Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

5770 -> 660 (Ti?) Upgrade - Worth it?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
September 21, 2012 5:12:45 AM

Just to get all the specs out of the way...

i5 2500K @ 4.0 GHz
8GB DDR3 @ 1866 MHz
XFX 5770 1GB
1080p screen now, will have 3 1080p screens when I upgrade.

I've had the 5770 for a couple years, and while it's been through a lot (including a power surge) - I believe it's time for it to retire.

I'm wanting a single card that can drive 3 screens as well as having the ability to kick ass in performance (making the jump up from a 5770 worth it) - on both 1 screen AND 3 screens. (Only game I know of that has multi-monitor support is Burnout Paradise.) I'll be playing games like Borderlands 2, Mass Effect 3, Witcher 2, etc.

So, my main question is thus: What should I upgrade to? I'm leaning heavily towards the 660/660 Ti, and I'm somewhat opposed to the AMD stuff simply because of their horrible drivers (I have had sooooo many problems...).

Also - does anyone know of relatively cheap 1080p screens that are good for multi-monitor setups (small bezels)?

More about : 5770 660 upgrade worth

a c 185 U Graphics card
September 21, 2012 5:23:57 AM

For three monitors a 7950/7970 would be the way to go
m
0
l
September 21, 2012 4:58:18 PM

Ehhhhhhh, but I'd rather not go with AMD (those drivers... -_-). I know Eyefinity has more support than Surround does, but at the same time - that'll get better. That, and the 660 Ti is already pushing my budget. Going to a 7950 or, God help me, a 7970 is somewhat overkill.
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 87 U Graphics card
September 21, 2012 5:06:46 PM

AMD's current drivers are excellent (huge improvements over their past work). Nvidia has had their fair share of problems too (even recently). Everyone has those sorts of problems occasionally. For this resolution, a 7950 is far better than a 660 Ti and can be had at about the same price.

http://pcpartpicker.com/part/sapphire-video-card-111960...
m
0
l
September 21, 2012 5:09:10 PM

I don't know you all people with all those amd drivers and their problems but my 5770 and 5870 have been working flawlessly for a very long time. As for the question a 7950 will help you a lot as 660's framebuffer is a bit on a cut down side and would struggle with high resolutions.
m
0
l
September 21, 2012 5:09:20 PM

AMD only has driver issues with crossfire setups. Single card driver support is as good as Nvidia's.

The 660ti is a horrible choice for triple screen gaming due to a completely crippled memory bus. Get the GTX 670 if you want to game with Nvidia on 3 screens.

From what you're saying, a 7950 is the best way to go, but really you need a $400 GPU+ to max intensive games on 3 screens (and sometimes you need SLI/CF).
m
0
l
a c 266 U Graphics card
September 21, 2012 5:37:11 PM

Your 2500K is strong enough to drive any graphics card you want to buy.

As an upgrade, a GTX660 of any type will be a big step up in gaming on a single monitor.

If you will get into triple monitor gaming, a GTX670 class card will be more appropriate.
There will be little impact from adding a second monitor, or even a third if you will be gaming on the single primary monitor.

Let me assume you have a sufficiently strong psu. A GTX670 only needs a 500W psu.

My advice would be to buy the strongest graphics card that you feel comfortable paying for.
You will get good value with any of the newer 28nm based cards(GTX6xx or amd 7xxx series) at any price point.
Don't beat yourself up over minor differences that you can't detect in real life.

Two monitors are an easy attach for any graphics card. For a third, you are probably looking at a displayport attachment, and that will not be present on many monitors.

As an alternative to triple monitors, may I suggest that you look into just adding a 2560 x 1440 27" monitor?
Keep your 1080P as a side monitor for static stuff like e-mail and monitors.
Yes, they are more expensive,($700) but a bigger screen and higher resolution will be more immersive.
Here is one example:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
If you are willing to take a bit of a chance, there is an interesting option. Search for "catleap" on ebay. There are other brands also. You will see some 2560 x 1440 monitors for sale at half the price. They are built on class A- screens that are rejects from Apple displays that require A+ screens. They work perfectly well, but may have a minor pixel missing or such problem. They may be missing OSD circuitry, have cheap stands and an unknown warranty and return policy.. From the research I have done though, buyers have been very pleased. Do some research on the forums for experiences from actual users.



m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
September 21, 2012 5:42:40 PM

geofelt said:
Your 2500K is strong enough to drive any graphics card you want to buy.

