Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Seven GeForce GTX 660 Ti Cards: Exploring Memory Bandwidth

Last response: in Reviews comments
Share
September 12, 2012 5:11:40 AM

This review reinforces what I have been saying for weeks. The GTX 660Ti is overpriced at $300. Since you can easily find a HD7950 for $300 or less after rebates, it makes the 660TI irrelevant. To me, the 660Ti needs to be $60-$75 cheaper before it can achieve bang for the buck status.
Score
25
September 12, 2012 5:29:43 AM

I'd Like to know which 2GB model 660ti you used in this comparison? I would like to see how if perhaps the Zotac memory overclock has much of an effect on performance. If you used the Zotac in this comparison that may very well be the reason it outperforms the 3GB Galaxy card? Maybe run this same test overclocking the memory, it seems as though the 660ti with its memory overclocked can nearly reach GTX670 Bandwidth. I'd like to see how much that helps overcome the narrow bus.
Score
2
Related resources
September 12, 2012 5:35:50 AM

The problem with wider memory interface is that it exponentially increases the chip's die-size. Hence, cost per wafer and power consumption will increase a lot.

IMO both AMD and Nvidia should use the XDR2 memory in the next series of cards. That would give the same bandwidth at half the interface size.
Score
-4
Anonymous
a b } Memory
September 12, 2012 6:04:41 AM

iknowhowtofixitThis review reinforces what I have been saying for weeks. The GTX 660Ti is overpriced at $300. Since you can easily find a HD7950 for $300 or less after rebates, it makes the 660TI irrelevant. To me, the 660Ti needs to be $60-$75 cheaper before it can achieve bang for the buck status.

it is because of the 660ti that the 7950 prices dropped to $300 or less with MIR: so tell me how irrelevant they are now?
Score
-3
September 12, 2012 6:05:45 AM

For the Batman Arkham City tests on the 670 and 660ti, was the PhysX setting set to Off, Low or High?
Score
0
September 12, 2012 6:23:35 AM

Anonymous said:
it is because of the 660ti that the 7950 prices dropped to $300 or less with MIR: so tell me how irrelevant they are now?


The 7950 has been our for months now compared to the 660ti and the price drop happens before the release of the 660ti. Nvidia should really have predicted that the 7950 prices should come down even more so it makes almost no sense that they release the 660ti at $300.

The 7870 performs just slightly slower compared to the 660ti but beats it once you crank up the AA really high and it costs $50 less. On the other hand the 7950 is overall faster than the 660ti and even surpass the the $60+ 670 once you crank the AA really high as well. For the 660ti to sell, Nvidia should really lower it to $260 imo.....or they could just rely on fanboys
Score
16
Anonymous
a b } Memory
September 12, 2012 6:28:28 AM

EzioAs said:
The 7950 has been our for months now compared to the 660ti and the price drop happens before the release of the 660ti.


AMD cuts HD 7000 series price even further
Tuesday, 21 August 2012 08:57 (after the 660ti release)
Quote:
AMD has already dropped the HD 7970 from US $479 to US $429, HD 7950 from US $399 to US $349 and the HD 7870 down from US $349 to US $299. The new price cut skips the HD 7970 graphics card but includes the HD 7950, HD 7870 as well as the 1 and 2GB versions of the HD 7850.

The most important is probably the price cut for the 3GB HD 7950 which battles it out with Nvidia's recently released GTX 660 Ti. The HD 7950 3GB is, according to the report, will receive a US $30 price cut placing it at US $320. The HD 7870 2GB graphics card got another US $50 price cut pushing it down to US $250 which probably makes it one of the most interesting mid-range graphics cards on the market.


cheers! :) 
Score
-5
September 12, 2012 6:44:16 AM

ahrensy said:
For the Batman Arkham City tests on the 670 and 660ti, was the PhysX setting set to Off, Low or High?
PhysX was off, because it affects the overall performance. PhysX is dead - ok, not quite, but almost ;) 
Score
16
September 12, 2012 6:53:13 AM

Anonymous said:
AMD cuts HD 7000 series price even further
Tuesday, 21 August 2012 08:57 (after the 660ti release)
Quote:
AMD has already dropped the HD 7970 from US $479 to US $429, HD 7950 from US $399 to US $349 and the HD 7870 down from US $349 to US $299. The new price cut skips the HD 7970 graphics card but includes the HD 7950, HD 7870 as well as the 1 and 2GB versions of the HD 7850.

