EVGA GeForce GTX 1660 SC Ultra Gaming, 06G-P4-1067-KR, 6GB GDDR5, Dual Fan

EVGA GeForce GTX 1660 SC Ultra Gaming, 06G-P4-1067-KR, 6GB GDDR5, Dual Fan

EVGA GeForce GTX 1660 SC Ultra Gaming, 06G-P4-1067-KR, 6GB GDDR5, Dual Fan

alright guys our launch day reviews of 1660 super today we are back with another card this type is EVGA 1660 super SC ultra so this is a very compact dual fan card that also comes factory overclocked with an 18 13 megahertz rated boost clock on top of that the RGB haters out there will absolutely love this card as there is simply no lighting anywhere on the card as for pricing we were initially told that this is going to be an MSRP card so should have cost 

but looking online today this code is currently retailing for above MSRP if we kick off this review though with a look at the card itself and the overall shroud design we can see that EVGA is using a great plastic shroud it also has some holes in the shroud itself which definitely gives it a bit of a unique aesthetic but speaking personally I have to say I'm not too convinced about the kind of shade of gray that EVGA is 

using for the shroud to me I don't know there's just something about it just looks slightly off but obviously at his personal preference I just personally would have preferred a back shroud then again unless you mount this card vertically you're really not going to see it once it's installed in your case so I guess it doesn't matter too much we can also get a look at those two fans EVGA has fitted to the card initially I actually thought these were 100 millimeter fans just 

because they take up pretty much all of the space on the underside of the shroud but they are actually 19 millimeters across which is pretty standard for a dual fan card on top of that these fans do actually have a fan stop mode so when the car is just idling those fans do stop spinning which is a feature I always appreciate now as four dimensions we already mentioned that this is a very compact card and an actual fact it only measures 200 2.1 millimeters long and it's a 

hundred eleven point one five millimeters tall so it is definitely very very small and on top of that it's only a standard dual slot thickness so about 40 millimeters thick but to my mind really means it should fit in pretty much any case on the market , moving onto the front side of the shroud now here we can see the EVGA and the geforce gtx logos but do bear in mind that these don't actually light up as they are simply no lighting anywhere on the card so they are just 

you know printed logos flipping the card onto its back cover we can also get a look at the full-length metal backplate i stress the word metal ware because pretty much every card around this price point is either gonna have a plastic back plate or it's just gonna have no back plate whatsoever so the fact that you've j is actually fitted a metal backplate is definitely a positive point for me it just really gives the car a bit more of a premium feel in the hand and i also much 

prefer the look of the metal backplate we can also see that power requirements are standard for the 1660 super width:18px ER and then as for video display outputs we can see that EVGA has gone for one DisplayPort one HDMI and then one DVI opening up the card now we can get a look at the PCB and we can see that EVGA has gone for a three-phase vrn for the GPU and a two-phase vrm for the memory so that's the same configuration as pallets gaming OC pro 

speaking of the memory leaves sit under very thick film pads and remember it's DVD r6 for the 1660s super and the modules are from micron lastly we can also get a look at the tu-16 GPU which is absolutely identical to the GPU use for the vanilla gtx 1660 as for the heatsink EVGA is using a single fin stack which has two thick 10 millimeter copper heat pipes the GPU dye itself also contacts with a copper cold plate but there isn't actually another culprit for the 

memory modules instead they contact directly with the fin sack via those thermal pads we already mentioned lastly it is also worth pointing out that there's actually no dedicated contact calling for the BRM instead the vrm relies solely on airflow from those two 90 millimeter fans for its cooling we reached out to EVGA about this just to kind of understand the thinking behind this decision and they basically told us in a nutshell that because the 1660s Reaper is a 

lower wattage the vrm can stay inspect without actually having any dedicated cooling with just getting airflow from the two fans well that is fair enough and I can understand the thinking there to me it does feel like a cost-cutting measure particularly when the pallet gaming Pro OC which is actually cheaper than the SC ultra that card actually has again dedicated cooling for the vrm so to my mind EVGA is actually cutting costs or kind of just trying to save a few 

pennies here and there by going with no dedicated cooling for the vrm so that is basically it for our look at the card itself but just how well does it perform well if we start with our temperature testing after a thirty minute five strike ultra of stress test the GPU core itself peak at 67 degrees so that is a very solid result even in the context of our other 16 supers it is two degrees hotter and then the pallet gaming pro OC but that really isn't much of a difference at 