As an upgrade, a GTX660 of any type will be a big step up in gaming on a single monitor.

If you will get into triple monitor gaming, a GTX670 class card will be more appropriate.
There will be little impact from adding a second monitor, or even a third if you will be gaming on the single primary monitor.

Let me assume you have a sufficiently strong psu. A GTX670 only needs a 500W psu.

My advice would be to buy the strongest graphics card that you feel comfortable paying for.
You will get good value with any of the newer 28nm based cards(GTX6xx or amd 7xxx series) at any price point.
Don't beat yourself up over minor differences that you can't detect in real life.

Two monitors are an easy attach for any graphics card. For a third, you are probably looking at a displayport attachment, and that will not be present on many monitors.

As an alternative to triple monitors, may I suggest that you look into just adding a 2560 x 1440 27" monitor?
Keep your 1080P as a side monitor for static stuff like e-mail and monitors.
Yes, they are more expensive,($700) but a bigger screen and higher resolution will be more immersive.
Here is one example:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
If you are willing to take a bit of a chance, there is an interesting option. Search for "catleap" on ebay. There are other brands also. You will see some 2560 x 1440 monitors for sale at half the price. They are built on class A- screens that are rejects from Apple displays that require A+ screens. They work perfectly well, but may have a minor pixel missing or such problem. They may be missing OSD circuitry, have cheap stands and an unknown warranty and return policy.. From the research I have done though, buyers have been very pleased. Do some research on the forums for experiences from actual users.


These aren't minor differences at OP's requested resolution between the 660 Ti and the 7950 and the GTX 670's power requirements don't rely on the wattage of a PSU, they rely on the amperage on the 12V rails of a PSU. A 500W PSU with only around 20 amps or less on the 12V rails will still not be enough whereas a 400W with 24 amps or more can be enough.

At these resolutions, the 7950 beats the 670, even if only slightly so it's a wasteful recommendation, especially if the 660 Ti and the 7950 are already budget-breakers.

Some cards don't need a third display to run on Displayport and even then, you can use a cheaply available active converter to use an HDMI/DVI-D display with a Displayport on the graphics card.
m
0
l
a c 266 U Graphics card
September 21, 2012 6:02:20 PM

blazorthon said:
These aren't minor differences at OP's requested resolution between the 660 Ti and the 7950 and the GTX 670's power requirements don't rely on the wattage of a PSU, they rely on the amperage on the 12V rails of a PSU. A 500W PSU with only around 20 amps or less on the 12V rails will still not be enough whereas a 400W with 24 amps or more can be enough.

At these resolutions, the 7950 beats the 670, even if only slightly so it's a wasteful recommendation, especially if the 660 Ti and the 7950 are already budget-breakers.

Some cards don't need a third display to run on Displayport and even then, you can use a cheaply available active converter to use an HDMI/DVI-D display with a Displayport on the graphics card.


You are correct, the real metric of a psu is the +12v amps, not the wattage. But, I hope we are talking about a quality psu here. The OP did not specify what brand or wattage his psu is currently. If the psu was barely sufficient to run a 5770, a psu upgrade will be in order.

As to the merits of the amd 7xxx offerings, that is a moot point. The OP specified a preference for switching to Nvidia.
m
0
l
September 21, 2012 6:03:46 PM

3 screen gaming + want Nvidia = you need to go with the GTX 670 or better.
m
0
l
September 21, 2012 6:05:00 PM

kutuzov28 said:
I don't know you all people with all those amd drivers and their problems but my 5770 and 5870 have been working flawlessly for a very long time. As for the question a 7950 will help you a lot as 660's framebuffer is a bit on a cut down side and would struggle with high resolutions.


Lol - I've definitely had driver problems with my 5770 since day 1. Even to this day. ><


BigMack70 said:
AMD only has driver issues with crossfire setups. Single card driver support is as good as Nvidia's.

The 660ti is a horrible choice for triple screen gaming due to a completely crippled memory bus. Get the GTX 670 if you want to game with Nvidia on 3 screens.

From what you're saying, a 7950 is the best way to go, but really you need a $400 GPU+ to max intensive games on 3 screens (and sometimes you need SLI/CF).



