Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

560ti vs. 660ti....

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
a c 291 U Graphics card
September 2, 2012 3:22:01 PM

$270 for GTX 560 Ti is a rip off. GTX 660 Ti at least 45% faster. Return it asap!

More about : 560ti 660ti

September 2, 2012 3:22:12 PM

So last week I put together a new build with a 560ti for my GPU.  Paid $270 for it and I'm highly satisfied so far. Been able to run all my games on at least high settings with 60fps.

Now today I see today that Microcenter is offering a deal...660ti and a copy of Boarderlands  2 for $320.

I'm still in the 10 day full refund policy period.  

The way I look at it is my card + Boarderlands = $330...which would mean I'm saving myself a whole 10 bucks if I do take advantage of the deal.

 So my question is...is the 660ti THAT much better than my 560ti that I should be running back to Microcenter to take advantage of this?
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
September 2, 2012 3:45:31 PM

$270 for 560ti? You can get 570 for like 250 nowadays. Get 660ti hands down.
m
0
l
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
September 2, 2012 4:42:50 PM

$ 270 for 560 and u purchased that one week earlier. U could have posted about that offer here before purchasing. Salvage the situation and purchase the 660.
m
0
l
a c 291 U Graphics card
September 2, 2012 8:14:19 PM

95/65 ~= 1.46, so that's 46% faster. Not 35%!
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
September 2, 2012 8:23:42 PM

Borderlands 2 worths $60, making this new GTX 660Ti cheaper than your current GTX 560Ti.
PLEASE return the 560Ti and get the 660!!!!!
m
0
l
September 2, 2012 8:27:18 PM

Definately get the 660ti.
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
September 2, 2012 8:58:41 PM

I'd rather return the 560 TI and get a Radeon 7850, overclock it, and buy Borderlands 2 separately. That'd be about the same price as a 660 TI and much more consistent performance due to the better memory bandwidth. The 660 TI sucks at AA performance and has crap minimum FPS that are masked in average FPS by its over-inflated maximums.

Also, as others have said, $270 is more than a 560 TI is worth. Not even the GTX 560 TI 2GB or the GTX 560 TI 448 core 1.25GB is worth that much.
m
0
l
a c 291 U Graphics card
September 2, 2012 9:35:35 PM

No way HD 7850 is better than 660 Ti. Hell, it's even faster than HD 7870.
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
September 2, 2012 11:17:57 PM

Sunius said:
No way HD 7850 is better than 660 Ti. Hell, it's even faster than HD 7870.


Do a little research yourself. The 660 TI has a GK104 with the same core config as in the 670 and a memory bus like a GTX 550 TI. IT is extremely unbalanced. A card with a weaker GPU but greater memroy bandwidth can beat it with ease. Look at the 660 TI's minimum frame rates. They're crap. That it has high averages is because of its GPU getting huge maximums. High averages, but low minimums, (huge maximums) is crap compared to decent minimums and decent averages.

Regardless, the 660 TI can't overclock much at all and the 7850 can be pushed farther than a stock 660 TI, especially in the minimum frame rates. The 660 TI comes up short compared to a well-overclocked 7850. The 7870 can go considerably farther than the 7850 (enough to be worth the price premium, unlike the 7950 and the 7970 where the 7950 is about equal to the 7970 when both are overclocked) and get a significant win over the 660 TI. The 7950 can have a huge win over the 660 TI when overclocked, but if buying Borderlands 2, that's also more expensive than a 660 TI, hence the 7850 and 7870 talk.

Throw some decent AA into the equation with OC versus OC and the 660 TI doesn't just come up short, it falls apart in comparison. An unbalanced card is worse than a balanced, lower end card in far too many ways. Would you want to play without AA just because the card can't handle it as well? Heck, with the 660 TI's huge memory bandwidth bottle-neck, it might even have more stutter problems in addition to its poor minimums.
m
0
l
a c 291 U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 4:27:26 AM

HD 7850 does not have higher minimums than GTX 660 Ti. And GTX 660 Ti even with AA applied will have higher FPS, unless you're going into 2560x1600 or even 5760x1080 territory..
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 8:31:26 AM

Sunius said:
HD 7850 does not have higher minimums than GTX 660 Ti. And GTX 660 Ti even with AA applied will have higher FPS, unless you're going into 2560x1600 or even 5760x1080 territory..


The 7850 is the better card (and does have higher minimums in most games) when given a good GPU and memory overclock. That's also counting 1080p, not just higher resolutions.
m
0
l
a c 291 U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 10:30:08 AM

For some reason every review on every site is saying different...
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 10:33:52 AM

Please find me one up to date review that says otherwise. I don't see any.
m
0
l
a c 291 U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 11:24:32 AM

What's your definition of up to date?
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 11:29:09 AM

Using Catalyst 12.7 or 12.8 for the Radeons and at least recent Nvidia drivers.
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 11:52:39 AM

None of those had a well-overclocked 7850. They don't prove you wrong nor prove me right. They're irrelevant.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 12:02:24 PM

The GTX 660 Ti is amazingly better than the 560 Ti. I wouldn't even consider a 560 Ti anymore unless they get a pretty huge price drop.

