OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v3.0

ASUS ROG Strix GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Gaming Advanced review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£340VRAM:6 GBMemory bus width:192 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):120 W

ASUS ROG Strix GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Gaming Advanced Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 2 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

ASUS ROG Strix GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Gaming Advanced
6.2/10

Overall score

Score
6.2/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
Score components

40%

5.2

Technical score

25%

5.2

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

9.6

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 85% of graphics cards
7.0

Value for money

Value for money
7.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 75% of models
Score components

70%

6.2

Overall score

30%

8.7

Price

â–¼Worse than 75%
5.2

Technical score

Technical score
5.2/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 80% of models
Score components

44%

3.4

Performance

24%

3.8

Memory

12%

9.9

Power

11%

8.1

Features

5%

7.8

Design

4%

8.8

Connectivity

â–¼Worse than 80%
5.2

Reviews score

Reviews score
5.2/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 87% of models

5.2

Mark 7.9 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

8.2

Average grade

20%

6.5

Popularity

Grades by review (2)
2 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–¼Worse than 87%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • asus-rog-strix-geforce-gtx-1660-ti-gaming-advanced
  • asus-rog-strix-geforce-gtx-1660-ti-gaming-advanced
  • asus-rog-strix-geforce-gtx-1660-ti-gaming-advanced
  • asus-rog-strix-geforce-gtx-1660-ti-gaming-advanced
asus-rog-strix-geforce-gtx-1660-ti-gaming-advanced
asus-rog-strix-geforce-gtx-1660-ti-gaming-advanced
asus-rog-strix-geforce-gtx-1660-ti-gaming-advanced
asus-rog-strix-geforce-gtx-1660-ti-gaming-advanced
Where to buy
    N/A~ £340
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What owners say about the ASUS ROG Strix GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Gaming Advanced

Based on 200 owners sharing their experience in online comments

84%positive8%mixed8%negative

Owners praise its lasting gaming performance, while demanding newer games and missing RTX features are the main compromises.

What owners dislike

  • Owners say it struggles in the most demanding new AAA games, often needing lower settings to hold 60 fps, especially at 1440p.16
  • Owners say the card lacks DLSS and ray tracing, so they feel it falls behind RTX cards in newer games.4
  • Owners say it is generally a bit slower than the RTX 2060, though some find the performance gap small.4
  • Owners report crashes such as device hung errors or random crashes to desktop when overclocked, so they have to lower the clocks.3
  • Owners say laptop versions often run around 85–86°C in games and throttle, and they feel the heat is hard to control.3

Points mentioned by at least 3 owners, most mentioned first.

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card ASUS ROG Strix GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Gaming Advanced

Technical score
Technical score
5.2/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 80% of models
Score components:

44%

3.4

Performance

24%

3.8

Memory

12%

9.9

Power

11%

8.1

Features

5%

7.8

Design

4%

8.8

Connectivity

5.2
Reviews score
5.2
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 75% of models
Score components:

70%

6.2

Overall score

30%

8.7

Price

7.0
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
6,266 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 6,266 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 82.1% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
5,800 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 5,800 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 68.7% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
12,737 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 12,737 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 79.2% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
5,125 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 5,125 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 82.8% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
5.53 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 5.53 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 85% of graphics cards.
Show more
VRAM
6 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 6 GB of VRAM, which is less than 82.5% of graphics cards and equal to 5.1% of graphics cards.
Memory type
GDDR6
This graphics card uses GDDR6 memory, which is newer than on 16.4% of graphics cards and equal to 40.3% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
192 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 192 bit memory bus, which is wider than that of 31.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 18.7% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
288 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 288 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 69.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 6.5% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
12,000 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 12,000 MHz, which is slower than that of 80.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.5% of graphics cards.
Show more
PCI Express (PCIe) version
3
This graphics card supports PCIe 3, which is older than on 77.6% of graphics cards and equal to 20.1% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x16
This graphics card uses x16 PCIe lanes, which is more than 24.1% of graphics cards and equal to 75.9% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
12
This graphics card supports DirectX 12, which is older than on 81.8% of graphics cards and equal to 17% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.4
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.4, which is more advanced than on 20.8% of graphics cards and equal to 79.2% of graphics cards.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 2% of graphics cards and equal to 98% of graphics cards.
Show more
Max displays supported
4
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 4 displays, which is more than 9% of graphics cards and equal to 88.2% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
7680x4320
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320, which is higher than that of 9.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 90.9% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
3
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 3 DisplayPort outputs, which is more than 21.7% of graphics cards and equal to 76% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
1.4a
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.4a, which is more advanced than on 19.3% of graphics cards and equal to 46.3% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
12 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 12 Gbps, which is slower than on 63.2% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
120 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 120 W, which is lower than that of 82.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.3% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
120 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 120 W under peak load, which is lower than 85.6% of graphics cards and equal to 1.5% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
450 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 450 W PSU, which is lower than that of 84% of graphics cards and equal to that of 6.1% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
120 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 120 W, which is lower than that of 85.8% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.4% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
120 W
Show more
Size
301x 132x 50 mm
Length
301 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 301 mm long, which is longer than 60.5% of graphics cards and equal in length to 0.5% of graphics cards.
Height
132 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 132 mm tall, which is taller than 65.1% of graphics cards and equal in height to 1.2% of graphics cards.
Slot width
2 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 2 slot/s, which is slimmer than 52.4% of graphics cards and equal in width to 43.4% of graphics cards.
Weight
1,195 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 1,195 g, which is heavier than 59.8% of Graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of Graphics cards.
Show more