I've read a couple things about that - what exactly does the cripple memory bus do that makes it so bad for multi-monitor gaming? I'll probably still be running most games on one screen, except for the sole few that actually make use of 3 monitors.


geofelt said:

As an alternative to triple monitors, may I suggest that you look into just adding a 2560 x 1440 27" monitor?
Keep your 1080P as a side monitor for static stuff like e-mail and monitors.
Yes, they are more expensive,($700) but a bigger screen and higher resolution will be more immersive.
Here is one example:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
If you are willing to take a bit of a chance, there is an interesting option. Search for "catleap" on ebay. There are other brands also. You will see some 2560 x 1440 monitors for sale at half the price. They are built on class A- screens that are rejects from Apple displays that require A+ screens. They work perfectly well, but may have a minor pixel missing or such problem. They may be missing OSD circuitry, have cheap stands and an unknown warranty and return policy.. From the research I have done though, buyers have been very pleased. Do some research on the forums for experiences from actual users.


I've definitely looked into the 2760x1440 monitors. It's an interesting concept, but the price point is a little high - as I can get two decent 1080p monitors for the same price. Granted, it'll probably offer better compatibility than 3 separate monitors - so it's a possibility. I haven't had any IPS experience, so I can't vouch for its awesomeness - but I have heard nothing but good things.
And you're meaning one of these right?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/New-YAMAKASI-CATLEAP-2703-LED-2...


As for PSUs- I have an Antec EarthWatts 650W.
m
0
l
September 21, 2012 6:11:22 PM

The memory bus becomes more and more strained as resolution and/or AA settings increase, and minimum framerate is the thing most impacted.

As such, the 660ti starts to lose performance relative to the similarly priced 7950. The problem isn't that the 660ti can't do triple screen gaming - the problem is that it can't do triple screen gaming anywhere near as well as the other $300 card on the market, making it a bad choice.
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
September 21, 2012 6:12:51 PM

geofelt said:
You are correct, the real metric of a psu is the +12v amps, not the wattage. But, I hope we are talking about a quality psu here. The OP did not specify what brand or wattage his psu is currently. If the psu was barely sufficient to run a 5770, a psu upgrade will be in order.

As to the merits of the amd 7xxx offerings, that is a moot point. The OP specified a preference for switching to Nvidia.


Point in case, BigMack70 is correct. You need to spend more for less if you want to go Nvidia with such high resolutions. If OP has a Nvidia preference, then a 670 is the only reasonable option. If you don't mind going AMD, then you can get the somewhat superior card for this resolution, the 7950, for less money. I'm not telling OP to get AMD, just making sure that OP is aware of the best options.
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
September 21, 2012 6:14:07 PM

Mandersoon said:
Lol - I've definitely had driver problems with my 5770 since day 1. Even to this day. ><





I've read a couple things about that - what exactly does the cripple memory bus do that makes it so bad for multi-monitor gaming? I'll probably still be running most games on one screen, except for the sole few that actually make use of 3 monitors.




I've definitely looked into the 2760x1440 monitors. It's an interesting concept, but the price point is a little high - as I can get two decent 1080p monitors for the same price. Granted, it'll probably offer better compatibility than 3 separate monitors - so it's a possibility. I haven't had any IPS experience, so I can't vouch for its awesomeness - but I have heard nothing but good things.
And you're meaning one of these right?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/New-YAMAKASI-CATLEAP-2703-LED-2...


As for PSUs- I have an Antec EarthWatts 650W.


You should not have any driver issues with it today. If you do, then there is something else going on. Maybe we can help with it if you still have the card.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
September 21, 2012 6:16:10 PM

i was utterly disappointed with the GTX 660 Ti when it was released due to the crippled 192Bit bus. so i suggest going with a GTX 670 or HD 7950 which would cost less and perform about the same ?
m
0
l
September 21, 2012 7:05:07 PM

blazorthon said:
You should not have any driver issues with it today. If you do, then there is something else going on. Maybe we can help with it if you still have the card.


