the 8600gt/gts was a turd when it came out but it actually got faster in newer games before becoming obsolete. the gtx660ti probably wont get any worse in newer games than it is now. and the gtx660ti is a massive upgrade over a gtx460 so anybody doing that will probably be happy for a long time if there were happy with their gtx460 this long. the problem is that most people with a gtx460 paid half of what the gtx660ti costs.Anyone considering this card really needs to look at it's future given the mem subsytem. I have the impression that only through some careful "review guidelines" has this card been able to beshown in the best possible light. Given the memory constraint put into the 660Ti, I doubt Current gamers coming from 460GTX and 560Ti are gonna be served the longetivty that might be expected by the 660Ti.
The 660Ti might be a serious turd on future games when that 2gb's is actually fully needed and memory constraints are brought into play (something Ultra settings with high AA on current games can hint at for the future of games at standard settings).
Looks solid for gaming from reading reviews, but remember so did the nVidia 8600GTS at it's time (and that was a pretty serious turd of a card for gaming).
Hoping for followup reviews to test a wider area of this cards performance, and against it's true competior a non reference 900-950mhz 7950.
Benchmarks aside, does anyone here actually perceive a difference in visual fidelity between 4x and 8x in FPSs @ high resolutions?
Why not just make it a 1.5gb card then if it becomes slower when using 2gb (as I understand it)?
for 340 bucks? no as you will still be limited by the bus width and rops which that extra 1gb of vram is not going to do anything for.So the 3GB 660 ti seems to be the way to go?
for 340 bucks? no as you will still be limited by the bus width and rops which that extra 1gb of vram is not going to do anything for.
the 8600gt/gts was a turd when it came out but it actually got faster in newer games before becoming obsolete. the gtx660ti probably wont get any worse in newer games than it is now. and the gtx660ti is a massive upgrade over a gtx460 so anybody doing that will probably be happy for a long time if there were happy with their gtx460 this long. the problem is that most people with a gtx460 paid half of what the gtx660ti costs.
But wouldn't it even out the memory over the memory controller? So you would get 1GB per 64 bit? Thus getting the use of the full memory vs possibly leaving 512MB out?
Costs true, the 460 price/performance was phenomenal. The 460 also came with a true 1gb of availalable mem on 256bit. For it's time we found the 1gb was gonna all be needed. Now the standard is set at 2GB min for performance cards, the 660ti 2gb just comes in a bit sneaky there given hints of the limitations of it's mem system. I have to think a proper review can pinpoint this restraint for perspective buyers.
and many people ended up regretting that purchase. the 1gb version was the way to go unless you wanted to upgrade your card within a year.Wut? The 460 was released with 768MB of ram on a 192-bit bus.
While certainly it is memory bandwidth constrained, do you think midrange < $300 buyers are typically using 8xAA? Theres a point of diminishing returns for the performance hit even on the Radeons.
Anyone find an oc'd 7850 vs an oc'd 660ti comparison?
You better believe I'll be cranking up the AA in any games I can now that I have a $300 28nm card. Being at 1080P I should get quite playable FPS in most games.
The closest I can find are these two reviews from HT4U
But the overclocked 7850 review is from May and uses 12.4 drivers. Normally there would have been more games compared but it looks like they just recently changed the suit of games they run in their overclock benches.
not sure if serious?
If so, you are better off with a 7950. Not sure what lithography has to do with what AA level you expect to apply?
So the 3GB 660 ti seems to be the way to go?
I did grab one of the low hanging 7950 customs just a few days ago, so far meets expectations. Shame it didn't come with BL2 though, but that's not enough of a bonus for a 192-bit 1.5GB effective card.
As in it BETTER be able to run with cranked up AA@1080P being a $300 28nm card (hence the lithography reference). Some games pretty much have to have high AA to not annoy my vision.
I did grab one of the low hanging 7950 customs just a few days ago, so far meets expectations. Shame it didn't come with BL2 though, but that's not enough of a bonus for a 192-bit 2GB card.
As in it BETTER be able to run with cranked up AA@1080P being a $300 28nm card (hence the lithography reference). Some games pretty much have to have high AA to not annoy my vision.
I did grab one of the low hanging 7950 customs just a few days ago, so far meets expectations. Shame it didn't come with BL2 though, but that's not enough of a bonus for a 192-bit 2GB card.
But wouldn't it even out the memory over the memory controller? So you would get 1GB per 64 bit? Thus getting the use of the full memory vs possibly leaving 512MB out?
IC. Well if you need 8X MSAA to not annoy your vision I think you are in the minority. Of course, all of us on this forum are really in the minority but I digress. Enjoy the 7950!
its better than having less memory if its actually needed
with their solution you should basically have 1.5GB of memory at 192bit so as long as the game is within that range there shouldn't be any major performance penalty. And if it does go over that 1.5 mark into the 2GB range, the performance penalty would be less than if you didn't have that extra buffer...
IC. Well if you need 8X MSAA to not annoy your vision I think you are in the minority. Of course, all of us on this forum are really in the minority but I digress. Enjoy the 7950!