The most important is probably the price cut for the 3GB HD 7950 which battles it out with Nvidia's recently released GTX 660 Ti. The HD 7950 3GB is, according to the report, will receive a US $30 price cut placing it at US $320. The HD 7870 2GB graphics card got another US $50 price cut pushing it down to US $250 which probably makes it one of the most interesting mid-range graphics cards on the market.


cheers! :) 


If you check the price of the 7950s before this news at most online retailer (Newegg, NCIX), you'll know that the price drop happens already although the official news from AMD was a couple of weeks later
Score
-2
Anonymous
a b } Memory
September 12, 2012 7:12:33 AM

EzioAs said:
If you check the price of the 7950s before this news at most online retailer (Newegg, NCIX), you'll know that the price drop happens already although the official news from AMD was a couple of weeks later

now you are talking complete nonsense unless you do not understand there were two price drops and the latter of which is because of the 660ti; as the article stated.
so you want to see pricing history . . :) 
Sapphire Radeon HD 7950 3GB Video Card


now how much sense does it make to drop prices and not tell anyone?
:pfff: 
Score
-4
September 12, 2012 7:21:18 AM

Tom's, I want to make a request article. Where should I post it? :D 
Score
1
September 12, 2012 7:21:45 AM

Anonymous said:
now you are talking complete nonsense unless you do not understand there were two price drops and the latter of which is because of the 660ti; as the article stated.
so you want to see pricing history . . :) 
Sapphire Radeon HD 7950 3GB Video Card
http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/4546/capturecns.png

now how much sense does it make to drop prices and not tell anyone?
:pfff: 


I'm not talking nonsense, yes they were 2 price drops and the latter one was due to the 660ti BUT it happens before the official release of the 660ti. I've check newegg prices almost everyday so I know I'm not talking nonsense. The official news was weeks later or it could be that I read news that was reported late. However, my point still stands that the price drops before the 660ti was released
Score
-2
Anonymous
a b } Memory
September 12, 2012 7:44:18 AM

EzioAs said:
I'm not talking nonsense, yes they were 2 price drops and the latter one was due to the 660ti BUT it happens before the official release of the 660ti. I've check newegg prices almost everyday so I know I'm not talking nonsense. The official news was weeks later or it could be that I read news that was reported late. However, my point still stands that the price drops before the 660ti was released

http://videocardz.com/nvidia/geforce-600/geforce-gtx-66...
RELEASE DATE:August 16h, 2012
and as you can see the price drop to ~$300 was announced august 21st and hit the market around that time, after the 660ti was released and the pricing history in the graph obviously shows the announcement wasn't late but happened at the same time.

maybe your price checking wasn't as thorough as you thought . . . my point of those great prices on the 7950 because of the 660ti still holds. (thumb that)
Score
-4
September 12, 2012 7:48:29 AM

But I'm still confused...

After reading everything & from the conclusion which 660 Ti's are people supposed to go with?
There are so many out there, but which ones are recommended by Toms???

Someone plz clear this up as there's no clear cut recommendations made in the conclusion, thanks!
Score
-4
September 12, 2012 8:44:08 AM

^^ none of them...

They quite clearly state that it is poorly designed to take advantage of the GPUs power and that other competing configs (7870 and 7950) are better choices at that price point.
Score
15
September 12, 2012 8:45:18 AM

Also the fact that none have the toms hardware recommended logo attached should be a clue...
Score
17
September 12, 2012 9:02:23 AM

Anonymous said:
http://videocardz.com/nvidia/geforce-600/geforce-gtx-66...
RELEASE DATE:August 16h, 2012
and as you can see the price drop to ~$300 was announced august 21st and hit the market around that time, after the 660ti was released and the pricing history in the graph obviously shows the announcement wasn't late but happened at the same time.

maybe your price checking wasn't as thorough as you thought . . . my point of those great prices on the 7950 because of the 660ti still holds. (thumb that)


How many times do I have to remind you that the price drops was announced by AMD late? Or it could be the fact that at a week or two before the 660ti was released, all graphics card manufacturer(Asus, MSI, Saphhire, etc) drops the price of the 7950 themselves since you could find most 7950 at $320-330, but I find that hard to believe so AMD themselves must've lower the MSRP and had not yet announce it to the public.