ASUS ROG Strix GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Gaming Advanced vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 44.2% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (120 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    120 W vs 215 W
  • 30.8% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (450 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    450 W vs 650 W
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 45.5% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (120 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    120 W vs 220 W
  • 23.1% higher sentiment score
    9.6 vs 7.8
  • 9 °C lower load temperature
    This graphics card has a lower load temperature than the average graphics card (58 °C vs 67 °C). The average graphics card has a load temperature of 67 °C.
    58 °C vs 67 °C
  • 23.1% higher sentiment score
    9.6 vs 7.8
  • 44.2% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (120 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    120 W vs 215 W
  • 30.8% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (450 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    450 W vs 650 W
  • 45.5% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (120 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    120 W vs 220 W
  • 9 °C lower load temperature
    This graphics card has a lower load temperature than the average graphics card (58 °C vs 67 °C). The average graphics card has a load temperature of 67 °C.
    58 °C vs 67 °C
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 6 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (6 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    6 GB vs 12 GB
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 28.1% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,800 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,800 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • 16 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (24 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    24 vs 40
  • 2.4x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (12 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    12 nm vs 5 nm
  • 27.8% lower review score
    Reviews score
    5.2/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 87% of models

    5.2

    Mark 7.9 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    8.2

    Average grade

    20%

    6.5

    Popularity

    Grades by review (2)
    2 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    5.2 vs 7.2
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • 27.8% lower review score
    Reviews score
    5.2/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 87% of models