all and it's not like 67 degrees is a bad temperature less impressive though is the noise levels of this card and that is for me the biggest downside to the SC ultra I measure you producing about 48 decibels of noise on our sound meter so it is a relatively loud card and that's actually four decibels louder than pallets Gaming Pro OC which is a noticeable difference to my mind EVGA is definitely having to compensate here for its lack of dedicated PRN cooling under load we 

actually saw the fans ramped up to 2,300 rpm so to me that does suggest that EVGA is kind of paying the price for its lack of dedicated vrn cooling as that vrm is solely reliant on airflow for its cooling the fans do have to spin a fair bit faster than they otherwise would and that does result in those high at noise levels more positive though is power draw as we actually saw the SC ultra pulled the least amount of power for all the three 1660 supercars we have tested it 

pulls about seven what's left and then the panic gaming Pro OC with a total peak system power draw of 189 watts at the walk moving on now to gaming performance for the card we'll start with a look at the SC ultras clock speed under load so again after 30 minute five straight ultra stress tests the core average eighteen ninety five mega so that is 65 ma gets faster than is rated boost clock that said it is actually slightly than the other two 1660 supers we have mentioned so 

the pilot actually run about 30 megahertz faster than that and the gigabyte gaming OC is about 50 megahertz faster that the SC ultra that different thing clocks we does actually translate perfectly into our games testing as of course every single title we tested the EVGA SC ultra was just marginally the slowest of the three 1660 super cards average across all of our games then versus the gigabyte gaming OC the EVGA proved two percent slow on average and up against 

the pallet the EVGA is one percent slow on average that means differences are only around two to three FPS in the real world so it's definitely not a massive difference the same can also be said when comparing this card with the 1660 ti as the EVGA SC ultra is just 4 percent slower on average so for me that really isn't enough of a difference to make a meaningful difference to your gameplay experience so that is definitely good news for the 1660s super other comparisons 

worth making also include the SC ultra up against the RX 590 which has recently you've seen prices drop as low as  there the SC ultra does prove 15% faster on average than the rx 590 but then up against the RCX 2060 founds addition the 1660 super is still 17% slower on average as a final comparison as well up against Amy's Baking 56 the 1660 super is 14% slower so in a nutshell for me the 1660 super is best suited to 1080p gaming it can go away with some 

1440p gaming depending on the title and if you do want to see our 1440p charts head over to kik goo net but by and large I think this card is best suited to 1080p gaming and actually in several other games we did see frame rates exceed 80 FPS so it could easily be paired with a high refresh rate monitor for a smooth gaming experience now as from manual overclocking our best result here for the SC ultra came with an extra hundred 60 megahertz added to the 

GPU core and then an extra nine hundred megahertz added to the g6 memory this actually saw our average clock speed under load come up from 1895 megahertz up to 2022 megahertz so 127 mega hurt increase when we retested a few of our games at 1080p with this overclocked dialed in we saw framerate improvements or between six and nine percent with gears 5 showing the biggest nights and improvement overall that is I guess pretty typical for a cheering card if 

you're getting at the lower end of that increase only 6 percent framerate improvements it's not huge but it's definitely better than nothing and like we said pretty typical for a turian card so then wrapping up this review I guess overall there isn't a whole lot more to say about EVGA 1660 super Oetzi ultra it is pretty much as fast as we would expect for a 1660 super while it is the slowest of the three cars we've tested so far the difference between this and gigabytes 

gaming OC 60 is only about 2% on average and again versus the 1660 ti it's only 4% slower so considering started -  is definitely much better value than the 1660 ti that being said I do think pallet 1660 super gaming pro C is a better buy than the SC ultra not only does it run cooler but is also noticeably quieter as well running about 4 decibels quieter and that is definitely where UGA pays the price for its lack of dedicated vrn cooling on top of that the 

pallet is actually the cheaper card so while that isn't a you know huge savings when you've got a card which is both cooler quieter and cheaper I definitely think that is the obvious choice if EVGA could bring prices down to MSRP which is actually where I wasn't initially told this card was gonna be then that would definitely help but currently at the moment if you want to 
spend  on a new graphics card I do think 1662 burn particularly pallets gaming Pro OC is the way to go .

