Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

660 SLI vs 680

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
September 26, 2012 7:33:31 PM

So, I've spent the last hour or two searching the net to trying to work out whether or not 2 660's (not ti) in SLI are more powerful than a 670. The answer, ofcourse, is yes. But that got me thinking, the combined cost of 2 super clocked 660's and the larger power supply would probably come to around the same price of a 680.

So the title says it all really, which is better? 2 overclocked 660's or an overclocked 680? Which will perform better? If the 660's are a bit more powerful is it worth it for the problems there can be using SLI?

Here are the cards I'm looking at:

660: http://www.dabs.com/products/evga-geforce-gtx-660-1046m...

680: http://www.scan.co.uk/products/2gb-evga-gtx-680-sc-sign...

Thanks in advance :) 

More about : 660 sli 680

September 26, 2012 7:45:51 PM

Of the choices you mentioned, 680 without question.
September 26, 2012 10:23:31 PM

680 definitely.
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
September 26, 2012 10:48:53 PM

Two 660 Tis are more owerful than a 670 and a 680, but they're not a very good value in most situations. Two GTX 660s would provide similar performance for much less money and a good GTX 670 would probably be fairly close if you did an overclocking comparison. I can't recommend a 680 because the 670 is almost equal with the 680 in performance while being much cheaper.

I don't know why deathengine and kyle1519 would tell you that a 680 is faster than than 660 Ti SLI and 660 SLI. That is simply not true. It's most certainly not a better value like the 670 can be.
September 26, 2012 10:59:50 PM

luciferano said:
Two 660 Tis are more owerful than a 670 and a 680, but they're not a very good value in most situations. Two GTX 660s would provide similar performance for much less money and a good GTX 670 would probably be fairly close if you did an overclocking comparison. I can't recommend a 680 because the 670 is almost equal with the 680 in performance while being much cheaper.

I don't know why deathengine and kyle1519 would tell you that a 680 is faster than than 660 Ti SLI and 660 SLI. That is simply not true. It's most certainly not a better value like the 670 can be.



I completely agree with you on the 670 over 680 card decision. I actually have 2 670s myself because of the fact that they are the same as the 680 with a minor overclock. save some money that way, but that isn't what he asked. He gave 2 options and I chose the one I thought was better. Of course the 2 660ti are faster performance wise but having owned both 660ti single card and SLI and returning them and moving up to a 670 SLI because the 192 bit memory that comes with the 660ti is a major performance decrease. 660ti may be more powerful on paper but in applications the 192bit memory will take a toll on running graphics intensive games. Not to mention 1 card is always better to have then 2 in SLI for reliability and capabilities sake.
a b U Graphics card
September 26, 2012 11:50:11 PM

Kyle1519 said:
I completely agree with you on the 670 over 680 card decision. I actually have 2 670s myself because of the fact that they are the same as the 680 with a minor overclock. save some money that way, but that isn't what he asked. He gave 2 options and I chose the one I thought was better. Of course the 2 660ti are faster performance wise but having owned both 660ti single card and SLI and returning them and moving up to a 670 SLI because the 192 bit memory that comes with the 660ti is a major performance decrease. 660ti may be more powerful on paper but in applications the 192bit memory will take a toll on running graphics intensive games. Not to mention 1 card is always better to have then 2 in SLI for reliability and capabilities sake.


You are correct in that the 192 bit bus can be crippling, but two 660 Tis together are still better than a single 670 or 680. Together, they have a 192x2 memory setup against a single 256 bit bus. It's not as good as a single 384 bit bus running at the same frequency, but it's better than a single 256 bit bus running at the same frequency. Still, the 660 Tis would be an inferior value to the 670s, especially since some 670s can be had as cheap as $340 and that's still with Borderlands 2.
a b U Graphics card
September 27, 2012 12:03:57 AM

I'd say go for 680 instead of 660ti SLI, just a better option IMHO. Save money and better performance for graphic intensive games.
a b U Graphics card
September 27, 2012 12:06:22 AM

hero1 said:
I'd say go for 680 instead of 660ti SLI, just a better option IMHO. Save money and better performance for graphic intensive games.


Less stutter, probably, but better performance? Not a chance overall. Two 660 Tis will outperform a single 670/680 in the majority of tests. The 680s are a poor option anyway because of the 670s.
a b U Graphics card
September 27, 2012 12:15:44 AM

Quote:
I have said this a million times, one card is far better than running multiple cards. You get microstuttering, driver and game issues and thats not including the heat and the power consumption. A 680 is a much better buy. I have had multiple setups of both SLI and Crossfire and I will never do it again as one card truly is a better experience.


Heat and power consumption concerns aren't very meaningful in this, especially because SLI/CF configurations are generally more power-efficient and better cooled than a single GPU solution with comparable performance from the same generation. Micro-stutter is a great example for why you shouldn't go with two GPUs. A better SLI to 670/680 comparison would be two GTX 660s instead of two GTX 660 Tis. They'd be more power efficient than a GTX 680, faster, and cheaper with better cooling, assuming that they have at least one expansion slot of distance between the top card and the bottom card.

