The gigabyte card is NOT a stock card (ie it runs slightly faster than a regular 660). The 660 (non-OC version) would get 63 fps in that test.
1920 x 1080 is ~19% more pixels than 1680 x 1050. I would expect about 10% less performance.
63-10% = 58 fps.
Memory makes no difference for most games (excluding F1--only game I know of which seems memory dependent).
BF3 runs on windows and I can guarante you that you will not notice any difference between home premium, professional and ultimate in gaming performance.
It is irrelevant if the gigabyte card conforms 100% to the reference card or is an tweaked/improved card. The gigabyte card can be both purchased and tested.
Changing memory speed from 1600 MHz to the stock speed can improve the gaming performance of a FX chip by about 2-5%.
An operative system with or without the Microsoft FX hotfixes installed can vary the gaming performance of an FX chip between 2-10%. A 5% gain is not uncommon.
Different drivers, OS, memory, reference vs tweaked card... can explain perfectly 3-10FPs between one review and other.
I am not going to waste more time on this.
nonsense. I have gone through tons of drivers and there is no driver that will take a plain 660 from 61 to 75 fps.
I did not say that the graphic card was a 660. I was merely pointing how a change of driver on the same card can vary 14 fps in BF3.