The same thing happens today (although I don't know whether it's AMD or the card manufacturer), where if you browse Newegg right now, you can find the 7950 at $310 or even below $300. As far as I know, the MSRP hasn't changed yet from $320 and there's been no word from AMD about this either.

My conclusion about this, is that the 660ti is still overpriced considering the fact that once you take high resolution, higher AA settings, multi-GPU+multi-monitor setup and higher overclocking headroom, the 7950 pretty much trumps the 660ti in every way for a card that can be found at the same price or just slightly more expensive.
Score
0
September 12, 2012 9:03:55 AM

With the cpu clock so high, relative to the performance I can only imagine that those like myself with an AMD system would have atrocious performance. That 2500K probably gives 35% better performance than my oc'd X4. Haha, good thang you stuck with Intel for this article.
Score
-4
September 12, 2012 9:06:03 AM

any idea why Tom's never seems to include EVGA cards? I'd really like to see some in the reviews, is EVGA stingy about sending them out for testing or something?
Score
-4
September 12, 2012 9:50:29 AM

Anonymous said:
it is because of the 660ti that the 7950 prices dropped to $300 or less with MIR: so tell me how irrelevant they are now?


Umm...the 7870 performs just slightly below it and even beats it once you apply 8xAA or play at 2560x1600 while costs 50 bucks less. In the case of the 7950 vs 660ti, the 7950 costs similar (okay, maybe some of them are slightly expensive) and has the potential to even beat the 670.

Did you even read the article man?
Score
12
Anonymous
a b } Memory
September 12, 2012 9:53:01 AM

This really is a well presented article. Good reading and very informative. Cheers!
Score
10
September 12, 2012 10:31:35 AM

trumpeter1994 said:
any idea why Tom's never seems to include EVGA cards? I'd really like to see some in the reviews, is EVGA stingy about sending them out for testing or something?

The sad truth:
No samples from EVGA available (in Germany). I have asked so many times - no response. It's their decision, not mine.
Score
13
Anonymous
a b } Memory
September 12, 2012 10:41:42 AM

Keep an eye on Newegg and the Ice Q 7870. When they come in stock, they only last hours because for some reason they have them priced at $219. Ridiculously good deal. I'm going to pick up another one as soon as possible.
Score
6
September 12, 2012 12:07:29 PM

Really detailed review...i had been wanting to see what the narrower bus does for the Ti...

Pretty much confirms what i've been thinking for a while: the 670 and 7950 are excellent 1080p cards, 2x7950 is an awesome combination for >1080p crossfire, 2x7870= great for 1080p CF and the 660 Ti should be most at home at around $225 and connected to a 1680x1050 display.

I would have liked to see crysis 2 with the high res pack "on" at 1080p, so as to make a comparison...but you could maybe ask the folks doing the GTX660 review to put it in, so as to compare the 660 Ti and 660 at both 1680x1050 and 1080p.

However, i don't mean to be critical, it's a great read. two thumbs' up to you sir! :) 
Score
4
September 12, 2012 12:18:06 PM

I do hope nvidia takes note of this, so that the same dumbness isn't repeated with the Kepler refresh or Maxwell cards.
Score
3
a b } Memory
September 12, 2012 12:20:13 PM

mayankleoboy1The problem with wider memory interface is that it exponentially increases the chip's die-size. Hence, cost per wafer and power consumption will increase a lot.IMO both AMD and Nvidia should use the XDR2 memory in the next series of cards. That would give the same bandwidth at half the interface size.


Te Tahiti is only a little more than 20% larger than the GK104 and it has a 50% greater memory interface with obviously great results. The 7950 consumes about as much power as the 670 does. Your argument doesn't work at all.
Score
5
Anonymous
a b } Memory
September 12, 2012 12:20:37 PM

EzioAs said:
How many times do I have to remind you that the price drops was announced by AMD late?

OMG. you're totally kidding me, right?

i showed where AMD announced another price drop after the release of the 660ti and in response to it. i showed where in the history of the card's pricing a drop coincided with the announcement and you still say the announcement was late?

ok, dude have it your way.

