NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Linux Gaming Benchmarks

[cj.wijtmans]

yeah. I said SHOULD be. But because 1440p screens and graphics cards are so expensive the majority still on 1080p.

[Raka555]

Seems the 1660Ti overall performs worse on Linux vs the GTX 1070, at least compared to Windows.


Because we're heading to a point where 1080p is CPU bottlenecked.

I fully agree that some times the CPU will be the bottleneck.

But by not seeing 1920x1080 results we can not assess that or our next upgrade path.

[dungeon]

1366 x 768 17.27%

Interesting that Linux have more laptop gamers than Windows on average

[L_A_G]

I suspect the "OpenGL 4/5" on the box is really just one of those "You had one job..."-type screw-ups and you shouldn't think much of it.

As for what resolution quick tests like these are run at, I really don't think that you should blindly state at those usage figures as if they're gospel on how benchmarks should be conducted. If you don't want to run benchmarks at a bunch of resolutions then 1440p is pretty much the best option. It's not far away from either 1080p or 4k to be completely unrepresentative of either and thus offers the greatest range of relevance in a single resolution.

Then again I may just be a bit biased seeing how it has been my go-to resolution for several years, thou I have been warming up for 4k displays after switching to a job where pretty much all of the displays we use are 4k ones (on account of us being a visualization tech company and the additional clarity from a high resolution being a big deal for us).

[tuke81]

Michael you are using some crazy high anti-aliasing setting on rise of tomb rider, 1440p SSAA 4x is rendering at 5120x2880 and scaled to 1440p. None of the tested GPUs are not quite up-to that task.

[Raka555]

https://store.steampowered.com/hwsur...platform=linux

1920 x 1080 50.99%
1366 x 768 17.27%
2560 x 1440 6.07%
3840 x 2160 3.63%

Just to spice up the argument a bit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxNBiAV4UnM
(I really enjoyed his explanations)

[schmidtbag]

I fully agree that some times the CPU will be the bottleneck.

But by not seeing 1920x1080 results we can not assess that or our next upgrade path.

I see your point, but this GPU is overkill for 1080p gamers. If you're competitive enough to want go to beyond 120FPS, you're either:
A. Willing to spend the extra money on something that will more reliably get you that speed
B. Willing to sacrifice detail level
C. Probably not using Linux
In other words, if you want to upgrade to 1080p, there are cheaper options than the 1660Ti. If you're already doing 1080p gaming and want to upgrade, you're better off seeking 1440p or 4K.

[Raka555]

I see your point, but this GPU is overkill for 1080p gamers. If you're competitive enough to want go to beyond 120FPS, you're either:
A. Willing to spend the extra money on something that will more reliably get you that speed
B. Willing to sacrifice detail level
C. Probably not using Linux
In other words, if you want to upgrade to 1080p, there are cheaper options than the 1660Ti. If you're already doing 1080p gaming and want to upgrade, you're better off seeking 1440p or 4K.

These are all valid.
We would just like to see some 1920x1080 thrown in there at times as well.

I get that we don't have to see xonotic or tesseract at 1920x1080 in every review

BTW I get a totally different power draw profile with my Vega 64 at [email protected] vs pushing it into the red the whole time.
The AMD cards can actually be much more power efficient when not stressed to the max.

@Micheal: How about a power draw shoot-out with all cards running at 1920x1080 and capped by vsync @60 fps ?

[Michael]

Michael you are using some crazy high anti-aliasing setting on rise of tomb rider, 1440p SSAA 4x is rendering at 5120x2880 and scaled to 1440p. None of the tested GPUs are not quite up-to that task.

Right, accidentally misselected the AA level when starting. Will have more tests coming out at a less severe level.

[Weasel]

1440p should be standard now.

No, 1080p/240fps should be standard now.