GTX 660Ti Reviews

[njdevilsfan87]

Batman AC would make me uncomfortable about the future of this card. With DX11, heavy tessellation, and AA, it performed... less than stellar. It might get worse when Crysis 3 arrives. Because of the 192-bit bus... I'd rather get a 7950, with its monster 384-bit buses at the same price. Go figure the 480s and 580s have lasted so long despite having "only 1.5gb" of VRAM.

 

[chimaxi83]

Let's be honest, a free copy of Borderlands 2 is really all that makes this card attractive at its price.

 

[turn_pike]

Not very impressive but I do like the noise under load.
After buying a reference 6870 I promised myself to only buy a card that is quiet under load.

How do 7950s with aftermarket cooling fare against 660Ti's in noise/temp ?
AT used reference 7950 in their review which I dont think is really fair.

 

[Vesku]

I can attest to the loudness of the 6870. I can also say this Gigabyte 7950 WF3 is very quiet even at high fan speeds.

In general Nvidia seems to have better acoustics on their reference designs.

 

[Keysplayr]

Per AT's review, supposedly as long as the game doesn't use more than 1.5GB of VRAM, it has full 192-bit enabled. Once 1.5GB is exceeded, bandwidth drops to 64-bit only, or 48GB/sec. That's why it's shocking to me people are considering this for SLI for 2560x1440.

I don't think that is how it works.

Lets look at the GTS 550Ti, Nvidia's first venture into mixed memory sizes. This allows odd bus width but still arriving at standard 1GB, 2GB, etc configurations instead of 768, or 1.25 or 1.5 GB etc.

Link to help with understanding what they may have done with the 660Ti
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...0-nvidia-geforce-gtx-550-ti-1gb-review-4.html

 

[antef]

So looking at prices, I am ruling out the 7950 for sure. Then I'm comparing the $300 660 Ti minus selling the Borderlands coupon (let's say $40) to the 7870. This could make the 660 Ti about $20 cheaper than the 7870. The two cards seem pretty equal on noise/temps/power. The 660 comes ahead in a number of games but has the 192-bit interface vs. the 7870's 256-bit. So which card wins out of these two?

 

[poohbear]

its a solid card, from the reviews i saw an overclocked 660ti performs the same as a GTX 670 for $100 less. all cake IMO.

 

[SunnyD]

The average consumer will buy NV anyway, at all price levels.

It really makes me want to reach through the internet and bitchslap retards that make idiotic obviously biased blanket statements like this.

 

[RussianSensation]

Is 8xAA that much more important than 4xAA? Is 4xAA that much more important than no AA? What is your budget limit? <--------------------These are seriously way more important questions than "does the gtx660ti have the bandwidth for 8xAA at 2560x1600 or 1920x1200".

Ok sorry if I didn't elaborate. I am not saying that 8AA is end-all-be-all. I am saying that in certain cases the GTX660Ti's limitations are exposed but it happens when the card gets put under heavier load. Testing it at 4AA in Batman or Skyrim only proves that it's "just as fast as 7970/680" in terms of playability. It's what happens once GPU load increases in these easy games (for example Skyrim with 8AA, Batman with 8AA). Now let's say future games get more demanding, well the load will increase on GPUs in those games. I can't see how a card with 24 ROPs and 144GB/sec can continue to perform near a 32 ROP / 192GB/sec 670.

Me using 8AA at 1080P isn't necessarily to show that this card isn't good enough today, but it's more of a risk factor tomorrow when games get more demanding. It's not necessary at all to use 8AA.

For example, take a look at SKYRIM at 2560x1600. There is 17% difference in favour of the 670. It may not show up in easy games such as Batman AC 4AA or Shogun 2 on High at 1080P today. This may or may not matter for someone who upgrades often. The 660Ti clearly has issues and it may be the case that those gaps are just not showing up yet in current games. Right now I don't disagree with you that for $300 with BL2, it's a good deal, but long-term it won't have much left to fall back on while 7950 will since it's nearly a full-fledged 7970.

If you were a betting man, how do you think an overclocked GTX660Ti will fare in future games against a 1.1ghz 7950?

 

[thilanliyan]

It really makes me want to reach through the internet and bitchslap retards that make idiotic obviously biased blanket statements like this.

It is true though...nvidia has better market presence and a more well known brand, much like Intel did and always has.

 

[AnandThenMan]

It really makes me want to reach through the internet and bitchslap retards that make idiotic obviously biased blanket statements like this.

Why? What RS said is 100% true. Now go slap some sense into yourself.

 

[RussianSensation]

It really makes me want to reach through the internet and bitchslap retards that make idiotic obviously biased blanket statements like this.

You disagree with that? Ask the average person if they'd buy NV or AMD graphics card.