Katsu_rap said:
Did you even read the article man?


did you even read what i was responding to?
Score
-4
a b } Memory
September 12, 2012 12:25:16 PM

looniamhttp://videocardz.com/nvidia/gefor [...] -gtx-660tiRELEASE DATE:August 16h, 2012and as you can see the price drop to ~$300 was announced august 21st and hit the market around that time, after the 660ti was released and the pricing history in the graph obviously shows the announcement wasn't late but happened at the same time.maybe your price checking wasn't as thorough as you thought . . . my point of those great prices on the 7950 because of the 660ti still holds. (thumb that)


The price drops were irrelevant of the 660 Ti's performance. Nvidia now had a new card at a $300 price point and even if it performed like crap (which in many situations is exactly how it performs), AMD had to drop prices to reduce the novelty of a new competitor, especially given the hype thar Nvidia threw out with some of the bench-marking sites. Intel also drops prices despite AMD CPUs being much slower for most work at stock, but you don't see many people saying that it's because AMD can compete at stock. At least AMD has a lot of overclocking and such that can be done, the 660 Ti can't even do that properly.
Score
3
Anonymous
a b } Memory
September 12, 2012 12:38:37 PM

blazorthon said:
The price drops were irrelevant of the 660 Ti's performance. Nvidia now had a new card at a $300 price point and even if it performed like crap (which in many situations is exactly how it performs), AMD had to drop prices to reduce the novelty of a new competitor. Intel also drops prices despite AMD CPUs being much slower for most work at stock, but you don't see many people saying that it's because AMD can compete at stock. At least AMD has a lot of overclocking and such that can be done, the 660 Ti can't even do that properly.

and please refer to these reviews when the 660ti was released that showed it performning better than the then higher priced 7950:
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Zotac/GeForce_GTX_66...
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_660_Ti_Power...
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GeForce_GTX_660...
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Palit/GeForce_GTX_66...
http://www.guru3d.com/article/msi-geforce-gtx-660-ti-po...
http://www.guru3d.com/article/gigabyte-geforce-gtx-660-...
http://www.pureoverclock.com/Review-detail/gigabyte-gtx...
http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/43797-kfa2-gefor...
http://www.motherboards.org/review/gigabyte-geforce-gtx...
http://www.hitechlegion.com/reviews/graphics/30136-evga...
http://www.purepc.pl/karty_graficzne/test_geforce_gtx_6...
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/EVGA-GeForce-GTX...
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/nvidia_gtx_660t...
http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1552/pg1/nvidia-g...
http://techreport.com/review/23419/nvidia-geforce-gtx-6...
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-r...
http://uk.hardware.info/reviews/3026/nvidia-geforce-gtx...
http://www.vortez.net/articles_pages/zotac_gtx660ti_amp...


i can post 18 more . .but i think i made my point: the last price drop of the 7950 was in responce to the release of the 660ti. PERIOD

(and after another cup of coffee it think that is the common ground blazorthon)
Score
-1
a b } Memory
September 12, 2012 12:51:05 PM



Look at this Tom's review and look at those again. Then look at the overclocked reviews. Do you think that anything short of water cooling will get a retailing 660 Ti's memory to a huge 1.9GHz? How about gettign the GPU past 1.3GHz like several did (not that it made a significant performance difference)? Heck, how about reaching for 1.2GHz and beyond with mere stock Turbo Boosting clocks? Those were cherry pickerd cards that aren't representative of real-world performance. Even then, when an overclocked 7950 was thrown in with one or two of the reviews, it still beat these cherry picked and overclocked 660 Ti.

I already said that the second price drop was in response to the 660 Ti, so I don't know why you're arguing about that with me. I simply said that it wasn't because of the 7950 being a weaker card, which it obviously isn't.
Score
5
September 12, 2012 12:53:01 PM

The funny thing is AMD didn't have to drop the prices on the cards anyhow. The had better performing cards due to their non crippled memory bandwidth and they were released months before Nvidia's offering.

Score
2
Anonymous
a b } Memory
September 12, 2012 1:01:48 PM

blazorthon said:
Look at this Tom's review and look at those again. Then look at the overclocked reviews. Do you think that anything short of water cooling will get a retailing 660 Ti's memory to a huge 1.9GHz? How about gettign the GPU past 1.3GHz like several did (not that it made a significant performance difference)? Heck, how about reaching for 1.2GHz and beyond with mere stock Turbo Boosting clocks? Those were cherry pickerd cards that aren't representative of real-world performance. Even then, when an overclocked 7950 was thrown in with one or two of the reviews, it still beat these cherry picked and overclocked 660 Ti.

