Help me decide please

I've considered selling it. If I didn't sell it, I'd reuse it in another build. I know the 760 is a little better than a 660 ti, but it's about 300$ and I'm not sure whether or not it's better than a 7970, which can also be purchased for about 300$. I'm not sure what to do now. Should I just get an i7 or i5 for now and wait on the card until new ones are released?

I actually already considered SLI, but the thing that kept me from doing it is how some games don't support it.

I have one more question. Why is SLI bad for Planetside 2 since it supports it?

As far as i am concerned, using sli increases number of info coming out of the gpu, more rendering more textures and so on. This will put extra and huge load on the cpu. Since PS2 is a cpu intensive game (most of the fps lags encountered by players is due to lack of cpu power, especially in huge battles), sli will take more of the cpu, not much of the cpu will be left for the game, while the game needs cpu (in this case) more than it needs the gpu. Maybe thats why you werent getting decent fps(just a guess) with a decent card as the gtx 660, due to cpu. Hope this helped.

I never really play at maximum resolution on any game. I play Planetside 2 at 720p while my monitor is 1080p. Will that make enough of a difference?

Doesn't it kinda go without saying that the more powerful CPU will go better with SLI setups? I can still go with an i7 3770k or 4770k if it means a big difference in performance with SLI. I'm not limited on money, I just didn't think it was necessary to spend another 100$ or so for the i7, but now I'm considering it.

I personally would go with the i7. The main reason I say this, is because the new consoles are 8 cores, which means more future games may start supporting the extra cores. I have also found that due to some utilities, and gaming software I run along side gaming, HT actually helps out performance.

Then there is the experience I've had with my last CPU, the i7 920, which I still use because it was such a great chip, with some OCing, it has lasted a very long time and still very competitive with todays CPU's.

I really dont suggest getting an i7 if this pc, after some searching in threads, i found that the 4670k can easily handle any card and this even includes the gtx 660 sli. The i7 is better than the i5, as for the hyperthreading, but this is for programs that use it, its not useful in gaming . i7 will be useful for video editing, 3d modelling and more cpu intensive and hungry programs. About upcoming consoles, its true that they have 8 cores BUT they are at lower clock speed PLUS it will take time for the devs to code the game to make use of the 8 cores (maybe from 1 to 2 years). Until that time, you can get an i5 and enjoy your experience with its super single core performance which most games needs these days and get a better gpu with the invested money (100$), as games are going to be more gpu bound gradually. Make sure to get the 4th gen haswell of cpus, just in case you wanted to upgrade it in 1 or 2 years, if you got ivy bridge, you will be forced to buy a new mobo for new socket as well. Heop this helped.

Ok, i dont want to start a war. so far in this forum, i havent had any bad relationships with anyone and i dont want to have. THIS POST IS NOT MEANT TO BE OFFENSIVE, and i dont want to show that im the best cpu expert here, cause im not. I will be more organized

1) About ps4, it is not a debate. the i5-4670k can blow it out easily. You say it has more cores, yes but they are at low speeds, the i5 has double its speed, it has mych more raw cpu performance, more efficiency/ amount of data streamed per core.

2) About the i7 vs i5, from the games that utilises more than 4 cores, i found arma II a good game, its very cpu intensive and uses as much cores as available, http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2012/05/01/intel-core-i5-3570k-cpu-review/6 if you check this out, you will see that the difference between i5 and i7 is not noticeable and negligible, here is arma 3, which is also cpu intensive http://www.techspot.com/review/712-arma-3-benchmarks/page5.html and here is battlefield 3 endgame on 64 players server (theses are mose games claimed to use more than 4 cores) http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2307366 again the fps difference is not significant Thats what i meant by it would be a waste of money when spending extra 100$ on an i7, even if he had them ready, he can get a better gpu OR save them up for his next build or just having some real life with them!

3) As a said and will always say, for devs to make a game uses 8 cores efficiently (which means that the game will be bottlenecked by an i5 and will perform better on an 8 core cpu, it will take long time. I assume you know threadable and non threadable code. For the games to create a perfect threadable code, this will take LONG time, there are lot of interdependant variables in the game which cannot be processed until other results are calculated, this makes it essential for devs to think of a new way for writing a game code to utilize 8 cores more efficiently and create a significant difference between numbers of codes available

4) Hyperthreading is of no benefit in gaming, here is some benchmarks for hyperthreading (the games are bit old but these are the available in the benchmark) http://www.overclock.net/t/671977/hyperthreading-in-games .

5) Maybe you are right about things other than gaming, about music and so on, all i know about this that it needs more ram and 8 gb ddr3 1600mhz ram is more than enough for these alt tabs and other tasks.