GTX550Ti - best selling card last holiday season on Amazon, far inferior to 6850.
FX5200 - the most famous crappy card ever sold, maybe? One of the best selling though.
FX5900 series - completely inadequate for DX9 still sold well. I am sure tons of people on our boards owned it and that despite all professional reviews showing that series inadequate for shader intensive games, AA and DX9
7900 series - pretty much a joke once shader based games arrived. It sold really really well though. 7900 series was so bad in fact that 8600GTS beat 7900GTX in later modern games. X1900XT series didn't have this problem.

vs.
HD5800 series having a 6 months head start and barely took market share away from NV
HD7850/7870/7950 were available for half a year and people still waited to spend $300 on a 660Ti and yet it's only 9% faster than a 7870. 9% after 6 months.

You can disagree which is fair but NV users tend to be way more loyal and a lot of them will ONLY buy NV. I feel like AMD users are way more open minded and will go back and forth. It's never been more obvious than this time. GTX660Ti is 7 months late and its gets a pass while having worse overclocking headroom than 7950 despite the fact that 460's overclocking headroom was one of the most praised elements of that card? You are saying there is no double standard?

If GTX660Ti launched Jan 31st, had massive overclocking headroom which would let it match HD7970 GE, and then 7950 launched 7 months late and couldn't even beat it easily, people would have been vastly disappointed. Well here it is the 7950 can overclock to 7970GE/680 speeds, and not many people are talking about it....why is that? Is that because at just 925mhz the 7950 already passes a 670 in Crysis 2?

Yet GTX460's overclocking was always its strong point against 5850/5870 and one of the major reasons it became one of the best bang-for-the-buck cards that generation. Now 7950 brings all those qualities that 460 had against the 660Ti, and somehow they are conveniently ignored?

I've asked this before: Can a GTX660Ti match a GTX680? So far no one answered this question. HD7950 can, for $10 more.

 

[Grooveriding]

For a card that is bringing nothing new performance wise or price point wise and overall is slower than the card it competes against at the same price point; it's over priced.

It's not a bad card at all on its performance. The problem is that it's priced out of the market it's supposed to take care of. They're asking the mid-range buyer to go from $200-$250 price point up to $300.

Card is overpriced. BL2 is nice, but that is a subjective point that is not going to be relevant to everyone, never mind that the codes will be gone in a few weeks as always. *while supplies last

 

[AnandThenMan]

This card should be $249, probably will be soon but Nvidia is capitalizing on the early adopters and the game bundle.

 

[Meghan54]

*Snip*

You can talk until the cows come home and it won't make any impression on the vast majority of the nvidia sheeple, which is too bad.

As for my bias, I'm trying to unload a Gigabyte GTX670 for a 7950. I miss Lavaheadache's Gigabyte 7970....prob. shouldn't have sold it back to him to play with the 670. Damned bone headed move.

 

[RussianSensation]

You can talk until the cows come home and it won't make any impression on the vast majority of the nvidia sheeple, which is too bad.

As for my bias, I'm trying to unload a Gigabyte GTX670 for a 7950. I miss Lavaheadache's Gigabyte 7970....prob. shouldn't have sold it back to him to play with the 670. Damned bone headed move.

Why are you trying to sell the 670? Esp. the Gigabyte card? That's a very good card and I heard nothing but great things about its noise levels and overclocking.

 

[f1sherman]

It is true though...nvidia has better market presence and a more well known brand, much like Intel did and always has.

Yeah but this time AMD screwed up with architecture implementation (not GCN per se, mind you):

• Bigger die with TSMC record-expensive 28nm
• 3GB/384bit overhead
• mixed GPGPU/rendering optimized workloads
• previous gen. TDP throttling/boost

Nvidia can scale that poor 290mm2 GK104 up-and-down on a whim.
And all with low-TDP/piss-poor-cooler/low bill of cost.

It should have been clear from the start that you can't go big-die vs Nvidia.

So this one is on AMD engies, not their marketing team.

Marketing/pricing/sleeping on the job
(3 days before 660 Ti is out they send BIOS, instead shipping the cards to the market in a timely manner)
is just adding to the overall pain.

 

[Vesku]

How is it a screw up exactly, f1sherman? They aren't charging too much for them. 8800, 9800, 2xx, 4xx, and 5xx owners didn't complain about getting GPGPU with their FPS.

 

[Piano Man]

Hmm, I would like this card, but the OC headroom seems to be really low. Why is that? Limits of the GPU/MEM or because of the limited voltage increase?

 

[f1sherman]

How is it a screw up exactly, f1sherman?

bigger bill of materials than Nvidia, translated to lower product price on market.

They aren't charging too much for them. 8800, 9800, 2xx, 4xx, and 5xx owners didn't complain about getting GPGPU with their FPS.