I already said that the second price drop was in response to the 660 Ti, so I don't know why you're arguing about that with me. I simply said that it wasn't because of the 7950 being a weaker card, which it obviously isn't.


i am not talking about today's performance; at that time most sites used drivers that were not matured for the 7950 as much as the 660ti drivers from nVidia. and how everyone screamed about them using CC 12.1 instead of 12.4 so the 660ti was out performing it.

yes i know in hindsight you did not dispute the cause of the price drop, and sorry for taking what you said out of context; its unbelievable the hate from fan boys to point of not believing evidence that is staring them in the face . .

i'm out.
Score
1
a b } Memory
September 12, 2012 1:25:19 PM

looniami am not talking about today's performance; at that time most sites used drivers that were not matured for the 7950 as much as the 660ti drivers from nVidia. and how everyone screamed about them using CC 12.1 instead of 12.4 so the 660ti was out performing it. yes i know in hindsight you did not dispute the cause of the price drop, and sorry for taking what you said out of context; its unbelievable the hate from fan boys to point of not believing evidence that is staring them in the face . .i'm out.


I didn't realize that sites testing the 660 Ti compared it to Radeons using old (pre Catalyst 12.7) drivers. I thought that all of the 660 Ti reviews used Catalyst 12.7 in their comparisons. I'll check and look through a bunch of them to make sure of this.

EDIT: Damn, I didn't think that any sites could be so unbiased. You're right. I've looked through the TPU and Guru3D reviews and low and behold, Guru3D used the old Catalyst 21.1 through 21.6 drivers, meaning that they either kept re-installing old drivers or they included outdated results from old tests. Just to think that I was just starting to agree with some people in that Guru3D really isn't biased and my look on them was wrong, I find out that they pulled that crap in their tests.

They also used the very latest Nvidia driver for their 660 Ti reviews rather than doing what they did for AMD, not that it would have been much better. At least they didn't lie about it and maybe they did the tests before the Catalyst 21.7 driver launched, but still... If the latter is true, Guru3D should have put a disclaimer in those articles after finding out about the 12.7 driver. Thanks for mentioning this.

I agree, the hate on both sides from fanboys is ridiculous.

EDIT 2: The PureOerlock review doesn't mention drivers, AMD's performance looks like pre 12.7 drivers to me. hitechlegion used Catalyst 12.6, purepc.pl used anywhere from Catalyst 11.12 to Catalyst 12.4 (some AMD cards had even the December beta drivers from 2010), HardwareSecrets had Catalyst 12.6, overclockersclub didn't mention their driver versions, uk.hardware.info doesn't seem to have posted driver info, and Vortez didn't mention the AMD drivers in use. Jeeze, less than half of the reviews used recent AMD drivers and several of those that did used odd settings (although not all).
Score
2
September 12, 2012 1:30:40 PM

I, for one, am glad to have an article that supports picking a decent HD 7870 over the 660ti.
Score
6
a b } Memory
September 12, 2012 1:44:31 PM

I don't want to sound like a darned fanboy, because I'm not, but I recently switched from nVidia to AMD graphics cards, partly because I just can't figure out what nVidia is doing, and I don't think they know either. Even if I want to spend a lot of money (and I don't), EVERY nVidia card is crippled in some way! From the GT640 with its miserable DDR3, through the GTX660Ti with the reduced bandwidth, to even the GTX670 having crippled Compute functionality, what's going on here??? When I buy a graphics card, it should be about what I get, not what I have to give up. In every range: low, middle, and high; AMD offers uncrippled alternatives. Ok, they've had driver issues of their own, but those either have been or are being fixed. What am I missing?
Score
9
a b } Memory
September 12, 2012 2:12:36 PM

The 78xx's seem great in comparison. Who pays this kind of money and doesn't use all the AA they can get their hands on at 1080p ?
Score
6
a b } Memory
September 12, 2012 2:15:04 PM

jtt283I don't want to sound like a darned fanboy, because I'm not, but I recently switched from nVidia to AMD graphics cards, partly because I just can't figure out what nVidia is doing, and I don't think they know either. Even if I want to spend a lot of money (and I don't), EVERY nVidia card is crippled in some way! From the GT640 with its miserable DDR3, through the GTX660Ti with the reduced bandwidth, to even the GTX670 having crippled Compute functionality, what's going on here??? When I buy a graphics card, it should be about what I get, not what I have to give up. In every range: low, middle, and high; AMD offers uncrippled alternatives. Ok, they've had driver issues of their own, but those either have been or are being fixed. What am I missing?