EVGA GeForce GTX 1660 SC Ultra Gaming, 06G-P4-1067-KR, 6GB GDDR5, Dual Fan

 Nvidia's new gtx 1660 and technically the one we tested is an EVGA 1660 but and also have 1660s we're gonna be looking at the 1660 performance today stock and overclocked versus primarily the 1660 ti versus the rh 590 Vega 56 and basically every other card at nearby in the stack so today's focus is on Nvidia's new  price floor video card the gtx 1660 before that this review is brought to you by the coarser 1i 140 compact gaming PC the Corsair 1i 140 is a small form-

factor PC outfitted with a 9700 K RT x 28 e 32 gigabytes of RAM and a 480 gigabyte nvme SSD all housed within a 2 millimeter thick aluminum chassis the Corsair 1i 140 is a 12 liter system fit for desktop use with the same size I 160 counterpart with higher-end parts learn more at the link in the description below MSRP for the 1660 is tactically about that's the price floor and review sets but the partner model we're looking at is going to be for the EVGA 

1660 dual fan that we reviewed these were checking the price on will put them in a title card on the screen if we get them in time so this is the gaming x16 60 from MSI there's also an armorer 1660 which should be the cheaper version probably but armor OC and one thing that we learned in the process of tests in the 1660 was that if you get a model like we tested with a 

higher power target the overclocking Headroom will actually allow you to bring the 1660 up in performance to about 1660 TI stock levels which is very interesting because it's it's a study and buying one price to your cheaper of a component and then you just put maybe 20 minutes of manual effort into it and it becomes the next price class up so if you start at a price point for or 1616 on Ti and then overclock it you get to about the same performance levels as a 1660 ti stock card at the  price floor which will probably have a like a 130 watt 

maximum board power so and and the 1660 that we tested also gets up to about 130 watt board power and and will look into these MSI ones later perhaps so let's get straight into the charts Patrick ran all the tests for us we're remote we're still in China but we're almost done here and he ran the tests we have thermals power and gaming to look at today and then we'll talk conclusions and if it's worth the money especially at the  boosted price point of EVGA is 

dual fan card that we're looking at today apex legends is still new to our charts and not as heavily populated with cards as our later games this one is important for its relevance but also because it's built atop a modified Source engine with DirectX 11 as the API giving us a title that represents performance on much of the games on the market we retested the 1660 Ti in this game but we haven't yet retested all of the other cards recent updates have improved 

performance on the 1660 TI n AF x legend so this is Nvidia driver side we also need to revisit some others later once we're home from China will use our multiplayer test course that we heavily detailed in our previous content tested first at 1080p this test placed the GTR x16 60 at 90 FPS average with high settings or 101 fps when overclocked for reference the 1660 TI XC stock performance was about 99 FPS average stock or about 102 FPS average went overclocked we did not see much performance uplift or scaling with the 1616 TI's overclocking apex 

Legends after the update at least we didn't see as much as before when we first tested the game and some of this we'll look at again in 1440p we tested this a total of three separate times including full driver wipe spore validation and confirmed this performance all of those times the 1660 was the closest to the TI and apex legends with most other games showing 13 to 17 percent performance advantage stock to stock between the two the rx vagin 56 card for 

reference ended up at about 106 FPS average with the RX 590 card at about 89 FPS average tested at 1440p the 1660 stock card still pulled about 61 FPS average although Loza started dragging behind performance is reasonable and the game can be played at about 1440p even with this card it's just that the settings should probably be dropped slightly to better accommodate heavy combat areas and the initial drop in the 1660 ti for what it's worth was 

that about 68 FPS average posting a lead of around 11 percent over the 1616 on TI overclocked in the 1660 got it 272 FPS average which is where the 1660 T IOC landed the two are within margin of error cyber elite 4 is still our best example if we could DirectX 12 implementation we tested this one with both 1080p and 4k resolution but please note that the 4k testing is meant to be treated as more of a synthetic representation of performance from card to card because we have so many cards on the chart it's easy to make those comparisons this is done because 4k 