Honestly, it doesn't matter all too much at this point - since I'll be upgrading at the end of the month. The driver issues I was having I'm sure area related to some weird compatibility problem with the card, HDMI, and the monitor (Asus MS236). Any resolution less than 1080p gets a black border that adjusting the scaling options only sometimes fixes. There were 2 times I can recall where, at 1080p, it had the black border. I would go into CCC, overscale the monitor to 15%, and it would work fine until I restarted. ><
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
September 21, 2012 7:06:45 PM

Mandersoon said:
Honestly, it doesn't matter all too much at this point - since I'll be upgrading at the end of the month. The driver issues I was having I'm sure area related to some weird compatibility problem with the card, HDMI, and the monitor (Asus MS236). Any resolution less than 1080p gets a black border that adjusting the scaling options only sometimes fixes. There were 2 times I can recall where, at 1080p, it had the black border. I would go into CCC, overscale the monitor to 15%, and it would work fine until I restarted. ><


What driver version are you using? What update methodology do you use when you update the drivers?
m
0
l
September 21, 2012 7:22:05 PM

blazorthon said:
What driver version are you using? What update methodology do you use when you update the drivers?


It's been happening since I originally got the card 2 years ago. I've updated via the CCC, downloading the drivers manually, and via Steam.
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
September 21, 2012 7:25:52 PM

Mandersoon said:
It's been happening since I originally got the card 2 years ago. I've updated via the CCC, downloading the drivers manually, and via Steam.


It doesn't matter how you get the drivers so long as they're the proper drivers. You have to install them properly and this is where many people screw up. You have to uninstall the old driver and then do something like running Driver Fusion to eliminate any remnants of the drivers that the uninstall process doesn't get. You may have to restart a few times in this entire procedure, but once it's all done, then and only then do you install the new drivers. If you don't do something this thorough, remnants of the old drivers can remain and interfere with the new drivers. This is a problem shared by both Nvidia and AMD drivers.
m
0
l
September 21, 2012 7:29:15 PM

blazorthon said:
It doesn't matter how you get the drivers so long as they're the proper drivers. You have to install them properly and this is where many people screw up. You have to uninstall the old driver and then do something like running Driver Fusion to eliminate any remnants of the drivers that the uninstall process doesn't get. You may have to restart a few times in this entire procedure, but once it's all done, then and only then do you install the new drivers. If you don't do something this thorough, remnants of the old drivers can remain and interfere with the new drivers. This is a problem shared by both Nvidia and AMD drivers.


Ohhhh, that's what you meant. While I haven't done that *every* time, I certainly do it when I'm experiencing problems (which usually doesn't fix anything). Strangely enough, the scaling in 1080p problem usually resolves itself within a couple days (I can restart 10 times and it won't do anything, but the problem has never lasted more than 3 days). Freakin' weird.

And when I get my new card (I'll also be getting a new SSD) - I'll be reformatting/reinstalling everything.
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
September 21, 2012 7:30:09 PM

Mandersoon said:
Ohhhh, that's what you meant. While I haven't done that *every* time, I certainly do it when I'm experiencing problems (which usually doesn't fix anything). Strangely enough, the scaling in 1080p problem usually resolves itself within a couple days (I can restart 10 times and it won't do anything, but the problem has never lasted more than 3 days). Freakin' weird.

And when I get my new card (I'll also be getting a new SSD) - I'll be reformatting/reinstalling everything.


Hmm... That is weird. Good luck with the re-install and new hardware fixing that issue.
m
0
l
September 21, 2012 7:34:15 PM

If I get the Yamakasi monitor, would that eliminate the need for a 670/7xxx card in terms of multi-monitor displays? Or would that 192-bit bus still mess things up?
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
September 21, 2012 7:36:29 PM

Mandersoon said:
If I get the Yamakasi monitor, would that eliminate the need for a 670/7xxx card in terms of multi-monitor displays? Or would that 192-bit bus still mess things up?


Display count isn't the problem, it's resolution. Anything far above 1080p is kinda bad on those 660 and 660 Ti cards, especially compared to AMD's 7870 and 7950. The bus itself isn't even the biggest problem. Nvidia's Kepler GPUs just kinda suck at AA. Even though the 670 has greater memory bandwidth than the 7870, it still has inferior resolution scaling and AA efficiency to the 7870, although not to such an extent that the 670's head-start in GPU performance can't let it stay ahead of the 7870 at least most of the time.
m
0
l
September 21, 2012 7:43:46 PM

blazorthon said:
Display count isn't the problem, it's resolution. Anything far above 1080p is kinda bad on those 660 and 660 Ti cards, especially compared to AMD's 7870 and 7950. The bus itself isn't even the biggest problem. Nvidia's Kepler GPUs just kinda suck at AA. Even though the 670 has greater memory bandwidth than the 7870, it still has inferior resolution scaling and AA efficiency to the 7870, although not to such an extent that the 670's head-start in GPU performance can't let it stay ahead of the 7870 at least most of the time.