Nothing comes to mind on things that AMD intentionally crippled, but I might simply not be thinking of everything.
Score
0
September 12, 2012 2:37:47 PM

blazorthon said:
I didn't realize that sites testing the 660 Ti compared it to Radeons using old (pre Catalyst 12.7) drivers. I thought that all of the 660 Ti reviews used Catalyst 12.7 in their comparisons. I'll check and look through a bunch of them to make sure of this.

EDIT: Damn, I didn't think that any sites could be so unbiased. You're right. I've looked through the TPU and Guru3D reviews and low and behold, Guru3D used the old Catalyst 21.1 through 21.6 drivers, meaning that they either kept re-installing old drivers or they included outdated results from old tests. Just to think that I was just starting to agree with some people in that Guru3D really isn't biased and my look on them was wrong, I find out that they pulled that crap in their tests.

They also used the very latest Nvidia driver for their 660 Ti reviews rather than doing what they did for AMD, not that it would have been much better. At least they didn't lie about it and maybe they did the tests before the Catalyst 21.7 driver launched, but still... If the latter is true, Guru3D should have put a disclaimer in those articles after finding out about the 12.7 driver. Thanks for mentioning this.

I agree, the hate on both sides from fanboys is ridiculous.

EDIT 2: The PureOerlock review doesn't mention drivers, AMD's performance looks like pre 12.7 drivers to me. hitechlegion used Catalyst 12.6, purepc.pl used anywhere from Catalyst 11.12 to Catalyst 12.4 (some AMD cards had even the December beta drivers from 2010), HardwareSecrets had Catalyst 12.6, overclockersclub didn't mention their driver versions, uk.hardware.info doesn't seem to have posted driver info, and Vortez didn't mention the AMD drivers in use. Jeeze, less than half of the reviews used recent AMD drivers and several of those that did used odd settings (although not all).


Props to blazorthorn for not being one of those "Oh yeah.... well... shut up..." people.

Great article Tom's :sol: 
Score
-1
September 12, 2012 2:48:02 PM

Oh my this article is going to send jaquith into severe fanboy nerd rage, he might just burst a blood vessel.
Score
-1
September 12, 2012 3:22:34 PM

FormatCPhysX was off, because it affects the overall performance. PhysX is dead - ok, not quite, but almost


Agreed! :) 

I'm happy to be found blind, but were you making an assumption based on their statement of trying to mitigate processing load?

I still can't see it specified is all; and Batman AC defaults to High PhysX unless you scroll down to notice the setting (well for me anyway, not really sure if it goes by card config), and on High, many places have hundreds of additional little objects on the ground like leaves and shattered bits of wall and glass. I would still expect the memory bandwidth scaling problems shown here (was pretty much as I expected for the 192-bit bus). If PhysX was actually on High (however unlikely as you say, given their testing intent), then what might be the real impact when it gets to 4x or 8x MSAA with all those extra little objects in play... would be nice to know for sure what Tom's tested, that's all.
Score
2
a b } Memory
September 12, 2012 3:31:51 PM

blazorthonNothing comes to mind on things that AMD intentionally crippled, but I might simply not be thinking of everything.

It's not "what did AMD cripple," it's "is there a nVidia card that is NOT somehow crippled?" Of course lower-end cards have fewer shaders, or less ROPS, or something else is reduced compared to a more expensive card, but nVidia seems to be doing other kinds of mutilating, just to leave something out, and I can't figure out why...
Score
7
September 12, 2012 4:42:29 PM

For me i think the real winner was the x2 7750. at least in the 1920x1080 range. just looked on newegg and a a pair of HIS can be bought for around $210, and there is a 10 buck rebate on each.

I would like to see an article with midrange cards vs low end cards in crossfire, just curious.
Score
-1
a b } Memory
September 12, 2012 4:58:14 PM

zero messiahFor me i think the real winner was the x2 7750. at least in the 1920x1080 range. just looked on newegg and a a pair of HIS can be bought for around $210, and there is a 10 buck rebate on each.I would like to see an article with midrange cards vs low end cards in crossfire, just curious.


