Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Msi 660ti vs sapphire 7950oc

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
October 5, 2012 2:41:30 PM

Hey everybody

I want your help with this. I want to buy a new graphics card but i cant choose between those 2 posten in the thread (msi 660ti vs sapphire 7950 oc) I really like physx and 3D but sapphire has bigger performance and better overclocking ability......so which one should i choose because maybe (only maybe) i will do sli/crossfire and 660ti is bottlenecked by 192bit xxxx or somethink i cant remember what so what would be the best choice? I would pass on 3d or physx but if the performance would not be so noticable i think i would go with msi so tell me which is cooler and which performs better.

My rig

cpu: fx8150 will oc
MB: msi 990fxa-gd80
vga: 560ti but ill buy a new card soon
case: zalman z11 plus
ram: 16gb corsair vengeance
psu: 700w
ask for other components if i missed any.
a b U Graphics card
October 5, 2012 4:24:50 PM

You didn't say what your resolution is. I would say go for whichever is cheaper. If you are playing at 2560 then I would say 7950. I have a Sapphire 7870 and it barely gets over 60C in games, so I would expect a little more heat from the 7950. If there are certain games you like you should take a look at a benchmark to see which card performs better.
a b U Graphics card
October 5, 2012 5:56:14 PM

With a fx-8150, there will game performance loss in fps if you install high end gpu like 7950.

Go for 7870 or below.
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
October 5, 2012 6:13:48 PM

Get 7950 if you want to OC for max performance, get 660ti(or 660/7870) if you just want to stay at stock+boost speed.

a c 598 U Graphics card
October 5, 2012 6:19:17 PM

If you want the MSI GTX 660 Ti, then go for it. There is literally no situation that anyone can come up that will show a consistent and significant performance difference between the two choices. These two cards are even, except as you said, one has PhysX the other doesn't.

This review includes a direct comparison between your two choices. It includes OC vs. OC, etc. Enjoy!
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/sapphire_7950_v...
a b U Graphics card
October 5, 2012 6:39:00 PM

17seconds said:
If you want the MSI GTX 660 Ti, then go for it. There is literally no situation that anyone can come up that will show a consistent and significant performance difference between the two choices. These two cards are even, except as you said, one has PhysX the other doesn't.

This review includes a direct comparison between your two choices. It includes OC vs. OC, etc. Enjoy!
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/sapphire_7950_v...

Taking into account the crippling effect when AA and AF are turned up on the 660Ti, I cannot agree here. The 7950 overclocks higher (percentage increase from base frequencies), has a much wider memory bandwidth interface (much better for higher resolutions), and has more RAM to boot. The downside to the 7950 - higher power consumption. For current titles (not the usual stressful Metro and Crysis), it would be hard to tell a difference between the two cards in some instances, but the 7950 wins too many points in other areas to ignore it as the winning choice right now.
a b U Graphics card
October 5, 2012 7:14:21 PM

The HD 7950 is just so much better than the GTX 660 Ti.It's better at stock.It's better when overclocked.It's better at computing.It's better with AA and the list just goes on and on.

Just take a look at this article.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-660-ti-...
I hope that can help you with your decision.
a b U Graphics card
October 5, 2012 7:22:40 PM

Karol401 said:
Hey everybody

I want your help with this. I want to buy a new graphics card but i cant choose between those 2 posten in the thread (msi 660ti vs sapphire 7950 oc) I really like physx and 3D but sapphire has bigger performance and better overclocking ability......so which one should i choose because maybe (only maybe) i will do sli/crossfire and 660ti is bottlenecked by 192bit xxxx or somethink i cant remember what so what would be the best choice? I would pass on 3d or physx but if the performance would not be so noticable i think i would go with msi so tell me which is cooler and which performs better.

My rig

cpu: fx8150 will oc
MB: msi 990fxa-gd80
vga: 560ti but ill buy a new card soon
case: zalman z11 plus
ram: 16gb corsair vengeance
psu: 700w
ask for other components if i missed any.


Depending on the game the 660ti or 7950 could win. Give us your Monitor resolution and the games you would be mostly playing. Then we can better recommend a card for you.
a c 598 U Graphics card
October 5, 2012 7:39:23 PM

Karol401 said:
Hey everybody

I want your help with this. I want to buy a new graphics card but i cant choose between those 2 posten in the thread (msi 660ti vs sapphire 7950 oc) I really like physx and 3D but sapphire has bigger performance and better overclocking ability......so which one should i choose because maybe (only maybe) i will do sli/crossfire and 660ti is bottlenecked by 192bit xxxx or somethink i cant remember what so what would be the best choice? I would pass on 3d or physx but the performance would not be so noticable i think i would go with msi so tell which is cooler and which performs better.