But in the case that I'm not using AA (even if my card can do it, I don't normally have AA on when I'm at native resolution), would that matter necessarily?
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
September 21, 2012 7:44:52 PM

Mandersoon said:
But in the case that I'm not using AA (even if my card can do it, I don't normally have AA on when I'm at native resolution), would that matter necessarily?


That'd be inferior graphics quality and the 660/660 Ti would still be at a loss to the 7950, although the 670 might be in a better position.
m
0
l
September 21, 2012 7:45:13 PM

None of these solutions are going to be good enough to crank up AA at triple-screen resolution anyways.

Triple-screen resolution gaming will be a better experience on the 7950 than the 660ti.
m
0
l
a c 266 U Graphics card
September 21, 2012 7:46:09 PM

Mandersoon said:
Lol - I've definitely had driver problems with my 5770 since day 1. Even to this day. ><





I've read a couple things about that - what exactly does the cripple memory bus do that makes it so bad for multi-monitor gaming? I'll probably still be running most games on one screen, except for the sole few that actually make use of 3 monitors.




I've definitely looked into the 2760x1440 monitors. It's an interesting concept, but the price point is a little high - as I can get two decent 1080p monitors for the same price. Granted, it'll probably offer better compatibility than 3 separate monitors - so it's a possibility. I haven't had any IPS experience, so I can't vouch for its awesomeness - but I have heard nothing but good things.
And you're meaning one of these right?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/New-YAMAKASI-CATLEAP-2703-LED-2...


As for PSUs- I have an Antec EarthWatts 650W.


Your Antec earth watts650 is a very good unit. You can run any modern 28nm based graphics card made, including the $1000 GTX690. Not that I am suggesting that.

Yes, that catleap is the kind of monitor I was talking about. Do dilligent research, and look for actual owners.
There may be important differences, depending on the source.

If you go with two 1080P monitors, consider buying exactly the same ones that you already have. Identical monitors will have the same color tone and look as the original. You will then see no difference as you drag a windows from one to the other.

Buying a great monitor is one of the few "future proof" computer related purchases you can make today. It will last for several generations of new builds.
A long tome ago, I bought a 30" 2560 x 1600 Samsung 305T monitor. At the time, it was very expensive. It became even more expensive since I liked it so much that I bought a second. The price hurt for a while, but the satisfaction has lasted for many years.
m
0
l
a c 266 U Graphics card
September 21, 2012 8:06:34 PM

Mandersoon said:
But in the case that I'm not using AA (even if my card can do it, I don't normally have AA on when I'm at native resolution), would that matter necessarily?


The engineers have a good understanding of how the various components interact, and what they cost.
The bottom line, at least to me, is to ignore the factors such as vram, DDR3/4/5, bus size, etc., and concentrate on the card's basic capability.

It turns out that the GTX660ti is a great card, almost the equal of the more expensive GTX670.
Here is one early review that includes both 2560 x 1600 and 1080P resolutions.

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/2006/11/

I see remarkably little difference among the cards, and the 7950 and GTX670 which it was compared to.

If you go with a 2560 x 1440/1600 monitor, you may not need any AA setting. The higher pixel density will tend to straighten lines.
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
September 21, 2012 8:11:16 PM

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-660-ti-...

The first test has AA disabled and is in BatMan:AC, a game that favors Nvidia probably more than any other game, yet the 660 Ti is shown to have inferior performance. Looking at minimum FPS comparisons are far less forgiving than even this comparison. Even your own link showed a 7870 beating the 660 Ti in the test that you linked and that's a card that can be had as much as $100 cheaper than the 660 Ti and 7950. Any review that includes minimum FPS numbers shows the 660 Ti lagging behind badly in this and this is arguably much more important than average FPS in which it loses in anyway at this resolution.
m
0
l
a c 266 U Graphics card
September 21, 2012 8:30:10 PM

blazorthon said:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-660-ti-...

The first test has AA disabled and is in BatMan:AC, a game that favors Nvidia probably more than any other game, yet the 660 Ti is shown to have inferior performance. Looking at minimum FPS comparisons are far less forgiving than even this comparison. Even your own link showed a 7870 beating the 660 Ti in the test that you linked and that's a card that can be had as much as $100 cheaper than the 660 Ti and 7950. Any review that includes minimum FPS numbers shows the 660 Ti lagging behind badly in this and this is arguably much more important than average FPS in which it loses in anyway at this resolution.