The problem with that is that they wouldn't beat a 7850 that can be bought for about the same price.
Score
7
a b } Memory
September 12, 2012 5:09:33 PM

jtt283It's not "what did AMD cripple," it's "is there a nVidia card that is NOT somehow crippled?" Of course lower-end cards have fewer shaders, or less ROPS, or something else is reduced compared to a more expensive card, but nVidia seems to be doing other kinds of mutilating, just to leave something out, and I can't figure out why...


My theory is profit. Even making a GPU that is only somewhat smaller than another can make it significantly cheaper to mass-produce because it means more chips per wafer and gives a higher yield due to the chance of any one chip having a problem being lower. They also use fewer memory ICs than AMD's 7900 cards and smaller PCBs (implying inferior VRM and such as well), all of which decreases costs. Remember, Nvidia didn't use the exact same 28nm TSMC process as AMD for their GPUs and that may have been the cause of their apparent yield problems. That the vast majority of GK104s shipping are undoubtedly in the 660 Ti and the 670 tells me that at the least, with one SMX and also with a memory controller disabled, the GK104s can pass binning far more readily.

Geforce 6xx seems to be a generation that is optimized for cost rather than performance. Having so many GPU cores that are as powerful as they are means that if Nvidia does tests that don't involve much in the way of settings that are heavily impacted by features that Nvidia crippled, they can use hype/marketing to try to make people not realize the issues. That lets them use higher prices than they should while making it look like they are better than even more expensive or at least similarly priced AMD cards that are actually far more balanced and superior when put to more strenuous tests that make more sense.

For example, the 660 Ti is priced at about $290-$340, mostly at or above $300, but when overclocking is considered, even the far cheaper Radeon 7850 can surpass it and the 7870 that is similar to the 7850 in price can do so even at stock or to a greater extent with overclocking. Then we have the 7950 that is generally around the 660 Ti in price, but even without overclocking, can really be a show-stopper for the 660 Ti at stock and to an extreme when overclocked.
Score
0
September 12, 2012 6:09:52 PM

jtt283It's not "what did AMD cripple," it's "is there a nVidia card that is NOT somehow crippled?" Of course lower-end cards have fewer shaders, or less ROPS, or something else is reduced compared to a more expensive card, but nVidia seems to be doing other kinds of mutilating, just to leave something out, and I can't figure out why...


Probably for the same reasons nvidia left out video RAM, meaning not enough of it, for so many years except on the highest end cards.

Nvidia likes to mess around with 896 MB, 768 MB and other ridiculously low amounts of video RAM, then in subsequent years they offered 1.5 GB when AMD's cards had 2 GB, and now only 2 GB when AMD offers 3 GB.

They do it to save money, and to try to force the consumer to buy their most expensive card, and even then the AMD equivalent often has more video RAM. AMD is not perfect either, but at least they have always been generous with video RAM.
Score
5
September 12, 2012 7:00:29 PM

mikenygmailProbably for the same reasons nvidia left out video RAM, meaning not enough of it, for so many years except on the highest end cards. Nvidia likes to mess around with 896 MB, 768 MB and other ridiculously low amounts of video RAM, then in subsequent years they offered 1.5 GB when AMD's cards had 2 GB, and now only 2 GB when AMD offers 3 GB. They do it to save money, and to try to force the consumer to buy their most expensive card, and even then the AMD equivalent often has more video RAM. AMD is not perfect either, but at least they have always been generous with video RAM.
I love competition, which is why I fear Nvidia is pulling a 3dfx. Nvidia has no competition from entry to mid level gpu's.
Score
-3
September 12, 2012 7:08:37 PM

Thanks for this nice review. Well done.
Score
3
a b } Memory
September 12, 2012 9:03:34 PM

zootedI love competition, which is why I fear Nvidia is pulling a 3dfx. Nvidia has no competition from entry to mid level gpu's.

Blatantly false. NVidia has nothing that can touch the HD6670 or HD7750; not at their prices, and not at their low power usage.
Score
2
a b } Memory
September 12, 2012 10:16:41 PM

jtt283Blatantly false. NVidia has nothing that can touch the HD6670 or HD7750; not at their prices, and not at their low power usage.


I think that zooted's point was that Nvidia isn't competing at the entry to mid level, not that no one can compete with Nvidia at the entry to mid level.
Score
2
!