gives us a full range of performance without CPU bottlenecks at the top end of the stack so we can compare the cards all to each other without any performance limitations from the game engine side starting with the more synthetic 4k workload the GTX 1660 posted 39 FPS average with low is very close by at 34 fps 1% and 33 FPS 0 1% these are pretty consistent overall comparatively the GTX 1660 TI XE under stock conditions posted 45 FPS average or a lead of 

about 16% over the GTX 1660 the 1660s outperformed marginally by the RX 590 which held a lead of a few FPS average and is not too dissimilar from the gtx 1066 here by its 37 FPS average overclocking the 1660 to 169 hertz offset got at 245 PS average matching the performance of the gtx 660ti stock card roughly matching the rx 590 Fatboy overclocked results of 46 FPS average and allowing the 2060 stock card a lead of 24% moving on to 1080p testing the GTX 1660 

pushed at 110 FPS average stock allowing the 1660 TI XC a lead of about 14% the RX 590 fat boy ended up at 120 FPS average pushing closer to the 1660 TI than the 1660 in this title sniper is compute-intensive and allows AMD to leverage its architecture more than most other games do overclocking the 1660 got it to 126 FPS average marking it as equivalent to the stock 1660 TI XE and within margin of error it also allowed the card to outperform the RFI ninety overclock 

but this is insignificant beyond declaring that the two can be made to be equal the rough to FPS difference can't really be called observably better although it is measurable but it can certainly show a minimum of equal performance everyone 2018 is next for this one tested first at 1080p the GTX 1660 90 I ended up at 92 FPS average with lows at about 50 fps and 31 FPS for 1% in 0.1 percent lows respectively the performance allowed the 1660 TI XC elite of about 13.7 

percent overclocking the 1660 to a 160 megahertz offset pushed it to 104 FPS average which is the exact same performance we got out of the 1660 TI XC even the lows are roughly identical sure overclocking the 1660 TI gets another 5 FPS average but at some level it may be better to step down to a 1660 and settle for TI baseline performance and keep in mind too that the 1660 TR we tested had a TDP of 130 watts or 10 mobs over stock but it did not have any power offset allowance unlike some of the other cards like the 1616 on TI that we're reviewing today if you 

wanted 1660 TI stock performance the 1660 could be purchased and overclocked for the same performance level unless money Vega 56 hid 115 FPS average when stock for reference with the rx 598 gigabyte card holding at 82 FPS average one stock and just to clarify there saying for reference means for your reference not necessarily with the reference card the Vega 56 and rx 590 cards ran tighter frame time consistency than Nvidia does in this game with Vega 56 

advantage to a point of low frame time performance averaging to about 60 FPS 0.1% lows whereas these 16 60 TI and 1660 both said in the 30s at 1440p the 1616 on TI operated at 70 FPS average giving the 16 60 TI elite about 10 FPS average or about 14% once again overclocking ties things up between the OC 16 60 and the stock 16 60 TI the 16 60 is fully capable of playing at f1 2018 at 1440p and could be made more consistent in frame times with 

some settings tweaks performance is about at the same level of the gtx 1070 stock card when overclocked and better than a 1060 six gigabyte and also not too distant from an overclocked archetype 90 which is no relax for arch 580 which is an overclock to our X 480 far cry 5 is next at 1080p the GTX 1660 ran an 81 FPS average of putting it as the closest in performance to an overclocked rx 590 and allowing the GTX 16 60 TI stock card a lead of about 13 FPS average 

over 16% this is consistent with other results Vega v6 maintained a strong lead over both the ti and obviously the non TI for this game but pricing also structures the 56 and 1660 at much different price glasses the 1662 overclocked planted it once again at TI level performance at 1440p the 1660 card stock still managed to nearly hit the magical 60fps mark that everyone wants and is close enough that it could be made to work reasonably well at 1440p with some 

settings tweaks at 56 FPS average and 64 FPS average when overclocked the card nearly hit 16 60 TI performance even at the higher resolutions the gtx 980ti was also roughly tied with the overclocked 16 64 reference with the stock rx 590 ending up functionally tied with the gtx 1660 shadow of the Tomb Raider at 1080p plays 16 60 stock performance at about 74 FPS average allowing the 16 60 TI a lead with its 85 FPS average or about 15% once again this lead is 

consistent with other titles and seems to be about the average percentage increase overclocking the 1660 with the 160 mega Hertz offset allowed it to match the 16 60 TI stock card which then climbed another couple FPS when it too was overclock the 1660 OC performed about where the gtx 1070 is with the stock gtx 1660 at about rx 590 performance including that lows that were within margin of error or close enough at 1440p the gtx 1660 fell 250 FPS average roughly tied with the RX 5 90s 51 FPS average and low performance is within a margin of error of the RX 