Since this is one of your key points, please don't be misled, the performance difference under any situation that anyone can come up with will be negligible and unnoticeable in real world gaming. There is no significant and consistent difference in the performance of these cards at a normal resolution, regardless of AA levels, overclocking, etc.

This chart averages out 23 benchmarks. Yes, you can overclock the 7950, but then yes the MSI 660 Ti also overclocks.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_660_Ti_Power...
a b U Graphics card
October 5, 2012 8:33:11 PM

Kamen_BG said:
Just take a look at this article.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-660-ti-...
I hope that can help you with your decision.

Yep, this is the chart that so many review sites are not reporting on. The 660Ti would be a monster of a card if the memory system could compensate, but it's absolutely crippling to the card's potential.
a c 598 U Graphics card
October 5, 2012 9:11:27 PM

matt_b said:
Yep, this is the chart that so many review sites are not reporting on. The 660Ti would be a monster of a card if the memory system could compensate, but it's absolutely crippling to the card's potential.

Actually, HardOCP also covered it. Here's what they had to say:
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/08/27/nvidia_geforc...


The Bottom Line
In the end this all reinforces our stance that memory bandwidth isn't everything, and people seeking out video cards for gaming should not focus so intently on the memory bus width and bandwidth specification for determining their video card for gaming. Other factors go into it, and only through actually gameplay will you know how these truly perform side-by-side. That is why we here at [H]ardOCP actually play games with these video cards and use that real-world gaming performance to determine which card your money is better spent on.

Our testing today at super high AA settings has shown that the "bus limited" GeForce GTX 660 Ti does not crumble so easily. There were no instances where we ran into "VRAM wall"s that took gaming performance into single digits, this never happened even at high AA settings with Transparency AA.

The GeForce GTX 660 Ti cards continue to show a very solid value at Amazon and Newegg for gamers and as we have shown (here and here), a little bit of overclocking on the right card can go a long ways.
a c 92 U Graphics card
October 5, 2012 9:23:53 PM

The 660ti is a no buy, the 660 is a better balanced card with almost the same amount of performance for much less, the 7950 is the much better card in that comparison.
October 5, 2012 9:37:00 PM

17seconds said:
Actually, HardOCP also covered it. Here's what they had to say:
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/08/27/nvidia_geforc...


The Bottom Line
In the end this all reinforces our stance that memory bandwidth isn't everything, and people seeking out video cards for gaming should not focus so intently on the memory bus width and bandwidth specification for determining their video card for gaming. Other factors go into it, and only through actually gameplay will you know how these truly perform side-by-side. That is why we here at [H]ardOCP actually play games with these video cards and use that real-world gaming performance to determine which card your money is better spent on.

Our testing today at super high AA settings has shown that the "bus limited" GeForce GTX 660 Ti does not crumble so easily. There were no instances where we ran into "VRAM wall"s that took gaming performance into single digits, this never happened even at high AA settings with Transparency AA.

The GeForce GTX 660 Ti cards continue to show a very solid value at Amazon and Newegg for gamers and as we have shown (here and here), a little bit of overclocking on the right card can go a long ways.


Um...... NO!

The problem with this review is that it does not look at AA scaling. Rather it looks at whether the game is playable at max AA settings. We simply don't know if the performance hit between no AA and 8x AA is 10% or 80%. The Toms review is much better in this regard as it clearly shows how cranking AA drops the framerate. Also the HardOCP review has a problem. We are comparing an overclocked gtx 660 TI at 1188 MHZ vs a stock radeon 7950 (at 925 MHZ). The 7950 wins most of the time too.
a c 185 U Graphics card
October 5, 2012 9:44:54 PM

I think they are both great cards.I'd recommend saving a little more get a 670/7970 just my two cents.If your not willing to do that and your monitor res is above 1920 x 1200 get the 7950
October 26, 2012 9:35:43 PM

and if its 1680x1050 and would an upgrade to i7 3770k improve much?
October 26, 2012 10:13:29 PM

matt_b said:
Taking into account the crippling effect when AA and AF are turned up on the 660Ti, I cannot agree here. The 7950 overclocks higher (percentage increase from base frequencies), has a much wider memory bandwidth interface (much better for higher resolutions), and has more RAM to boot. The downside to the 7950 - higher power consumption. For current titles (not the usual stressful Metro and Crysis), it would be hard to tell a difference between the two cards in some instances, but the 7950 wins too many points in other areas to ignore it as the winning choice right now.



