660 ti vs 670?

Wondering which one is a better graphics to go for based on bang for the buck. Is it worth it to spend an extra $100 on a 670 or spend on a 660 ti and other system upgrades?
34 answers Last reply
More about tomshardware
  1. It would depend on your budget :)

    What is your overall budget for your rig? And what components have you selected so far? If you can squeeze in the GTX670 without too many compromise, then go for it! However, if you have to compromise...let's say for example, an i5 for an i3 JUST to get the 670, then I would recommend you the GTX660 Ti.
  2. My overall budget is around $1500 and this is my build: http://pcpartpicker.com/ca/p/eLi8
    I was just wondering if it would be smarter to get a 660 Ti instead of a 670 and use the extra money for other parts.
  3. gtx 670
  4. Well your parts seem very well balanced :) If you can spend a little extra money, I would HIGHLY recommend getting a 120GB SSD.
  5. GTX 670
  6. For $1500 desktop (i'm assuming that it's spent ONLY on the hardware and not keyboards, monitors, etc) you can definitely get a GTX 670 and a i7-3770k...

    But if you're looking for bang for the buck, GTX 660 TI is the way to go. The factory overclocked ones will usually match a stock GTX 670's performance.

    But ya. like the reviews say: GTX 660 ti costs 25% less than GTX 670 but only takes a 10-20% hit in performance.
  7. ^ I don't recommend the 3770k if the OP's main purpose is gaming.
  8. killerhurtalot said:
    For $1500 desktop (i'm assuming that it's spent ONLY on the hardware and not keyboards, monitors, etc) you can definitely get a GTX 670 and a i7-3770k...

    But if you're looking for bang for the buck, GTX 660 TI is the way to go. The factory overclocked ones will usually match a stock GTX 670's performance.



    Yeah matches?? Well youre right it matches the 670 in lower resolutions with no AA enabled, I guess thats what you mean.
  9. mocchan said:
    ^ I don't recommend the 3770k if the OP's main purpose is gaming.


    Don't see why not :/ He's got a $1500 budget... (still assuming he doesn't have to buy the monitor and etc)

    Anonymous said:
    Yeah matches?? Well youre right it matches the 670 in lower resolutions with no AA enabled, I guess thats what you mean.


    it matches the GTX 670's performance up to 1080/1200p from most of the reviews... you don't see too many gamers gaming on anything above that.

    man... the forum doesn't automatically combine two consecutive posts...
  10. killerhurtalot said:
    Don't see why not :/ He's got a $1500 budget... (still assuming he doesn't have to buy the monitor and etc)

    Well that's true, you can go all overkill and get an i7 :lol: but I just find it a little overkill.
  11. killerhurtalot said:
    For $1500 desktop (i'm assuming that it's spent ONLY on the hardware and not keyboards, monitors, etc) you can definitely get a GTX 670 and a i7-3770k...

    After taxes and shipping, I would actually go out of my budget if i went for an i7, and I don't really need it.
  12. mocchan said:
    Well that's true, you can go all overkill and get an i7 :lol: but I just find it a little overkill.


    I think if he cuts some corners, he can definitely even fit a GTX 680 in there lol.

    $330 for i7-3770k cpu
    $30 for Cpu cooler
    $500 for GTX 680 gpu
    $150-200 for mobo
    $50 for 8 gb ram
    $100 for 120 GB SSD (i think newegg has the samsung 830 128gb for $100)
    $90 for 1 TB hdd
    $15-20 for DVD drive
    $100 for PC case
    $80 for 750w PSU
    Total = $1500


    rough estimate lol.

    alphaxro said:
    After taxes and shipping, I would actually go out of my budget if i went for an i7, and I don't really need it.



    Well, there's always ways to avoid taxes by buying on different websites... shipping is pretty cheap... $40-50 total for even multiple orders... just cut down the i7-3770k to a i5-3570k and you got enough money for tax on some things and the shipping...
  13. killerhurtalot said:
    I think if he cuts some corners, he can definitely even fit a GTX 680 in there lol.

    $330 for i7-3770k cpu
    $30 for Cpu cooler
    $500 for GTX 680 gpu
    $150-200 for mobo
    $50 for 8 gb ram
    $100 for 120 GB SSD (i think newegg has the samsung 830 128gb for $100)
    $90 for 1 TB hdd
    $15-20 for DVD drive
    $100 for PC case
    $80 for 750w PSU
    Total = $1500


    rough estimate lol.

    the GTX 680 isn't worth it
  14. The castrated bandwidth in the 660ti will hurt A LOT down the road when more GPGPU is in games and if you like any form of AA.