Am I misreading the tests?
In test 1(no AA), and test 2(1x aa) I see no difference. All the cards have minimum fps @60+ which is wonderful. How good do you really need to be? Most monitors refresh @60hz anyway.
In all the tests, the average fps is >60, and the minimum is stil >34 with 8xaa.
The OP is satisfied today with no aa.
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
September 21, 2012 8:43:48 PM

geofelt said:
Am I misreading the tests?
In test 1(no AA), and test 2(1x aa) I see no difference. All the cards have minimum fps @60+ which is wonderful. How good do you really need to be? Most monitors refresh @60hz anyway.
In all the tests, the average fps is >60, and the minimum is stil >34 with 8xaa.
The OP is satisfied today with no aa.


The minimums are only fine because this is a highly Nvidia-favored title that also isn't particularly intensive. Most modern games would not be this forgiving. Besides, there are other things that can be done than AA and a minimum of 34-36 against 53 is huge when these are the frame rates, granted OP specified that OP wouldn't be playing wityh such AA, so this is less relevant. The 660 Ti's memory configuration is also inferior to even the 7870 and far inferior to the 7950's memory configuration. The 660 Ti has literalyl crap overclocking headroom and that combined with the memory configuration inferiority is cause severe future-proofing concern.

Besides, with how close the regular 660 is to the 660 Ti, if OP really wanted such a card, that'd be the better option. At least at stock, the similarly priced 7870 isn't as great of a gain over it.
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
September 22, 2012 12:00:46 AM

Mandersoon said:
Ehhhhhhh, but I'd rather not go with AMD (those drivers... -_-). I know Eyefinity has more support than Surround does, but at the same time - that'll get better. That, and the 660 Ti is already pushing my budget. Going to a 7950 or, God help me, a 7970 is somewhat overkill.
What's wrong with overkill ? :lol:  jk i know what you mean.Personally i prefer nvidia but amd has really stepped their game up over recent years i would use a amd card these days and be quite happy the choice is yours i was just giving you my opinion and that is that a 660 ti is not the way to go for a three monitor set up trust me you'll regret it. ;) 
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
September 22, 2012 12:24:05 AM

What is your budget? and what are your expectations of FPS in games?
m
0
l
September 22, 2012 9:35:05 PM

My budget is in the realm of $300, since I'm also upgrading a number of other components. There technically is room for an extra $100 or so, but I'm thinking about getting a Microsoft Surface this winter, so I'd prefer to have a little bit of money left. :p 

FPS expectations, I'd (obviously) prefer 60 at high/max settings (although, at that resolution - I doubt it). I'll never have AA on simply because the pixel density will help out with that. But, if I can get somewhere in between 40 and 60 without stuttering or anything, I'm fine with that too.

In any case, if the 670 is THAT much better than the 660 Ti in terms of future-proofing, overclocking, and multi-monitor setups/memory, then I guess it's a possibility. AMD, while nice, will take a lot of convincing for me - partly because I want to make this a Hackintosh build in the future (although, it's obviously not required. More research would have to be done, I'd have to decide if it's worth it, etc.).
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
September 22, 2012 9:55:30 PM

Mandersoon said:
My budget is in the realm of $300, since I'm also upgrading a number of other components. There technically is room for an extra $100 or so, but I'm thinking about getting a Microsoft Surface this winter, so I'd prefer to have a little bit of money left. :p 

FPS expectations, I'd (obviously) prefer 60 at high/max settings (although, at that resolution - I doubt it). I'll never have AA on simply because the pixel density will help out with that. But, if I can get somewhere in between 40 and 60 without stuttering or anything, I'm fine with that too.

In any case, if the 670 is THAT much better than the 660 Ti in terms of future-proofing, overclocking, and multi-monitor setups/memory, then I guess it's a possibility. AMD, while nice, will take a lot of convincing for me - partly because I want to make this a Hackintosh build in the future (although, it's obviously not required. More research would have to be done, I'd have to decide if it's worth it, etc.).


