a 13 percent improvement on average.

Personally, I thought my upgrade to count for more and the 1660 ti isn't much extra than the 1660 if you need more power or otherwise, look at the second hand, market for a cheap 1070 as that performs about the same as the 1660 ti for less money. As the 1660 is still fairly new, you might have a hard time finding it on the used market. At the moment, though, that will change over time. The 1060, on the other hand, is much easier to find second hand, given it's been out for years now. So you've got the option of saving some money there and, as we saw, the 1060 still does perform quite well in modern titles with good settings. Let me know which card you'd pick down in the comments and why the newer gtx, 1660 or older, but still capable gtx 1060, and if you're new here don't forget to subscribe for more comparisons and tech.