    5.2

    Mark 7.9 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    8.2

    Average grade

    20%

    6.5

    Popularity

    Grades by review (2)
    2 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    5.2 vs 7.2
  • 6.2% worse value for money
    ASUS ROG Strix GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Gaming Advanced has worse value for money than the average graphics card (6.98 vs 7.4).
    6.98 vs 7.41
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 28.1% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,800 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,800 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 16 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (24 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    24 vs 40
  • 88 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (96 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    96 vs 184
  • 144 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    0 vs 144
  • 54.3% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (172.8 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    172.8 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 21.9% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,500 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,500 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 46.4% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (86.4 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    86.4 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 75.5% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (5.5 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    5.53 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 16 fewer ROPs
    This graphics card has fewer ROPs than the average graphics card (48 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    48 vs 64
  • 4 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2019 vs 2023).
    February 2019
    2019 vs 2023
  • 43.7% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (12,737 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    12,737 points vs 22,638 points
  • 57.6% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (6,266 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    6,266 points vs 14,779 points
  • 36.6% lower ray tracing score
    This graphics card has a lower ray tracing score than the average graphics card (5,800 points vs 9,148 points). The average graphics card has a ray tracing score of 9,148 points.
    5,800 points vs 9,148 points
  • 81.3% lower FP64 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP64 performance than the average graphics card (0.1 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP64 performance of 0.48 TFLOPS.
    0.09 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS
  • 57.5% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (5,125 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    5,125 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 63.2% lower FP16 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP16 performance than the average graphics card (10.9 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP16 performance of 29.5 TFLOPS.
    10.87 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS
  • 2,816 fewer FP32 units
    This graphics card has fewer FP32 units than the average graphics card (1,536 vs 4,352). The average graphics card has 4,352 FP32 units.
    1,536 vs 4,352
  • 6 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (6 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    6 GB vs 12 GB
  • 36.8% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (12,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    12,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 35.7% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (288 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    288 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 95.8% smaller L2 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L2 cache than the average graphics card (1 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    1 MB vs 24 MB
  • 14.3% slower VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a lower VRAM clock than the average graphics card (1,500 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    1,500 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 50% smaller L1 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L1 cache than the average graphics card (64 KB vs 128 KB). The average graphics card has 128 KB L1 cache.
    64 KB vs 128 KB
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • 2.4x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (12 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    12 nm vs 5 nm
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • Older PCIe version
    This graphics card supports an older PCIe version than the average graphics card (3 vs 4).
    3 vs 4
  • No AI upscalers
    This graphics card does not support AI upscalers, the average graphics card does.
  • No Resizable BAR
    This graphics card does not support Resizable BAR, while the average graphics card does. 76.4% of Graphics cards support it.
  • Lower VRS tier
    This graphics card supports a lower VRS tier than the average graphics card (Tier 1 vs Tier 2).
    Tier 1 vs Tier 2
  • Older DirectX version
    This graphics card supports an older DirectX version than the average graphics card (12 vs 12 Ultimate).
    12 vs 12 Ultimate
  • No sampler feedback
    This graphics card does not support sampler feedback, the average graphics card does.
  • 71.2% fewer transistors
    This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (6,600 million vs 22,900 million). The average graphics card has 22,900 million transistors.
    6,600 million vs 22,900 million
  • No AV1 encoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (2.0b vs 2.1a).
    2.0b vs 2.1a
  • No AV1 decoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 decoding, the average graphics card does.
  • More basic codec support
    This graphics card encodes more basic formats than the average graphics card (H.264/H.265/VP9 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9).
    H.264/H.265/VP9 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9
  • Older HDCP version
    This graphics card supports an older HDCP version than the average graphics card (2.2 vs 2.3).
    2.2 vs 2.3
  • Older NVDEC generation
    This graphics card has a lower NVDEC generation than the average graphics card (4 vs 6). The average graphics card offers NVDEC generation 6.
    4 vs 6
  • 7 mm higher card profile
    This graphics card is taller than the average graphics card (132 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    132 mm vs 125 mm
  • 18.8 mm longer card length
    This graphics card is longer than the average graphics card (301 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    301 mm vs 282.2 mm

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

8.0
Zenchillis Hardware Reviews
≈ estimated
13/03/2019
Hands-on review · overclocking and benchmarks
Verdict
The ASUS ROG Strix GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Gaming Advanced is worth buying only once its price comes down.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about ASUS ROG Strix GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Gaming Advanced

  • Excellent cooling system that maintains low temperatures even under load
  • Highly effective silent mode and overall quiet operation thanks to Axial-tech fans
  • Superior overclocking potential compared to standard GTX 1660 Ti models
  • Solid build quality with a premium aesthetic, including a metal backplate and Aura Sync RGB
  • Dual BIOS feature allowing a physical switch between performance and quiet modes
  • Strong performance for 1080p and 1440p gaming

What customers don't like about ASUS ROG Strix GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Gaming Advanced

  • Expensive for a 1660 Ti, with a price point uncomfortably close to the more powerful RTX 2060
  • Lacks dedicated hardware for Ray Tracing and DLSS
  • Large physical footprint (2.5-slot width) that may not fit in smaller PC cases
  • No DVI port, which may be an issue for users with older monitors
  • Dump hot air back into the chassis, requiring good case ventilation

Verdict

The ASUS ROG Strix GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Gaming Advanced is a premium mid-range graphics card based on the 12nm Turing architecture, featuring 1,536 CUDA cores and 6GB of high-speed GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit interface. This 'Advanced' edition comes factory-overclocked with a boost clock of 1,800 MHz (reaching up to 1,830 MHz in OC mode), supported by a massive triple-fan DirectCU III cooling system and Axial-tech fans for superior thermal management. Key pros include exceptionally quiet operation with 0dB technology, a dual BIOS switch for performance or silent modes, and robust build quality with a reinforced frame and metal backplate. Main cons are its large 2.5-slot physical footprint that may not fit in smaller cases, a higher price premium compared to standard 1660 Ti models, and the inherent lack of ray tracing and DLSS support found in Nvidia's RTX series.

Compare ASUS ROG Strix GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Gaming Advanced with other products in the Graphics cards category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of ASUS ROG Strix GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Gaming Advanced and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found