Oh but they did. Remember Termie? All that GPGPU added to cost/TDP overhead.
There is only so much GPGPU you need on desktop. Nvidia realized this and made gaming GPU, AMD made general-purpose GPU.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Let's be honest, a free copy of Borderlands 2 is really all that makes this card attractive at its price.

Talking about the bundled Borderlands 2.

PhysX in action:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIu23UjKGOk&feature=player_embedded

 

[RussianSensation]

This card should be $249, probably will be soon but Nvidia is capitalizing on the early adopters and the game bundle.

GTX460 was a $199 card and 2 years ago NV considered it a Gamer's Sweet Spot:

Now GTX660Ti is NV's sweet spot and it's $299. AMD thinks the sweet spot is $275 7870 -- $330 7950. That's pretty expensive for mid-range cards from the last 2-3 generations.

It looks like the GPU makers are passing on the costs on to us this round. It seems both AMD and Nvidia now position graphics cards within the $275-330 price-range as the sweet spot for gamers. Previously, the sweet-spot for gamers was something between $149 and $249 ($199/229 for the 460 768/1GB and $179/$239 for 6850/6870). It remains to be seen whether gamers will actually start to buy more expensive solutions to play the latest titles or will wait for price-cuts or introduction of new products. To me it looks like both AMD and NV are trying to push the mid-range GPU pricing upmarket.

 

[SunnyD]

It is true though...nvidia has better market presence and a more well known brand, much like Intel did and always has.

Why? What RS said is 100% true. Now go slap some sense into yourself.

You disagree with that? Ask the average person if they'd buy NV or AMD graphics card.

Yes, I disagree quite emphatically. The "average" consumer is running an Intel IGP and isn't going to buy a GPU. Pulling an "80%" number out of your ass, just like most every other statistic, is meaningless.

In terms of meaningful statistics, the average consumer tends to buy Nvidia only 11% more than AMD, and that's definitely not 80%.

 

[cmdrdredd]

its a solid card, from the reviews i saw an overclocked 660ti performs the same as a GTX 670 for $100 less. all cake IMO.

Not even in the same league. Any game that is using high amounts of tessellation and when you turn on AA the 660ti really gets hurt in the numbers.

So looking at prices, I am ruling out the 7950 for sure. Then I'm comparing the $300 660 Ti minus selling the Borderlands coupon (let's say $40) to the 7870. This could make the 660 Ti about $20 cheaper than the 7870. The two cards seem pretty equal on noise/temps/power. The 660 comes ahead in a number of games but has the 192-bit interface vs. the 7870's 256-bit. So which card wins out of these two?

7950 is $330 after rebate for the MSI Twin Frozer which is one of the better ones out there. Honestly, I urge you to go that route. It's $350 - $20 MIR but it's a much better card by far and the ones today can overclock very well and extend into the $400+ GPU performance arena.

It's up to you, but between the 660ti and 7870 if those were the only choices, i'd get the 660ti only if I was using 1080p on a single display.

 

[RussianSensation]

Marketing/pricing/sleeping on the job
(3 days before 660 Ti is out they send BIOS, instead shipping the cards to the market in a timely manner)
is just adding to the overall pain.

There is no question that Kepler is a more efficient gaming card. However, AMD is struggling on the CPU side. That may explain why they want a strong GCN compute foundation for their APUs on the CPU side. They can't compete with Intel on a per core basis/IPC. Using GCN to speed-up desktop applications can help them stand out. It's far more important for AMD than it is for NV because NV doesn't compete in the x86 CPU space.

GCN is 2.5x faster than the 3960X in WinZip 16.5. That's fast. With an APU, that's "free".

They are also adding Photoshop acceleration. These little steps will help their budget CPUs compete with Intel.

Also, keep in mind that when AMD released HD4850 for $199 and HD4870 for $299, the blockbuster overclocking HD5850 for $270 and undercut GTX480 by $130 with HD5870, and when HD6950 for $250-300 could unlock into a 6970, when the dust settled after 3 of those generations NV still held 60%+ of the desktop discrete market share. What does that tell you? Short of NV failing miserably (FX5800 style) or AMD delivering an entire line-up from top-to-bottom 2x faster for 50% less, AMD will continue to play 2nd to NV. Even the $100 GT640 sells despite 50-75% slower than HD7750. That's NV marketing for you.

So no, AMD didn't screw up anything. They just realized there is no point trying to convince NV users to switch. Short of giving away AMD cards for free for market share, they are better off focusing on profitability given their cash flow. And well AMD cards are free with bitcoin mining, so you get the picture that even that doesn't work. You can even see on many forums just how many people waited 7 months to buy a $300 Kepler despite AMD alternatives available all this time for $300.