    I own a GTX670 and it falls flat on its face when heavy GPGPU is applied in Dirt Showdown (Global Illumination, more precisely) for some advanced effects.

    Be warned on this nVidia generation that might fall short in current and maybe next-to-be-released games.

    Hell, I'll have to change it if GRID2 happens to use even more GPGPU xP

    Cheers!
  15. gamerkila57 said:
    the GTX 680 isn't worth it


    I know... if you're not overclocking, you might as well as get a overclocked GTX 670 which would perform just as well as a stock GTX 680 for $100 less... (same deal with GTX 660 ti and GTX 670 lol)
  16. killerhurtalot said:
    I know... if you're not overclocking, you might as well as get a overclocked GTX 670 which would perform just as well as a stock GTX 680 for $100 less... (same deal with GTX 660 ti and GTX 670 lol)


    That or SLI 660Ti's may be a viable option if OP were to go with a 680. However, a 670 still gets my vote with a slightly beefed up SSD :lol:

    @killerhurtalot

    OP has said that his budget is $1500 including taxes, I would think that will bring him WELL over budget with taxes.
  17. killerhurtalot said:
    Didn't see he was in Canada... Don't know about canadian internet retail tax laws... but in the U.S. I've never paid a single cent of tax on any of the computers I've built.


    Yeah it's definitely a little bit different up there :lol:
  18. mocchan said:
    That or SLI 660Ti's may be a viable option if OP were to go with a 680. However, a 670 still gets my vote with a slightly beefed up SSD :lol:

    @killerhurtalot

    OP has said that his budget is $1500 including taxes, I would think that will bring him WELL over budget with taxes.


    Didn't see he was in Canada... Don't know about canadian internet retail tax laws... but in the U.S. I've never paid a single cent of tax on any of the computers I've built.
  19. I only plan to get about 60GB for the SSD because I want to use ISRT with my HDD.
  20. alphaxro said:
    I only plan to get about 60GB for the SSD because I want to use ISRT with my HDD.


    Oh well if that's the case, your current option is 100% fine :)
  21. mocchan said:
    Yeah it's definitely a little bit different up there :lol:


    Then his real budget would probably be around $1350ish if he's paying for shipping and taxes. (assuming worst case of a 10% tax + $65 shipping...)

    That probably would put him near the computer I got now... (well, a small bit better probably since he can get a better motherboard for better overclocking...)
  22. ^ Actually that's true...

    @OP have you considered using an SSD as your MAIN OS drive instead of Intel SRT? I understand SRT is a very modest option, but it may be something to think over considering 120GB SSD's are currently in he $90-$109ish price range. Not much more expensive than your current option of a 60GB SSD.
  23. mocchan said:
    ^ Actually that's true...

    @OP have you considered using an SSD as your MAIN OS drive instead of Intel SRT? I understand SRT is a very modest option, but it may be something to think over considering 120GB SSD's are currently in he $90-$109ish price range. Not much more expensive than your current option of a 60GB SSD.


    Ya... Intel SRT doesn't give that big of a benefit since you can manually choose where which programs are installed on... (Intel srt doesn't help with gaming load times... it just eats up a lot of write/rewrite cycles if you change games frequently...) And Intel SRT is slower than just installing on the SSD (by 15-25% which really doesn't matter since it's a extra second or two...)

    And he's definitely got the spare money to do it according to his pcpartpicker build if the limit is actually $1350 CAD. He can definitely get a better motherboard and upgrade to a 120 GB HDD easy.
  24. Actually according to a few people (forgot where which thread...) SRT actually makes your HDD feel very similar to an SSD. However, that's beside the point. If OP has the cash to go for it, I would definitely jump ontop of an SSD rather than SRT :)
  25. mocchan said:
    Actually according to a few people (forgot where which thread...) SRT actually makes your HDD feel very similar to an SSD. However, that's beside the point. If OP has the cash to go for it, I would definitely jump ontop of an SSD rather than SRT :)


    http://www.anandtech.com/show/4329/intel-z68-chipset-smart-response-technology-ssd-caching-review

    This says it pretty well. But with 60 GB, you can avoid the eviction problem a lot better than the 20 GB drive they used.
  26. I want a speed boost on ALL my data, not just a portion of it.
  27. I would still argue for an SSD, but if you want SRT, go for it :) it's a great technology that definitely has it's benefits!
  28. alphaxro said:
    I want a speed boost on ALL my data, not just a portion of it.