I wouldn't recommend it over a GTX 670 because of micro-stuttering, but that doesn't change the above facts. Furthermore, driver issues are almost completely non-existent nowadays.
a b U Graphics card
September 27, 2012 12:22:02 AM

A single card solution is always better than an SLI solution.
September 27, 2012 12:32:39 AM

Driver bugs, heating up your case, power consumption, lack of upgrade path...all bad things about SLI/CF.
a b U Graphics card
September 27, 2012 12:35:32 AM

egilbe said:
A single card solution is always better than an SLI solution.


That is not entirely true. It's only better when it can do the job too. For example, a single card solution with far less performance than an SLI solution is still inferior if it can't get playable performance whereas the SLI solution can. For example, two 7950s are better than a single 7970 GHz Edition if you play very intense settings that the lone 7970 GHz Edition can't handle. The same is true for two 660 Tis and two 660s against the 680. The 670 is still a better option because it can be found almost as cheaply as the 660 Ti despite performing almost identically to the much more expensive GTX 680, but that's not the point that I'm making with this post because I've already made it with others.
September 27, 2012 12:55:01 AM

luciferano said:
That is not entirely true. It's only better when it can do the job too. For example, a single card solution with far less performance than an SLI solution is still inferior if it can't get playable performance whereas the SLI solution can. For example, two 7950s are better than a single 7970 GHz Edition if you play very intense settings that the lone 7970 GHz Edition can't handle. The same is true for two 660 Tis and two 660s against the 680. The 670 is still a better option because it can be found almost as cheaply as the 660 Ti despite performing almost identically to the much more expensive GTX 680, but that's not the point that I'm making with this post because I've already made it with others.

BUT then there is the whole thing about upgrade-ability, most motherboards will not allow you to further increase your performance.
September 27, 2012 12:56:59 AM

Additionally, if you're buying a card with a custom cooler, the card on the top is like eating the excrement of the card underneath it.
a b U Graphics card
September 27, 2012 2:17:13 AM

UVB076 said:
BUT then there is the whole thing about upgrade-ability, most motherboards will not allow you to further increase your performance.


You're undeniably correct here.
a b U Graphics card
September 27, 2012 2:21:39 AM

UVB076 said:
Additionally, if you're buying a card with a custom cooler, the card on the top is like eating the excrement of the card underneath it.


Most motherboards (even those that only have two PCIe slots that can be used for this) today have three to five slots between the PCIe slots, so you'll get at least one slot of air between dual-slot cooled graphics cards and really, there's no serious need to go beyond two slot coolers for these cards. Like I said earlier, I'm not recommending that OP go dual-GTX 660 Ti, just trying to straiten things out about it.
September 27, 2012 8:41:58 PM

Just because there is a slot there doesn't mean the hot air suddenly disappears and is replaced by cool air.

I will say one thing, and that is that SLI/CFX look better.
a b U Graphics card
September 27, 2012 8:44:27 PM

UVB076 said:
Just because there is a slot there doesn't mean the hot air suddenly disappears and is replaced by cool air.

I will say one thing, and that is that SLI/CFX look better.


That is true, but it reduces heat issues greatly, especially when there are two or three slots between cards. At that point, at least in my experience, the top card isn't too different from the bottom card in temps. However, I do use side fans that blow air into the expansion area, so I'd think that cool air is getting in there (well, at least as cool as ambient temps outside of the case), especially when there is space for the side fan to blow into between the top and bottom graphics cards.
September 27, 2012 8:50:15 PM

What about people with windowed/silent cases.
a b U Graphics card
September 27, 2012 9:19:05 PM

UVB076 said:
What about people with windowed/silent cases.


Even without a side fan, having a good amount of space between two cards should still help, just not as much. The air might not be the coolest in the case, but with no slots between the cards, the top is *choked* IIRC, so letting it *breath* should help.
September 27, 2012 9:50:38 PM

Unless stock cooler.
a b U Graphics card
September 27, 2012 9:54:23 PM

UVB076 said:
Unless stock cooler.


SLI/CFX with reference-cooled cards? Why have a high-end setup if you'll have minimal cooling?

Besides, some reference coolers would be helped by this too. It'd depend on the individual cooler at that point.
September 28, 2012 12:17:19 AM

EVGA is essentially reference.
a c 217 U Graphics card
September 28, 2012 12:24:44 AM

luciferano said:
Even without a side fan, having a good amount of space between two cards should still help, just not as much. The air might not be the coolest in the case, but with no slots between the cards, the top is *choked* IIRC, so letting it *breath* should help.


I have two reference cooled 680's side by side with 1 slot of space between them with a case that has no side fan. The top card is OC'ed a little, so the difference could simply be the OC, but as it stands, there is 1-2C degrees difference between the top and bottom card.
a b U Graphics card
September 28, 2012 12:32:36 AM

bystander said:
I have two reference cooled 680's side by side with 1 slot of space between them with a case that has no side fan. The top card is OC'ed a little, so the difference could simply be the OC, but as it stands, there is 1-2C degrees difference between the top and bottom card.


Well, that seems to support my what I'm saying quite well. Having at least a single expansion slot of space between two cards greatly helps to keep temps within sane limits.
a b U Graphics card
a b ) Power supply
September 28, 2012 12:45:04 AM

if you like to play games on THE day of release, get the best SINGLE card you can...

alot of AAA titles take weeks to sort out sli/cfx compatibility issues...

670...easy choice
!