590 the 16 60 T I ended up 14% ahead of the GTX 1660 with in range of our previously potted differences while the 16 60 OC pushed it up to 1660 T I actually stock performance the 1660 TI XE overclocked permitted another 5% performance over stock but the 1660 overclocked permitted 15 percent performance uplift this massive headroom is what allowed for the tie making performance note however that the gtx 1660 were reviewing has power target increase 

availability or allowance of about 23 percent whereas the 1660 TI XC reviewed at the low end of the price stack remained capped at 130 YTD p about the same as what our 1660 was doing and 130 watts is still 8 percent higher than the stock 120 watt reference TDP of a 1660 TI the 1660 TI XE if it also had a 23 percent performance allowance power allowance could be pushed a little bit further and would increase the gap that you're seeing here it's just that for these two 

cards the 1616 on TI can be made to match the ti up until a point of overclocking with minor differences emerged finally for the GTA 5 performance at 1080p the gtx 1660 ended up at 85 FPS average allowing the 16 60 TI oxyelite of about 10 FPS average or about 13 percent overclocking as the last several charts katli 1662 about same performance as the 1660 TI XE stock card the RX 590 ended up far behind here with Vega 56 also stuck at lower performance 

levels then seen in other titles relative to the Nvidia cards the way GTA 5 is built tends to favor and video devices which isn't for any reason aside from how much compute is used in each game and so the 1660 does favorably here 1440p plates to the 1660 stock are dead at 60 FPS average but it's frame time performance became more variable and dropped to about 32 FPS here 1% close some settings reductions would be recommended to improve frame timing 

consistency although the card is overall capable of running GTA 5 at 1440p with these settings overclocking pushed it to 70 FPS average or about the same as the 1660 TI XC once again and about the same as the vegam 56 red dragon card from power color for that overclocked we've been showing Patrick Stump the card up to its maximum power target and saw performant old consistently at nineteen thirty five megahertz with few dips between this is often rare and it's a 

result of power limitation and positions restricting clocks as the frequency bounces off of that power limit but with no core offset applied and just the power limit increased the clock becomes consistent and holds steady this remains true at 100 megahertz offset where we're still not hitting a power limitation skipping a few steps we saw crashes at 175 megahertz offset on this card and so settled on 160 megahertz with a 15 mega Hertz increment being about the 

minimum stamping that can be applied to Nvidia cards at 20 70 megahertz there's not much to be mad at with this car 20 70 is a strong frequency to hold for a mid-range video card memory ended up had about 24 80 mega Hertz we often stick closer to 400 500 megahertz offset for gddr5 we didn't see any performance decay in games with this 960 offset the memory is good enough on this device the one that we tested and holds these higher clocks with that issue you'll sometimes see soft memory errors with this type of offset but in the games we tested those 

didn't impact performance if they occurred it may be more of a concern with professional applications although we doubt many people are using a 1660 with those types of applications so overall the overclocking on this card was good it was good enough to make it into a 16-6 TTI a stock when running with that overclocked power consumption testing is done at the wall but uses heavily controlled test benches for accurate tests run to run we're looking at a total system 

power consumption in this test so it's not the individual card power the gtx 1660 peaked at about 258 watts total system power consumption 1 stock averaging closer to 200 watts total system power draw our 1660 tea I saw about the same power consumption for reference but keep in mind that partner model cards can change power target beyond reference total board power provided by Nvidia spec table which is what happened here the RX 590 for further 

reference plotted at about 325 watts peak power consumption and remained more consistent in its higher power draw whereas the Nvidia cards will power throttle more aggressively during testing the RX 590 ended up about 70 to 120 watts higher than nvidias 16 series power consumption depending on the thermal torture testing though is up next under stock Auto conditions the EVGA 1660 that we tested kept a thermal target of about sixty degrees Celsius illustrated by the thermal overtime plot holding steady at sixty see this had a fan ramping to 

