GTX 660Ti Vs. Radeon 7870
- Thread starter timarp000
- Start date
-
- Tags
- DVD Drives
Solution
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 7
- 43,265
THis is a common question today. I'd recommend the 7870 over the 660 TI because the 7870 has a wider memory bus (192 bit is too much of a hindrance at this performance level), better tessellation performance, better DirectC and OpenCL game feature performance, is cheaper, and overclock better. I'd also avoid a Seagate hard drive and get a Western Digital instead, but that's me. Seagate seems to have worse reliability issues.
geofelt
Titan
- Oct 9, 2006
- 54,307
- 4,149
- 174,240
Both cards are similar in price, and in gaming capability. Or, at least so similar that small differences are not meaningful.
The market is very competitive.
If you have a preference for amd or nvidia drivers, go that route.
If your editing app can use CUDA, then go with nvidia.
Go not anguish about this. Both are great cards, and you will get fair value for your money.
The market is very competitive.
If you have a preference for amd or nvidia drivers, go that route.
If your editing app can use CUDA, then go with nvidia.
Go not anguish about this. Both are great cards, and you will get fair value for your money.
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 7
- 43,265
The 7870 and the 660 TI can have huge differences in performance, depending on the game and settings. The 660 TI can't handle AA and tessellation very well and it can't handle DirectC/OpenCL features at all. They are not similar in performance, they just have similar stock performance with no advanced graphics features such as these in use. The 660 TI also has less consistent frame rates because of its slim memory bus bottle-necking its over-powered GPU.
mac981, the 660 TI does not have higher frame rates unless you talk about the maximums only and it needs adaptive V-Synch to make up for its low minimum frame rates and over-inflated maximum frame rates. Adaptive V-Sync is less of a feature like with the GTX 670 than it is saving face with the 660 TI. If you want a Nvidia card, then the GTX 670 is the way to go, not the 660 TI. Having a huge discrepancy between the maximum and the minimum can cause noticeable stutter in game if they reverberate too quickly even with adaptive V-Sync, so it's not even a perfect fix for the issue caused by the huge memory bandwidth bottle-neck.
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 7
- 43,265
DirectC and OpenCL are compute languages used by some features in some games. Nvidia's Kepler GPUs suck at dual-precision compute extremely badly. The older GTX 400 and GTX 500 cards with Fermi GPUs are farbetter than the GTX 600 cardswith Kepler GPUs when it comes to dualprecision compute performance. AMD'a GCN cards are far better than even Fermi, but AMD's older cards aren't so great.
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 7
- 43,265
The reviews tend to not use AA and have extremely powerful CPUs that let the 660 TI's maximum frame rates mask its poor minimum frame rates. What do you consider better, a minimum of 45 and a maximum of 100 or a minimum of 55 and a maximum of 70? I'l ltake the more consistent experience that doesn't shoot frames so fast that the monitor would have severe screen tearing without V-Sync. Like I said, Adaptive V-Sync is less of a feature with the 660 TI than an attempt to hide this.
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 7
- 43,265
timarp000 :
Are you saying i should go for radeon 7870?
I will be gaming at 1920x1080. Im not a fanboy so all i care about is performance. And which brand should i go for on both nvidia and amd? I WANT black PCB's
I will be gaming at 1920x1080. Im not a fanboy so all i care about is performance. And which brand should i go for on both nvidia and amd? I WANT black PCB's
I don't know about exact PCB color with every brand, but EVGA is the way to go with Nvidia and HIS is generally the best with AMD these days, but MSI, Asus, and Sapphire are often excellent too.
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 7
- 43,265
I'd have to do a web search to get you a list. I'll take a look and see if I can get you a list.
