NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Linux Gaming Benchmarks

[cybertraveler]

Vega 56 will be cut at sub 300$, so you might consider it. It will consume 80W more, but I think it won't be a big issue.

When do you think this is happening?

[Jabberwocky]

Is it just me or Rise of the Tomb Raider runs horribly on Linux compared to Windows?

I noticed this too when comparing (online) benchmark results.

Rise of the Tomb Raider uses a new implementation of Nvidia Gameworks. There are many new low level optimizations in Nvidia Gameworks for Turing cards. It could be that the Linux driver does not know how to make use of the Nvidia Gameworks framework optimizations (yet). On the other hand a simple explanation would be just a bad port, maybe a bit of both? It will be possible to confirm this suspicion once there is a patch to fix the problem(s).

Vega 56 will be cut at sub 300$, so you might consider it. It will consume 80W more, but I think it won't be a big issue.

I assume my situation is unique to most reading this. Additional heat and 80W more power are major problems, increased physical size is a minor problem. My country's power grid is unstable. I am unable to run AC on backup power. We use paved roads in some areas because it gets so warm that tar roads melts in the summer which causes vehicles loose grip when braking. My rx 480 does surprising well when I undervolt/underclock it. I have dual BIOS for summer/winter which works well. Not so happy with my 1800X, msr kernel module helps a bit but CPU can't go into low state due to "1109 MWAIT Instruction May Hang a Thread" and other hardware erratas acknowledged by AMD. I can't RMA (it's a really long story related to AMD support, local suppliers and customs) so I'm waiting for highpower/low-idle Zen2 later this year. Yes it's easier to buy a new CPU than to RMA it. Sorry for the spam I typed it very quickly.

[cj.wijtmans]

Is it just me or Rise of the Tomb Raider runs horribly on Linux compared to Windows?


They've dropped quite a bit in prices, years ago they costed like 700€, now a 1440p 144Hz can be found for ~300€.



Vega 56 will be cut at sub 300$, so you might consider it. It will consume 80W more, but I think it won't be a big issue.

thats still 3 time more than 1080p monitor. which is ridiculous and unjustified.

[Buntolo]

thats still 3 time more than 1080p monitor. which is ridiculous and unjustified.

No, they aren't. You're comparing a cheap 60Hz 1080p, which may cost 100€ or less, to a 144Hz 1440p.

You've to compare a 144Hz 1080p to a 144 1440p, which rarely cost less than 200€ (versus a ~300€ 144Hz 1440p). 60Hz 1440p cost 200€ or less.

1440p is 1.78 times bigger than 1080p, and this IPS 24" 1440p cost 169€, 1.69 times more than an hypotetical 100€ 1080p, so it's a fair price:

https://www.amazon.it/Lenovo-L24q-10-Monitor-WLED-Formato/dp/B06XCW298F/

Also, it's an IPS, not a TN.

If you want a bigger 1440p, they cost around 200€, more than 1.78 times that hypotetical 1080p, but they're also bigger:

https://www.amazon.it/HP-Monitor-Overdrive-DisplayPort-Ultrasottili/dp/B07DS2897H/

https://www.amazon.it/AOC-Q3279VWF-Monitor-Desktop-Nero/dp/B0777TRHPQ

Bear in mind this was just a quick research.

[cj.wijtmans]

No, they aren't. You're comparing a cheap 60Hz 1080p, which may cost 100€ or less, to a 144Hz 1440p.

You've to compare a 144Hz 1080p to a 144 1440p, which rarely cost less than 200€ (versus a ~300€ 144Hz 1440p). 60Hz 1440p cost 200€ or less.

1440p is 1.78 times bigger than 1080p, and this IPS 24" 1440p cost 169€, 1.69 times more than an hypotetical 100€ 1080p, so it's a fair price:
https://www.amazon.it/Lenovo-L24q-10...dp/B06XCW298F/

Also, it's an IPS, not a TN.

If you want a bigger 1440p, they cost around 200€, more than 1.78 times that hypotetical 1080p, but they're also bigger:
https://www.amazon.it/HP-Monitor-Ove...dp/B07DS2897H/
https://www.amazon.it/AOC-Q3279VWF-M.../dp/B0777TRHPQ

Bear in mind this was just a quick research.

no mate. a 1ms 1440p 144hz monitor is 500(and thats the cheapest, just as much as a mid-range PC if you are smart with your money). a 1ms 1080p 60hz under 200(still expensive for only 60hz). the point is that 1440p should be standard and cheap. while standard 1080p is so cheap. that is 2-3x the price.

[Buntolo]

When you use 200 euros for a new monitor, go for a 4K gaming monitor. 4K images are pretty.

Your choice, I've a 1080p 120Hz and I'd never go with anything below it, my next main screen will be a 1440p 165Hz Freesync. High frequency is way, way, way more noticeable than higher res and is also more pleasant/satisfying.

Also no, 4k gaming may require a better VGA than RX570, I know because I've a 970 and it's not enough for 1080p 120Hz, so I highly doubt a RX570 will be enough for 4k, even @60Hz.

no mate. a 1ms 1440p 144hz monitor is 500(and thats the cheapest, just as much as a mid-range PC if you are smart with your money). a 1ms 1080p 60hz under 200(still expensive for only 60hz). the point is that 1440p should be standard and cheap. while standard 1080p is so cheap. that is 2-3x the price.

So these don't exist? (first is 4ms, second is 1ms)

https://www.amazon.it/Samsung-C27JG52-Monitor-2560x1440-Display/dp/B07FCM5WXF

https://www.amazon.it/Acer-XG270HUomidpx-Monitor-Display-Formato/dp/B00U2FDO4C/

Also the Acer shouldn't be cheap crap (despite being in the past the biggest producer of the cheapest crappy laptop), it's one of the first (or its heir) 1440p 144Hz on the market, launched a few years ago for 700€, along with the gaming ASUS for 750€.