If Hackintosh is in the plans, then AMD is probably out of the question. The 670 can be that much better, but if it's out of your budget, then that's also that. If you must get a Nvidia card within that budget, then maybe you'd be better off with a 660 or a 660 Ti. However, the 7950 really would be the better option if you don't go for a Hackintosh setup.
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
September 22, 2012 10:01:02 PM

Mandersoon said:
My budget is in the realm of $300, since I'm also upgrading a number of other components. There technically is room for an extra $100 or so, but I'm thinking about getting a Microsoft Surface this winter, so I'd prefer to have a little bit of money left. :p 

FPS expectations, I'd (obviously) prefer 60 at high/max settings (although, at that resolution - I doubt it). I'll never have AA on simply because the pixel density will help out with that. But, if I can get somewhere in between 40 and 60 without stuttering or anything, I'm fine with that too.

In any case, if the 670 is THAT much better than the 660 Ti in terms of future-proofing, overclocking, and multi-monitor setups/memory, then I guess it's a possibility. AMD, while nice, will take a lot of convincing for me - partly because I want to make this a Hackintosh build in the future (although, it's obviously not required. More research would have to be done, I'd have to decide if it's worth it, etc.).
Well if you have Hackintosh in mind forget a amd card that's no longer even possible choice
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
September 22, 2012 10:01:56 PM

blazorthon said:
If Hackintosh is in the plans, then AMD is probably out of the question. The 670 can be that much better, but if it's out of your budget, then that's also that. If you must get a Nvidia card within that budget, then maybe you'd be better off with a 660 or a 660 Ti. However, the 7950 really would be the better option if you don't go for a Hackintosh setup.
+1
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
September 22, 2012 10:15:50 PM

Mandersoon said:
My budget is in the realm of $300, since I'm also upgrading a number of other components. There technically is room for an extra $100 or so, but I'm thinking about getting a Microsoft Surface this winter, so I'd prefer to have a little bit of money left. :p 

FPS expectations, I'd (obviously) prefer 60 at high/max settings (although, at that resolution - I doubt it). I'll never have AA on simply because the pixel density will help out with that. But, if I can get somewhere in between 40 and 60 without stuttering or anything, I'm fine with that too.

In any case, if the 670 is THAT much better than the 660 Ti in terms of future-proofing, overclocking, and multi-monitor setups/memory, then I guess it's a possibility. AMD, while nice, will take a lot of convincing for me - partly because I want to make this a Hackintosh build in the future (although, it's obviously not required. More research would have to be done, I'd have to decide if it's worth it, etc.).

My opinion everyone is going off batman and saying the 7050 is the better card yes it has 3GB of memory and a bigger bandwidth and bus but it trades blows with the 660 Ti..If you dont trust amd go 670 and you say you wont be using aa which is cool on a bigger res. Ive seen problems with amd cards more so then nv but everyones situation is different
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
September 22, 2012 10:32:33 PM

Oh i am not saying a 7950 is a better card i am saying for his requirements it's a better option
m
0
l
September 23, 2012 4:02:22 AM

Again - Hackintosh is something I want to do, but it's not required. Lol, I'm still not entirely sure if it's worth the space/trouble to dual-boot. But if I were to splurge and get a 670 - should I be going EVGA? And, if Hackintosh-ing were out of the picture, would the 670 be better than it's AMD opposition?

And I'm definitely going to be getting one of the Korean knock-off IPS panels (2560x1440), so there will be total of 2 monitors - my current Asus 1080p monitor, then the IPS panel.
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
September 23, 2012 4:03:59 AM

AMD would still generally have a win, especially if you consider discounted 7970s and 7970 GHz Editions, but a 7950 is still a great option that has no trouble trading blows with the 670.
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
September 23, 2012 4:22:59 AM

The 7970ghz would be the best option the 670 trades blows with the 7970 though so you decide.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
September 23, 2012 4:25:29 AM

bigcyco1 said:
The 7970ghz would be the best option the 670 has trades blows with the 7970 though so you decide.

760 as he said before he really doesnt trust amd and i dont blame him for that..Its up to him tho
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
September 23, 2012 4:33:17 AM

determinologyz said:
760 as he said before he really doesnt trust amd and i dont blame him for that..Its up to him tho
Quote: Again - Hackintosh is something I want to do, but it's not required. Lol, I'm still not entirely sure if it's worth the space/trouble to dual-boot. But if I were to splurge and get a 670 - should I be going EVGA? And, if Hackintosh-ing were out of the picture, would the 670 be better than it's AMD opposition?

I just answered the question so not sure why your mentioning that
m
0
l
!