- Oct 24, 2011
- 1,167
- 0
- 19,460
Gtx 660 ti beats 7870 by a large margin in games like portal 2 , battlefield 3 etc. In other games R7870 and gtx 660ti compete in a margin of error ( 2-7fps)
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/548?vs=647
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/548?vs=647
17seconds
Champion
- Jul 27, 2010
- 10,584
- 4
- 51,965
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/56090-nvidia-geforce-gtx-660-ti-review-23.html
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_660_Ti_Power_Edition/28.html
"We also experienced the GALAXY GTX 660 Ti GC video card providing for the most part better performance than a Radeon HD 7950. While the Radeon HD 7950 can currently be found for around $319 with MIR, which is about $20 cheaper than the GALAXY GTX 660 Ti GC, it doesn't seem worth it just to save $20. The GALAXY GTX 660 Ti GC is a much better value than the Radeo HD 7950 at $339. In all our gameplay the GALAXY GTX 660 Ti GC provided a better gaming experience than the Radeon HD 7950."
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/08/16/galaxy_geforce_gtx_660_ti_gc_3gb_video_card_review/14
"As it stands, AMD’s position correctly reflects their performance; the GTX 660 Ti is a solid and relatively consistent 10-15% faster than the 7870, while the 7950 is anywhere between a bit faster to a bit slower depending on what benchmarks you favor. Of course when talking about the 7950 the “anything but equal” maxim still applies here, if not more so than with the GTX 670. The GTX 660 Ti is anywhere between 50% ahead of the 7950 and 25% behind it, and everywhere in between."
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6159/the-geforce-gtx-660-ti-review/21
"The end result is a card which many would have expected to sit at the same performance level as a 7870, now actually competing with the 7950 OC. In some key titles we saw each of the GTX 660s outperform the 7900 series Radeon with performance being particularly strong at 1920x1080 with maximum detail."
http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1552/pg18/nvidia-geforce-gtx-660-ti-overclocked-graphics-card-review-conclusion.html
"Clearly, the GTX660Ti is a very good card. It cut through all of our benchmarks with ease at 1920x1080 resolutions. It even performed better than expected at 2560x1600 but as with most mid-range cards this resolution sometimes proves too much for the card to adequately handle at playable framerates - at least enjoyable ones! The GTX660Ti managed to often surpass not only it's direct competitor, the AMD HD7870 but also the HD7950 too which is no easy task."
http://www.vortez.net/articles_pages/zotac_gtx660ti_amp_edition_review,19.html
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 7
- 43,265
Again, faster CPU and low to no AA was used and the same is true for tessellation. They obviously didn't use DirectC or OpenCL features because those are almost unplayable on the 660 TI. Looking at mere averages can mask issues and when you look at averages and don't have another system side by side to compare, the issues can go unnoticed when they aren't stressed by settings such as AA and tessellation and a CPU that isn't a six core SB-E i7 at 4.5GHz. I can show you some links too, but all they would be are cherry-picked tests just like yours. The CPU in that review is nearly 40% faster in gaming than OP's CPU. That will tear down the 660 TI's maximum frame rates and let its minimums show through as far more obvious whereas the 7870 and especially the 7950 would perform pretty much the same.
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 7
- 43,265
It isn't and especially not with your CPU. It's seemingly high FPS relies on extreme CPU performance to mask its low minimum frame rates and even with a much more powerful CPU than yours, the maximums still can't stop AA and tessellation from bringing it to its knees when both are used whereas AMD can use both simultaneously in most situations without a problem. Tessellation on AMD's GCN cards is extremely efficient and AA is very efficient, although not as great as their tessellation efficiency.
I'm not saying that you must get an AMD card. Get the 660 TI if you want to. Just be aware of its deficiencies and you'll still be happy with it. Whether or not you'd be as happy with it as you would be with the 7870 or 7950 is up to you to decide. Now if this was a decision between the GTX 680 and the Radeon 7970, then I would say with certainty to not get either card because the 670 and the 7950 are their equal or superior in every way when overclocking is considered in gaming, but the 660 TI is not worthless in the same sense, I simply think that it is an inferior option and have explained why.