The Radeon HD 7850 performs about on par with a stock GTX 580 when overclocked. That's pretty good but it falls short of the GTX 660 Ti still. Those Kepler graphics cards offer amazing performance.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1269574/your-radeon-7850-ove...
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 12:16:25 PM

The 660 Ti has poor minimum frame rates and can't handle good AA and tessellation well. Also, the 7850 can easily beat the 580 with a good overclock. Heck, with some good AA and tessellation, even the 580 would probably beat the 660 Ti. The guy from your link didn't even overvolt his 7850 and has a low memory frequency.
m
0
l
a c 291 U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 1:49:50 PM

blazorthon said:
None of those had a well-overclocked 7850. They don't prove you wrong nor prove me right. They're irrelevant.


Thing is, you're trying to compare well overclocked HD 7850 vs stock GTX 660 ti. You know, GTX 660 Ti overclocks well too :) .
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 2:15:14 PM

Sunius said:
Thing is, you're trying to compare well overclocked HD 7850 vs stock GTX 660 ti. You know, GTX 660 Ti overclocks well too :) .


No, I'm not. The 660 TI simply doesn't overclock well at all. It's one of the worst cards for overclocking in quite a while. I have no trouble comparing an overclocked 660 TI to an overclocked 7850. The 7850 would be the better overall card, especially with AA, tessellation, and such set up high enough to justify its performance.
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 5:16:11 PM

That's a highly cherry-picked model to exaggerate the overclocking headroom. Buying a 660 TI yourself, you will not get nearly that high of a VRAM frequency. GDDR5 does not clock that high without water cooling except for rare, extremely well-binned memory ICs that aren't really found on normal graphics cards. 1.6GHz-1.7GHz are the usual maxes for retailing 660 Ti cards and that's on cards that have the memory ICs cooled by the main cooler. 1.8GHz is a number that a lucky few can hit. 1.9GHz and up are very unrealistic.

That's also a 3GB model (better than the 2GB models even when they aren't using more than 2GB of VRAM capacity due to the odd memory configuration that Nvidia used on these cards) and that's more expensive than the inferior 2GB models.
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 5:22:52 PM

Also, look at those minimum frame rates that it got despite its unrealistic memory bandwidth for a 660 TI. They dip into unplayable frame rates in several of those games.
m
0
l
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
September 5, 2012 3:51:23 PM

Amd is decreasing the price of 7950 to Nvidia 660 level and giving it a tough competition. I wonder why would they bothered to do so if even a 7850 is better then 660.
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
September 5, 2012 4:53:48 PM

Quote:
Amd is decreasing the price of 7950 to Nvidia 660 level and giving it a tough competition. I wonder why would they bothered to do so if even a 7850 is better then 660.


I can see several reasons. Most people don't overclock, so MSRP doesn't count overclocking capability. The 7950s were already reaching that price point because several companies who make AMD graphics cards were dropping 7950 prices on their own (I'm not sure why, but some of the best 7950s were heading for $75 under MSRP and that's not even counting some of the sales, rebates, and the $80-150 in freebies that some of these cards came with).

AMD dropped the three free games freebie, so they had to do something to keep value from dropping. The price drop in addition to Sleeping Dogs does a great drop of that. AMD had to combat some of the hype that Nvidia put around the 660 TI. Heck, AMD might have simply wanted the 7950 priced closer to the 660 Ti to make the 660 Ti seem less practical. Similarly priced to a superior card, even when you don't overclock? That sounds like a good plan to me, especially since such people probably have CPUs that aren't overclocked, so the 660 Ti's over-inflated maximum FPS can't mask its low minimum FPS in the averages nearly as well, if at all.

Also, it's a 660 Ti, not a 660. They aren't the same card. Ignoring the Geforce GTX and some other stuff is usually fine so long as it stays within context, ubt losing the Ti means that you're not even talking about the same card anymore. The 660 is a card that is probably going to be released this or next month and should not be confused with the 660 TI.

Another thing to consider is that pricing doesn't always make sense. For example, why do the Agility 4 and the Vertex 4 prices often end up the same at the same capacity despite the substantial performance difference? Why does the Radeon 6970 cost more than a Radeon 7870 despite the 7870 being better in pretty much every way?
m
0
l
a c 291 U Graphics card
September 5, 2012 5:20:24 PM

660 is out already for OEM market. And yes, it's totally different card.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
September 5, 2012 5:31:05 PM

The 660ti is at least 2x or more better than the 560ti. Pretty decent improvement. Maybe not much to some but it looks like it.
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
September 5, 2012 5:31:13 PM

Sunius said:
660 is out already for OEM market. And yes, it's totally different card.


Are you sure? I haven't seen OEM machines with it. I'll check now.
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
September 5, 2012 5:43:24 PM

selayan said:
The 660ti is at least 2x or more better than the 560ti. Pretty decent improvement. Maybe not much to some but it looks like it.


GTX 560 TI SLI beats the 670 (both at stock) in overall performance across most games at relevant settings (not by much, but still). SLI with them is far from a 100% gain, so the 560 Ti is considerably faster than half of a GTX 670. The 660 Ti is considerably slower than the 670 in overall gaming performance. The 660 Ti is nowhere near twice as fast as the 560 Ti in overall gaming performance and I'd be surprised if any game runs twice as fast on a 660 Ti compared to the same game in the exact same scenario on a 560 Ti. It might be more than two times more power efficient than a GTX 560 Ti, but nothing like that number is found in a gaming performance difference.

I could look for some benchmarks if you want evidence.

EDIT: With current drivers, two 560 Tis might be slightly slower than the 670 now, but still quite similar nonetheless.
m
0
l
a c 291 U Graphics card
September 5, 2012 7:47:19 PM

I would say so. Too bad there aren't any reviews for OEM cards.
m
0
l
!