    It WON'T speed boost ALL of your data... It only works well when you use a FEW applications/games that would fit on the SSD cache... otherwise you'll still have loadtimes very similar to the HDD loadtimes when you programs that's not used often.

    Also note that OS cache can also be booted from the drive so the boot times could become inconsistent as well...
  29. ^
    While we're on the subject... I don't really feel any slow-downs having most of my programs installed on my HDD.

    Of course, most of my key essential programs are installed on my SSD, but the games I load on my HDD are definitely not sluggish. Perhaps because it's only being used as a storage rather than OS+Storage?
  30. I am using SRT. I like it, but if I was doing a build right now I would go with the SSD instead of SRT.
  31. mocchan said:
    ^
    While we're on the subject... I don't really feel any slow-downs having most of my programs installed on my HDD.

    Of course, most of my key essential programs are installed on my SSD, but the games I load on my HDD are definitely not sluggish. Perhaps because it's only being used as a storage rather than OS+Storage?


    You don't feel much slowdown because of the time it normally takes to start up programs... (SSD mainly benefits boot times and loading large files) Most of my applications boot up within 2-10 seconds on the HDD... If I install it on the SSD, it would speed it up by 40-50%.... so you're experiencing the extra couple seconds (which is pretty negligible...)

    My cold boot time sped up from 35 seconds to 16-17 seconds... and game load times are similar... when it gets to 10+ seconds faster, that's when people actually notices lol.

    I think the best speed boost I've experienced was when I was opening up a 4 GB picture file in photoshop (don't ask lol). It literally took forever on the damn HDD... and it was done within like 30 seconds on my SSD...
  32. killerhurtalot said:
    You don't feel much slowdown because of the time it normally takes to start up programs... (SSD mainly benefits boot times and loading large files) Most of my applications boot up within 2-10 seconds on the HDD... If I install it on the SSD, it would speed it up by 40-50%.... so you're experiencing the extra couple seconds (which is pretty negligible...)

    My cold boot time sped up from 35 seconds to 16-17 seconds... and game load times are similar... when it gets to 10+ seconds faster, that's when people actually notices lol.

    I think the best speed boost I've experienced was when I was opening up a 4 GB picture file in photoshop (don't ask lol). It literally took forever on the damn HDD... and it was done within like 30 seconds on my SSD...


    Yeah definitely when it comes to large files on Photoshop or some other editing programs, an SSD will benefit you A LOT no matter how fast your HDD is.

    I was also thinking the HDD being faster due to not doing anything prior to me acessing games, movies, etc. With an OS on the HDD, it's running the OS while seeking other programs, which is why you run into slow downs (correct me if I'm wrong of course, just an assumption here).

    I remember games used to take forever to load when I was still using an HDD for OS+Games, definitely different now that I have a different drive dedicated JUST for the OS.
  33. Just shut up ALL of you about SSD. Don't get butt-hurt about him using SRT or whatever. I don't agree myself but its none of your damn business. Get a 670/7970 and live your life. THERE GAWSH YOU GEEKS.
  34. Yuka said:
    The castrated bandwidth in the 660ti will hurt A LOT down the road when more GPGPU is in games and if you like any form of AA.

    I own a GTX670 and it falls flat on its face when heavy GPGPU is applied in Dirt Showdown (Global Illumination, more precisely) for some advanced effects.

    Be warned on this nVidia generation that might fall short in current and maybe next-to-be-released games.

    Hell, I'll have to change it if GRID2 happens to use even more GPGPU xP

    Cheers!


    that game is amd gaming evolved title. normally 6970 and GTX570 perform very close in most games but in dirt showdown 6970 beat GTX570 by a large margin

    http://techreport.com/review/23150/amd-radeon-hd-7970-ghz-edition/6

    just look at GTX570 and GTX670 numbers. if the gpgpu really bog down the 600 series card then GTX570 should able to perform close if not better than GTX670.
Ask a new question

Read More

Graphics Cards Graphics