And a 144Hz 4ms is still better than a 60Hz.

To everyone:
Visit your local hardware seller and try a PC with a 240Hz monitor: move the mouse cursor around, then go to display setting and try it at 60Hz and see if you notice anything. Then try scrolling a page or moving stuff around.

If you don't see any difference, then you may have eyesight issues, and I mean this in a non-mocking meaning, but as a statement; if this is the case then yes, higher resolutions will be better than higher frequency.

I was frustrated by how cranking up resolution in display there was no noticeable change, it was so disappointing. One day I had to buy a screen, didn't want to pay a lot so I went on eBay for an used one: bought a 120Hz as it was the same price of other 60Hz. It blown me away.

This longpost is NOT to prove you're wrong, I don't care about a virtual medal of won arguments, it's because the internet is full of people saying that human eye can't see above 60Hz/don't need more than 30fps and similar things: I want you to know that you're living a worse visual experience because of these myths, you aren't enjoying what is already available.

[cj.wijtmans]

I dont see a VESA mount. not even worth mentioning.

[Weasel]

Your choice, I've a 1080p 120Hz and I'd never go with anything below it, my next main screen will be a 1440p 165Hz Freesync. High frequency is way, way, way more noticeable than higher res and is also more pleasant/satisfying.

Amen brother.

[Buntolo]

I dont see a VESA mount. not even worth mentioning.

It seems a poor excuse to me, especially for a small screen like a 27" and even more comparing it to a 22-24" 1080p. Anyway the Samsung has it and even if that Acer doesn't (it needs an adapter), there's another model for the same price which has it: https://www.amazon.com/Acer-ED323QUR.../dp/B07DR5PG8S

Anyway the point is: it's false that 1440p cost 3 times 1080p.

[Jabberwocky]

Your choice, I've a 1080p 120Hz and I'd never go with anything below it, my next main screen will be a 1440p 165Hz Freesync. High frequency is way, way, way more noticeable than higher res and is also more pleasant/satisfying.

+1 No competitive gamer will argue this and it's accepted as fact not opinion. Not directly related to gaming, but just some interesting facts... In the case of spatial edge modulated light from a stable field, all viewers noticed flickering at 200Hz, median viewer at 500Hz, and some at 800Hz. Another useful one is XKCD's Visual Field.

So these don't exist? (first is 4ms, second is 1ms)

https://www.amazon.it/Samsung-C27JG5.../dp/B07FCM5WXF

https://www.amazon.it/Acer-XG270HUom...dp/B00U2FDO4C/

Also the Acer shouldn't be cheap crap (despite being in the past the biggest producer of the cheapest crappy laptop), it's one of the first (or its heir) 1440p 144Hz on the market, launched a few years ago for 700€, along with the gaming ASUS for 750€.

And a 144Hz 4ms is still better than a 60Hz.

I'm leaning towards what cj.wijtmans said. At this point in time one can only choose two* of the following:

• Resolution (greater than FHD/1080p)
• Image Quality (Color & Contrast-Ratio)
• Refresh Rate & Response Time (potentially freesync too)
• Affordability (Price/Features)

IMO for gamers (especially competitive FPS) refresh rate and response time is the most important. Image quality is more important than resolution thanks to things like SSAA (supersampling anti-aliasing). For non-competitive gaming resolution might be more important than image quality but differs from person to person.

Closest to my ideal: https://www.amazon.com/Pixio-Display-Professional-Adaptive-Sync-Monitor/dp/B07CYRF58V I won't buy it as my GPU rx480 is not fast enough to unlock it's full potential. I'll wait for Navi but not keeping my hopes up like I did with Vega. The geforce 1660 ti looks really good in terms of FPS/Watt but will not be able to do 144Hz at 1440p either so I'll stick to 1080p while I mostly play competitive FPS.

*There are attempts at three of the options above but it does not always work out as planned. Look at the reviews on this screen for example https://www.amazon.com/Acer-XV273K-P...ustomerReviews I did not go looking for a Acer screen I promise. ;-)

Also no, 4k gaming may require a better VGA than RX570, I know because I've a 970 and it's not enough for 1080p 120Hz, so I highly doubt a RX570 will be enough for 4k, even @60Hz.

+1 Perhaps 2D? I don't know in which reality the rx 570 can run 4k games. Also (with current technology) buying a 10bit TN panel is like wearing camo clothes with reflective vest.

To everyone:
Visit your local hardware seller and try a PC with a 240Hz monitor: move the mouse cursor around, then go to display setting and try it at 60Hz and see if you notice anything. Then try scrolling a page or moving stuff around.

If you don't see any difference, then you may have eyesight issues, and I mean this in a non-mocking meaning, but as a statement; if this is the case then yes, higher resolutions will be better than higher frequency.

I was frustrated by how cranking up resolution in display there was no noticeable change, it was so disappointing. One day I had to buy a screen, didn't want to pay a lot so I went on eBay for an used one: bought a 120Hz as it was the same price of other 60Hz. It blown me away.

This longpost is NOT to prove you're wrong, I don't care about a virtual medal of won arguments, it's because the internet is full of people saying that human eye can't see above 60Hz/don't need more than 30fps and similar things: I want you to know that you're living a worse visual experience because of these myths, you aren't enjoying what is already available.

+99999999999999 so many people still living in a cave... go to the local hardware seller now! :-) Used tech can be really underrated especially peripherals.

Do you know what the CIE 1931 rating is for the Samsung C27JG52? I could not find anyone who has tested it properly.

Lastly this website is awesome, they know how to test screens: https://www.rtings.com/monitor/revie...y-usage/gaming