I am SO sick of people spouting this dumba$$ bs ( I dont know if we can use explicitives here). AA does not cripple the 660 ti. It still gets awesome FPS. ALL GPUS TAKE A FPS HIT FROM AA. Stop spreading these ignorant rumors. People are constantly crying about AA hurting it and the 192-bit being so slow, but the numbers do not support any of those claims.

I am personally looking to buy a video card on the 31st. I wanted a 670 but my budget wouldnt allo it, so I looked to the 660 ti. Then Never Settle Released and I started thinking about the 7950. But now, I am back to the 660 ti because I dont really care that much for the games bundled and I know the gtx 6xx series is younger than the amd 7xxx series and will also be adding lots of performance boosts from driver updates. I also really want Adaptive V sync. So now if I see the gigabyte 670 on sale for $359 again like it has been, I will buy it, otherwise I am going 660 ti.

I am an NVidia Fanboy and before Catalyst 12.11 I did not acknowledge the 7950 to be better than the 660 ti and I didn't recommend anyone buy it over the 660 ti. But now it is better, but I dont believe it will last long and personally I still wont go AMD.
a c 92 U Graphics card
October 26, 2012 10:18:21 PM

eric4277 said:
I am SO sick of people spouting this dumba$$ bs ( I dont know if we can use explicitives here). AA does not cripple the 660 ti. It still gets awesome FPS. ALL GPUS TAKE A FPS HIT FROM AA. Stop spreading these ignorant rumors. People are constantly crying about AA hurting it and the 192-bit being so slow, but the numbers do not support any of those claims.

I am personally looking to buy a video card on the 31st. I wanted a 670 but my budget wouldnt allo it, so I looked to the 660 ti. Then Never Settle Released and I started thinking about the 7950. But now, I am back to the 660 ti because I dont really care that much for the games bundled and I know the gtx 6xx series is younger than the amd 7xxx series and will also be adding lots of performance boosts from driver updates. I also really want Adaptive V sync. So now if I see the gigabyte 670 on sale for $359 again like it has been, I will buy it, otherwise I am going 660 ti.

I am an NVidia Fanboy and before Catalyst 12.11 I did not acknowledge the 7950 to be better than the 660 ti and I didn't recommend anyone buy it over the 660 ti. But now it is better, but I dont believe it will last long and personally I still wont go AMD.

everything you just said is BS and you have been told in other threads that you were wrong. Stop spreading BS pleas.
a c 141 U Graphics card
October 26, 2012 10:36:20 PM

eric4277 said:
I am SO sick of people spouting this dumba$$ bs ( I dont know if we can use explicitives here). AA does not cripple the 660 ti. It still gets awesome FPS. ALL GPUS TAKE A FPS HIT FROM AA. Stop spreading these ignorant rumors. People are constantly crying about AA hurting it and the 192-bit being so slow, but the numbers do not support any of those claims.

I am personally looking to buy a video card on the 31st. I wanted a 670 but my budget wouldnt allo it, so I looked to the 660 ti. Then Never Settle Released and I started thinking about the 7950. But now, I am back to the 660 ti because I dont really care that much for the games bundled and I know the gtx 6xx series is younger than the amd 7xxx series and will also be adding lots of performance boosts from driver updates. I also really want Adaptive V sync. So now if I see the gigabyte 670 on sale for $359 again like it has been, I will buy it, otherwise I am going 660 ti.

I am an NVidia Fanboy and before Catalyst 12.11 I did not acknowledge the 7950 to be better than the 660 ti and I didn't recommend anyone buy it over the 660 ti. But now it is better, but I dont believe it will last long and personally I still wont go AMD.


The key difference is the 660Ti takes a disproportionately high performance hit from AA compared to other cards in certain games. In any case, you are dead set on Nvidia, but can't afford their only worthwhile card, so just buy the 660Ti and be done with it. Just don't come back and complain later when the card chokes on a game that taxes the memory bandwidth.
October 26, 2012 10:45:42 PM

If that is the case, why has the 6xx series outsold the 7xxx series even though it is younger. And why haven't people who bought 660 ti returned them immediately? And no one has ever proved me wrong in any other thread pre 12.11. I used their own websites and showed them charts of the 7950 losing to the 660 ti. techpowerup.com had it losing to the 660 ti. Hell, the chart above even shows the 660 ti beating the 7950.
a c 141 U Graphics card
October 26, 2012 10:57:46 PM

eric4277 said:
If that is the case, why has the 6xx series outsold the 7xxx series even though it is younger. And why haven't people who bought 660 ti returned them immediately? And no one has ever proved me wrong in any other thread pre 12.11. I used their own websites and showed them charts of the 7950 losing to the 660 ti. techpowerup.com had it losing to the 660 ti. Hell, the chart above even shows the 660 ti beating the 7950.


If the only game you are playing is Battlefield 3, then the 660Ti will outperform the stock 7950. The problem with the 7950 is that in its initial release, it was heavily underclocked. Newer cards have a newer BIOS that increases the stock clocks. The 7950 can also overclock more than the 660Ti, so it will pull ahead if you are willing to tweak it. Unless Battlefield 3 and GPU accelerated PhysX games are all you play, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to buy a 660Ti right now.

As for why Nvidia outsells AMD, it is simply because Nvidia's marketing department has spent all their time trying to convince everyone that the only cards worth having are GeForce cards. They have been successful in that goal for a large chunk of the PC gaming audience. So Nvidia has a large client base that will buy whatever Nvidia puts out, even if it is flawed. Think about Apple and their various iThingys if you want another example. It doesn't matter if the AMD card is faster at a given price point, these people will still buy the Nvidia card.
October 26, 2012 11:12:42 PM

Supernova1138 said:
If the only game you are playing is Battlefield 3, then the 660Ti will outperform the stock 7950. The problem with the 7950 is that in its initial release, it was heavily underclocked. Newer cards have a newer BIOS that increases the stock clocks. The 7950 can also overclock more than the 660Ti, so it will pull ahead if you are willing to tweak it. Unless Battlefield 3 and GPU accelerated PhysX games are all you play, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to buy a 660Ti right now.

As for why Nvidia outsells AMD, it is simply because Nvidia's marketing department has spent all their time trying to convince everyone that the only cards worth having are GeForce cards. They have been successful in that goal for a large chunk of the PC gaming audience. So Nvidia has a large client base that will buy whatever Nvidia puts out, even if it is flawed. Think about Apple and their various iThingys if you want another example. It doesn't matter if the AMD card is faster at a given price point, these people will still buy the Nvidia card.


You say heavily underclocked, I say rushed to try and buy sales while there is no competition. They release their cards earlier to monopolize the market and sell $400 cards for $550. Then when Nvidia drops their cards, AMD has to price drop out the wazoo. This also goes to my point that the 7950 is 10 months old and the 660 ti is only 2. AMD is trying to catch up with NVidia and has had more time to work on drivers. Nvidia will have time as well.

Like I have said repeatedly. I am an Nvidia Fanboy, but at the same time I will respect good performance. The 7950 is now a serious contender and solid performer. I have shown repeatedly the 660 ti whooping it pre 12.11 but people have those fanboy blinders on so hard they cant acknowledge performance.

NVidia outsells AMD because their cards have been generally better the past few generations. If AMD got their stuff together and didn't monopolize prices, their sales would be much higher.
a c 141 U Graphics card
October 26, 2012 11:28:36 PM

How long the cards have been out isn't even all that relevant. You do realize that the 660Ti is just a heavily crippled GTX 680 that Nvidia chose to wait 6 months to release so they could get their more impatient fans to spend more money on the 670 and 680? It's based off the same architecture of the GTX 680, which came out back in March. The 660Ti is not based on some brand spanking new architecture that is a generation ahead of the AMD 7000 series cards. You'll have to wait for the 700 series cards to come out next year if you want that.

In any case, I am not so much an AMD fanboy as I am just anti-Nvidia. I am not fond of their business practices (pushing as much proprietary crap as possible, crippling GPU compute capabilities on their consumer cards, locking voltages, crippling the memory buses on all their midrange to low end products), and I am still bitter about two different GeForce 4 Ti4200s that gave up the ghost after less than a year way back when. In any case, we might as well stop now, as I don't think either of us are deprogramming the other.

October 26, 2012 11:45:35 PM

The 7950 would be a better choice. I have mine overclocked to 980MHz and it's better than the stock 670 at that clock
October 27, 2012 12:01:12 AM

Supernova1138 said:
How long the cards have been out isn't even all that relevant. You do realize that the 660Ti is just a heavily crippled GTX 680 that Nvidia chose to wait 6 months to release so they could get their more impatient fans to spend more money on the 670 and 680? It's based off the same architecture of the GTX 680, which came out back in March. The 660Ti is not based on some brand spanking new architecture that is a generation ahead of the AMD 7000 series cards. You'll have to wait for the 700 series cards to come out next year if you want that.

In any case, I am not so much an AMD fanboy as I am just anti-Nvidia. I am not fond of their business practices (pushing as much proprietary crap as possible, crippling GPU compute capabilities on their consumer cards, locking voltages, crippling the memory buses on all their midrange to low end products), and I am still bitter about two different GeForce 4 Ti4200s that gave up the ghost after less than a year way back when. In any case, we might as well stop now, as I don't think either of us are deprogramming the other.



Proprietary? How so? lol wtf you talking about?

And my thoughts on the 660 ti releasing so late is that they used all the chips that werent good enough to be 680s to make 670s, then the ones that couldnt be 670s into 660 ti. It is actually smart from a financial perspective.

Also, AMD's generations have not lasted as long as NVidia's as of late. Nivida has released a few months behind AMD since the gtx 4xx series. And still dominated AMD. The 7xxx series is just now really catching up.
October 27, 2012 12:29:29 AM

mubin said:
With a fx-8150, there will game performance loss in fps if you install high end gpu like 7950.

Go for 7870 or below.



Can you explain a little more on what that means? Sorry if this question is too stupid but I am in the process of purchasing a new setup and I have an fx-8150 with a gtx 680 as my priority choices.
October 27, 2012 12:40:13 AM

the FX-8150 is not the best CPU. An i5 sandy or ivy bridge will produce far better results than the 8150. AMD fails at cpus currently.
a c 141 U Graphics card
October 27, 2012 1:04:08 AM

eric4277 said:
Proprietary? How so? lol wtf you talking about?

And my thoughts on the 660 ti releasing so late is that they used all the chips that werent good enough to be 680s to make 670s, then the ones that couldnt be 670s into 660 ti. It is actually smart from a financial perspective.

Also, AMD's generations have not lasted as long as NVidia's as of late. Nivida has released a few months behind AMD since the gtx 4xx series. And still dominated AMD. The 7xxx series is just now really catching up.


On the proprietary point, I am mostly referring to PhysX. The vast majority of GPU accelerated PhysX implementations could have been done on the CPU, but you need an Nvidia card to not kill your framerates with them enabled because they intentionally wrote the code so that it won't make effective use of CPU resources. There have been virtually no implementations of PhysX in games that have justified restricting it to the GPU like that.

And yes, selling your defective chips as lower end products makes sense, the problem is that a: they sat on these for six months and didn't bother releasing GK106 either to try and get people to spend extra on their high end cards, and b: crippled the memory buses on everything selling below $400 to get people to continue to spend extra for the high end stuff. For some cards, like the 660 and 650, the crippled memory buses aren't as much of a problem because they aren't holding back the GPU that much. For the 660Ti and 650Ti, the narrow memory bus is really holding back those cards, and creating very unbalanced products. The result is that you get cards that sometimes perform well compared to how they are priced, and sometimes perform a lot worse. I prefer a card that is a more consistent performer, rather than a card that performs very well in game A, but takes a disproportionately large performance hit when it plays game B.





October 27, 2012 1:13:02 AM

Maybe if I get my 660 ti some crutches it will perform better then?

The cards are purposely held back because they want them to sell at a certain price point. If I am not mistaken, AMD does the same thing with the x950s. A crippled x970.

The card performs the way it should. I have no problem with the specs if it is performing like a card $100 less than the 670.
a c 141 U Graphics card
October 27, 2012 1:29:28 AM

Yes but the xx50 cards tend not to have memory buses that are too narrow for the GPU to work at its full potential. A $300 card should not take a nosedive in performance when you turn Anti Aliasing on in certain games.

In any case, my opinion is that the 660Ti is a crippled card that does not perform well enough on a consistent basis to justify its price point. Your opinion is that it is. Nothing I say will change your mind, and nothing you say will change mine. So let's stop now before we turn the poor OP's thread into a multi-page flame war.
October 27, 2012 1:32:34 AM

lolnosedives
I guess every card has Nosedives from AA then.
a b U Graphics card
October 27, 2012 1:33:50 AM

eric4277 said:
Maybe if I get my 660 ti some crutches it will perform better then?

The cards are purposely held back because they want them to sell at a certain price point. If I am not mistaken, AMD does the same thing with the x950s. A crippled x970.

The card performs the way it should. I have no problem with the specs if it is performing like a card $100 less than the 670.



I agree man..Its to much going on with this card this this card that..So what if it plays your games at good frames who cares..I own a 660 Ti and im fine for the games it plays at 1080p and i havent ran into any major problems yet..Even metro 2033 which is pretty messed up with how its optimized runs decent no complaints here
a b U Graphics card
October 27, 2012 4:55:36 AM

sunhashin said:
Can you explain a little more on what that means? Sorry if this question is too stupid but I am in the process of purchasing a new setup and I have an fx-8150 with a gtx 680 as my priority choices.


Actually AMD FX cpu will bottleneck high end gpu like gtx680/HD7970. So there will be performance loss/ frame loss in second. Why lose frame with a high end gpu? You will buy a $400 gpu only for higher frame. So why lose it? HD7850 can handle all games but in low fps than HD7970.

Get the gtx670 instead of gtx680. Gtx680 is a crap with $100 more. Gtx670 is a great card with great price. Also stay away from AMD, it will give you less frame with such high-end gpu.
October 27, 2012 10:40:12 AM

Ok so i think THIS YEAR (if possible....budget :/ ) i will upgrade to 3770k but first tell me.....a straight answer no BS and hater coments pls.....msi gtx 670 or sapphire 7950 vapor x ?
October 27, 2012 1:08:06 PM

Honestly. I think the gigabyte 670 might actually be a better card than the msi if you plan to OC. I has a better cooler too.

I also heard something about the Vapor x series being voltage capped.
a b U Graphics card
October 27, 2012 4:14:53 PM

the msi gtx 670 power edition card has better thermal solution than any other and is the best overclock-able 670 around.
I'd always recommend a 670 over a 7950 as the performance of the former speaks for itself.
Also I trust benchmarks more than on paper specs as both cards have different architectures that have their own ways of utilizing resources such as memory.
Furthermore msaa isn't the only AA technique out there.Sleeping Dogs from amd,portal 2 from nvidia offer ssaa which affects amd cards also.In fact nvidia cards have performed better in these games.While another game Arkham city offers you almost all AA techniques that are out there so suit yourselves accordingly. :) 
a b U Graphics card
October 27, 2012 4:28:59 PM

to everybody talking about the FX-8150 is going to bottleneck a HD 7970/ GTX 680. that's not entirely true . yes you will get higher FPS with a i7 or i5 but it's not worth buying since he already has the FX-8150.


























a c 92 U Graphics card
October 27, 2012 7:29:26 PM

Karol401 said:
Ok so i think THIS YEAR (if possible....budget :/ ) i will upgrade to 3770k but first tell me.....a straight answer no BS and hater coments pls.....msi gtx 670 or sapphire 7950 vapor x ?

Don't buy the i7. At most buy an i5 3570k since it will perform exactly like the i7 for $100 less. The FX isn't that bad either so there really isn't a reason to upgrade unless you aren't getting the performance you need. It would be much easier just to overclock your current CPU. An upgrade to an intel i5 will increase performance in some cpu limited games but generally, your current cpu should have no problem playing those games at max settings perfect smooth either way.

The 670 will be faster than the 7950 at stock generally, depending on the game tho, the 2 is within 5-15% of each other. When both are OC'ed the 7950 will be the faster gpu as it have higher OC gains and headroom than the 670. It really depends on what you want to use your computer for and how much you want to spend and what resolution you play at and if you plan to OC or not. The 7950 = the 670 at 1600p but will lose by 10% at 1080p, both at stock. The 7950 generally have massive overclock headroom compared to most cards and will OC for 30% gains where as the 670 will generally only OC for 15% gains. The 7950 is generally $50-100 less than the 670s of the same quality.

OC performance gains with both at max OC:

37% gain from stock, 25% gain vs before OC on the same card

19% gain vs stock, 9% gain vs before OC on the same card

general performance summery:
October 27, 2012 7:44:04 PM

Those are old Driver charts. the 7950 before Oc now gets 63 or 64 FPS i think before OC. And thye also have an article showing the gigabyte 670 OC FPS higher than the msi PE. It also gets better temps and sound.

I am wrestling with which card I am going to buy still myself. I am between the 660, 660 ti, gigabyte 670, and the 7950.

One major thing to me is how close the 8xxx series is and how it will perform and affect prices.
a b U Graphics card
October 27, 2012 10:59:00 PM

eric4277 said:
I am SO sick of people spouting this dumba$$ bs ( I dont know if we can use explicitives here). AA does not cripple the 660 ti. It still gets awesome FPS. ALL GPUS TAKE A FPS HIT FROM AA. Stop spreading these ignorant rumors. People are constantly crying about AA hurting it and the 192-bit being so slow, but the numbers do not support any of those claims.

I am personally looking to buy a video card on the 31st. I wanted a 670 but my budget wouldnt allo it, so I looked to the 660 ti. Then Never Settle Released and I started thinking about the 7950. But now, I am back to the 660 ti because I dont really care that much for the games bundled and I know the gtx 6xx series is younger than the amd 7xxx series and will also be adding lots of performance boosts from driver updates. I also really want Adaptive V sync. So now if I see the gigabyte 670 on sale for $359 again like it has been, I will buy it, otherwise I am going 660 ti.

I am an NVidia Fanboy and before Catalyst 12.11 I did not acknowledge the 7950 to be better than the 660 ti and I didn't recommend anyone buy it over the 660 ti. But now it is better, but I dont believe it will last long and personally I still wont go AMD.

The 660Ti "awesome" FPS with AA and AF cranked up? Sure, but not without a heavier penalty than what a 660, 670, 7800, or 7900 series incur. The 660Ti does not fall flat on it's face, but whatever lead it has over the above said cards diminishes quickly - FACT. Does this card still kick butt for medium/high end gaming, sure it does. Does it perform the best for its price range though - absolutely not. You need to understand that different situations place stress on different areas of a card. Filtering and resolution place higher demands on the memory system, would you build an i7 2700K/3770K computer and try to save money and pair it with 1066 DDR2 RAM (if possible)? If the answer is yes, then the rest of us can understand your conclusions, otherwise maybe you'll figure out that wasted clock cycles are just that unless there's a comparable memory system to feed ample data supply to be processed. The last time I checked though, charts and graphs with numbers on them aren't considered "dumba$$ bs" by a majority. If you need to understand the reason why the 660Ti even exists and why it's not an under-performing 670, or an over-achieving 660, then you need to reasearch "binning" and what this card means to Nvidia's profits.

Quote:
I am an NVidia Fanboy

You didn't have to tell anybody, but it's an explanation by itself........

eric4277 said:
You say heavily underclocked, I say rushed to try and buy sales while there is no competition. They release their cards earlier to monopolize the market and sell $400 cards for $550. Then when Nvidia drops their cards, AMD has to price drop out the wazoo. This also goes to my point that the 7950 is 10 months old and the 660 ti is only 2. AMD is trying to catch up with NVidia and has had more time to work on drivers. Nvidia will have time as well.

Like I have said repeatedly. I am an Nvidia Fanboy, but at the same time I will respect good performance. The 7950 is now a serious contender and solid performer. I have shown repeatedly the 660 ti whooping it pre 12.11 but people have those fanboy blinders on so hard they cant acknowledge performance.

NVidia outsells AMD because their cards have been generally better the past few generations. If AMD got their stuff together and didn't monopolize prices, their sales would be much higher.

Rushed to market? Nvidia and AMD are on a staggered-release schedule - it has been this way for how many years? "Rushed to market" would be an example of recalls, instability, high failure rates, launched before yields/supplies are adequate, etc. - didn't see any of these on the AMD side this go around. I suppose when the 8000 series get released in a few months, AMD is just rushing out the door again? I can say the same thing about Nvidia if I spin it the other way and say the GTX 600 series is a rush job to get a jump on the Radeon 8000 series - see how stupid that sounds? Catch up to what? If I pick a $250 card budget, I'm not pissing my money away on lackluster performance, consumers get their money's worth for whatever they buy. This isn't the AMD vs Intel CPU race we're talking about, the GPU sector is very competitive. Nvidia outsells AMD because of their bullish marketing campaign (and successful at that), not because dollar for dollar they're better. Reality would tell you that from the launch of Fermi up until recently, the Nvidia camp has been playing catch-up (noise, failure rates, excessive power consumption, space heater syndrome). The HD series for ATI was a game changer for them, anything older (2900XT anyone?) was comparable to the first couple generations of the Fermi archetecture. I can send money towards either the Geforce or Radeon camp and I could be happy with either one depending on what I'm looking to get out of a card. Do you listen to and rehearse this stuff to yourself?

Quote:
Like I have said repeatedly. I am an Nvidia Fanboy

Yeah, and again, it's obvious, thanks for clarifying it though.

a b U Graphics card
October 27, 2012 11:09:01 PM

eric4277 said:
One major thing to me is how close the 8xxx series is and how it will perform and affect prices.

This is the worst thing about tech. Every-time one buys something, there's always going to be that next-gen item or massive price drop that makes you drunken-sailor it when you read about it. I'm seeing the 8000 series as trumpeting on much higher compute performance (think Nvidia cards before Kepler), lower power consumption gains, and a bump in performance - the usual. It's best to bite the bullet, stick to a budget, and tell yourself a timeframe of when you're going to buy. Just don't do price checks after you bought what you did, it only stings that much worse.
October 27, 2012 11:36:24 PM

You are way too late to the party gAMD fanboy. I dont feel like arguing with people with blinders on. I have already stated my points and they still stand valid. go paint the town red elsewhere.
a b U Graphics card
October 27, 2012 11:46:18 PM

My thought is who gives a F what card someone gets we not playing the game for them..We should suggest 1 card from both camps that on par and let the op or anyone choose..Yall complain as if yall playing the game for them..Sit back roll up one and relax at the end of the day we all getting good frames no matter what came the card comes from
a b U Graphics card
October 28, 2012 12:18:31 AM

eric4277 said:
You are way too late to the party gAMD fanboy. I dont feel like arguing with people with blinders on. I have already stated my points and they still stand valid. go paint the town red elsewhere.

Late to what, posting a day after you? No blinders here as I've had cards from everyone over the years, which company is "it" changes from time to time and I generally go with it. I show brand loyalty up to the point when competition is proving to be a better buy. As far as how "painting the town red" applies to me saying the 660 and 670 are better overall cards than the one you're hooked on, I'm not sure.
a c 92 U Graphics card
October 28, 2012 12:18:45 AM

eric4277 said:
You are way too late to the party gAMD fanboy. I dont feel like arguing with people with blinders on. I have already stated my points and they still stand valid. go paint the town red elsewhere.

you are the one with the blinders on. Please just leave if you are going to be so ignorant.
October 28, 2012 1:08:26 AM

sunshine and lollipops
October 28, 2012 1:08:44 AM

I have blinders on because I acknowledged the 7950 post 12.11 being better than the 660 ti? Ok
a b U Graphics card
October 28, 2012 3:38:46 AM

gamerkila57 said:
to everybody talking about the FX-8150 is going to bottleneck a HD 7970/ GTX 680. that's not entirely true . yes you will get higher FPS with a i7 or i5 but it's not worth buying since he already has the FX-8150.


Look for the cpu intensive game you posted. There is a lot of frame difference. But with out cpu intensive games they are all fine. Even i dont get a frame loss with old dual core in non-cpu intensive games like Dirt3 and BF3 in Singleplayer.(But multiplayer its crap)

To OP. gtx 670 is great card over 7950oc. Its a good price/performance card. Personally i am a fan of 7970 and love the gtx670 ;) 
October 28, 2012 7:41:42 PM


To OP. gtx 670 is great card over 7950oc. Its a good price/performance card. Personally i am a fan of 7970 and love the gtx670 ;) [/quotemsg]

I agree. The 670 overclocked would get a bit more performance but not a whole lot for the money they charge for it. I have 7950's clocked to 980MHz and in crossfire and they rip everything to shreds.
March 25, 2013 2:17:34 AM

eric4277 said:

I am an NVidia Fanboy


I stopped reading everything else he said after this.

It's one thing to support and be a bit bias to a brand, but being a fanboy with green or red goggles on is another.
Also, the tone(lol ik, can't think of a better term) on how he posts clearly show how much of an immature brat and how mad he is about the whole Green vs Red wars, more specifically the 7950 vs 660 Ti.

He's probably gonna reply to this post with his aggressive tone, but I won't bother replying anymore.
Have fun raging, sir.
March 28, 2013 6:09:06 PM

Lol wow. I was wondering why this thread popped up in subscriptions and it happens to be a quote from me, sweet. Way to rez a dead thread.
!