about eighteen hundred rpm against its maximum fan speed on the cooler of 3500 rpm and we allow this to be automatically controlled so we're letting the BIOS on the card dictate the fan speed which allows us to see how it performs and what's thermal targets are out of the box thermally the GPU does well and the fan rpm could be manually run at a less aggressive curve if lower noise were desired rather than lower thermals so what she over to the frequency chart 

we see one of the most impressive frequency lines we've ever plotted versus a results of the lower thermal target that kept this card under sixty degrees Celsius for the duration of this particular test the card operated at about 19 20 megahertz constantly when under stock conditions and with our 3d mark fire strike extreme fixed workload this illustrates good thermal performance of the cooler and that were not bouncing off of major power limits under stock conditions 1660 positioning then after all the charts after you've seen all the game 

performance it ends up we're at the  price point the card is it's obviously a replacement for the 1066 gigabyte clearly and it's a decent replacement at that it's a competitor to some extent with the RX 590 which is about the same price plus or minus maybe  depending on the model and for the RX 590 to really compete well it needs to come down in price closer to the 1660 overclocked models are the ones that are easily overclocked anyway like the one we had so all right 590 is in a bit of a rough spot right now performance wise the 590 we'd like to see it 

closer to the to  range depending and there might be some out there at this point remember that prices on launch of cards the competitors of those cards will often change the prices so you might see the 590 come down a bit by the time this review goes up and we'll double check and see if that is the case an update News review what we think of so but 590 needs to come down a bit to be truly competitive 56 we'd like to see stay in the 282 maybe  price range at that 

price range 56 is a really good deal but it's often more than that and that's where the 1660 Ti starts to look really good especially the 280 our price floor for that one so 1660 really where it shines we think is if you buy something like the dual fan models maybe like one of these ones in the background here the armor or gaming extra something like it depending on where the price is if it's in the  range and you put 20 minutes of work into overclocking it you 

can get it up to 1660 TI performance when it's stocked so that's really not bad if you're willing to put in a couple minutes of work you can save money off the top of the 1660 TI price and for people who are on a really strict budget the 1660 does well in those instances so that's gonna be it for a look right now the 1660 does fine it's gddr5 so it's a bit different but 

performance wise once you kind of match the clocks it's not all that different in gaming because a lot of the games are more frequency bound on the core than they are bandwidth bound on the memory which is what we saw today on our gaming test where the 1660 brings up performance to 1660 TI class so that's it for now we'll be home soon and do some more testing on these 16 to
 60 cards once we get back.




Learn more about the EVGA 06G-P4-1067-KR

ModelBrandEVGAModel06G-P4-1067-KR
InterfaceInterfacePCI Express 3.0
ChipsetChipset ManufacturerNVIDIAGPU SeriesNVIDIA GeForce GTX 16 SeriesGPUGeForce GTX 1660Boost Clock1830 MHzCUDA Cores1408
MemoryEffective Memory Clock8000 MHzMemory Size6GBMemory Interface192-BitMemory TypeGDDR5
3D APIDirectXDirectX 12OpenGLOpenGL 4.5
PortsHDMI1 x HDMI 2.0bMulti-Monitor Support3DisplayPort1 x DisplayPort 1.4DVI1 x Dual-Link DVI-D
DetailsMax Resolution7680 x 4320SLI SupportNoVirtual Reality ReadyYesCoolerDouble FansOperating Systems SupportedWindows 10 64-bit, Windows 7 64-bitThermal Design Power130WSystem RequirementsMinimum of a 500-Watt power supply
One available 8-pin PCIe power donglePower ConnectorOne available 8-pin PCIe power dongleDual-Link DVI SupportedYesHDCP Ready2.2
FeaturesFeaturesNVIDIA Ansel

All-Metal Backplate, Pre-Installed

NVIDIA GeForce Experience

NVIDIA Highlights

NVIDIA G-SYNC Compatible

Game Ready Drivers

Microsoft DirectX 12 API, Vulkan API, OpenGL 4.5

NVIDIA GPU Boost

Built for EVGA Precision X1
Form Factor & DimensionsMax GPU Length202 mmCard Dimensions (L x H)7.96" x 4.38"Slot WidthDual Slot.

EVGA GeForce GTX 1660 SC Ultra Gaming, 06G-P4-1067-KR, 6GB GDDR5, Dual Fan

To find out more from Amazon link below