Ironslice
Honorable
- May 1, 2012
- 648
- 0
- 11,060
Honestly, both cards are better than a GTX 580, which can run any game today beautifully. These cards will destroy any game you throw at them and you will not have any problems. Some games prefer one card and others prefer the other. There is no one reason to go with one card over the other. Personally, I would go with the GTX 660 ti as I have had problems with AMD before and I don't want to go back.
nVidia has better driver support and technologies such as Physx, TXAA and Adaptive-Vsync. Even though most games today don't have Physx and TXAA, I expect them to start having the option in the future, and if I buy a card now, I am probably going to keep it for 2 years.
blazorthon, you are a pretty hefty AMD fanboy, my god. You've been spamming this thread over and over again for hours about how AMD is better.
nVidia has better driver support and technologies such as Physx, TXAA and Adaptive-Vsync. Even though most games today don't have Physx and TXAA, I expect them to start having the option in the future, and if I buy a card now, I am probably going to keep it for 2 years.
blazorthon, you are a pretty hefty AMD fanboy, my god. You've been spamming this thread over and over again for hours about how AMD is better.
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 7
- 43,265
I have to disagree. Excluding power consumption, I'd take the GTX 580 over the GTX 660 TI. It's better at tessellation, AA, overclocking, and DirectC/OpenCL. TXAA works in only a few games (I've read that it only works in one game, but I think the nmber is a little higher) and adaptive V-Sync, again, doesn't make up for the 660 TI's inconsistent frame rates. PhysX is a nearly dead feature that is probably never going to be used again in a new game and performs poorly on the Kepler cards in comparison to the Fermi cards. TXAA, on the other hand, is a truly great feature that helps with Nvidia's AA problem, but without more support, it is irrelevant. It desn't solve the issue completely, but it helps a lot when it works. It has a huge quality per performance ratio.
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 7
- 43,265
I'm not an AMD fanboy. My second to last card was a GTX 560 TI and the second to last card before it was another Nvidia card as was the card before that. Most of my cards are Nvidia because I do some compute work and until Radeon 7000, AMD sucked for the most part in compute (even their professional cards). I now have a 7850 and I am saving up for a 7950.
renz496
Champion
- Jun 16, 2009
- 14,249
- 210
- 53,090
lol i've been hearing about physx is dead for quite sometime but what really happening was quite the opposite. no game will used it again? the upcoming Borderlands 2 will use advance physx that we were used to see in games like Batman AA. of course the are very few games utilize physx like Batman AA or Mafia II did but it doesn't mean other games does not use physx. for quite sometime physx has been alternative to havok along side other physic engine such as bullet. also the upcoming Unreal Engine 4 will also integrate physx into their engine just like they did with UE3. so IMO i don't think physx is dead. at least not now or in very near future.
http://www.dsogaming.com/news/physx-comes-with-an-incredible-new-destruction-set-unreal-engine-4-will-support-it/
lol sorry off topic
http://www.dsogaming.com/news/physx-comes-with-an-incredible-new-destruction-set-unreal-engine-4-will-support-it/
lol sorry off topic
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 7
- 43,265
renz496 :
lol i've been hearing about physx is dead for quite sometime but what really happening was quite the opposite. no game will used it again? the upcoming Borderlands 2 will use advance physx that we were used to see in games like Batman AA. of course the are very few games utilize physx like Batman AA or Mafia II did but it doesn't mean other games does not use physx. for quite sometime physx has been alternative to havok along side other physic engine such as bullet. also the upcoming Unreal Engine 4 will also integrate physx into their engine just like they did with UE3. so IMO i don't think physx is dead. at least not now or in very near future.
lol sorry off topic
lol sorry off topic
Perhaps dead was an exaggeration, I stand corrected in that. I'm still quite sure that Kepler doesn't handle it as well as Fermi wen it is supported, at least with the GK100/GK110 GPUs in the GTX 480/580/470/570 and I think the GTX 465 also has the GK100. Perhaps newer implementations will help alleviate the performance difference.
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 7
- 43,265
Having looked through some Google and Yahoo results, it seems that some advanced lighting settings (among others) can rely heavily on DirectC. OpenCL is mostly ignored in favor of DirectC for this and that is probably because DirectC is a part of the DirectX package. OpenCL might be reserved more for intentionally cross-platform games when it comes to gaming.
- Status
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram