Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

GTX 660 vs 660Ti vs 670

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
October 16, 2012 3:27:20 AM

So what do you think is the best deal?
According to HWCompare (http://bit.ly/SXdsBZ), the 660Ti seems like a waste of money. Can anyone confirm/deny this?

I'd like to get a 670, though lack of money may prove this to be impossible.
I plan on running games on 3 displays, 3072x768 (3x1024x768). According to my math, that's about as much load as a single 1080p display.

Any suggestions? :whistle: 

More about : gtx 660 660ti 670

Best solution

October 16, 2012 3:38:16 AM

The 660 ti is an odd card, because it is a bit unbalanced. It has a powerful 670 GPU but is bottlenecked by the memory.

The 660 can overclock to 660 ti performance, but the 660 ti can overclock to 670 performance.

If you can't afford a 670, then an HD 7950 might be the option for you: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
Share
October 16, 2012 3:42:45 AM

Two reasons I don't want AMD:
No Physx in Borderlands 2 and Batman games.
I'm a bit of an Nvidia fanboy. <_>

But yeah, the only real reason I don't want to go with AMD is because of no Physx, and the drivers suck penar in my experience.

I think I might go with the 660Ti, and see if I can find one with a nice memory clock and bandwidth.
m
0
l
Related resources
October 16, 2012 3:43:33 AM

Best answer selected by kdude63.
m
0
l
October 16, 2012 3:47:29 AM

The 660 ti is not that bad of a card as everyone makes it out to be :)  It will play your games perfectly fine, have fun :) 
m
0
l
October 16, 2012 4:06:43 AM

From what I've read, the 3GB 660 Tis are better for overclocking (probably due to having 25% fewer memory chips and a more balanced memory system). They're the only case where I recommend a 660 Ti over a 660. The 2GB models tend to not overclock nearly as well.

The good 660 Tis might reach a stock 670, maybe even surpass a stock 670, but they won't meet a well-overclocked 670 like a 7950 would (also, AMD's drivers for single GPU setups are no worse than Nvidia's these days), so the only valid argument against AMD is PhysX and it's not like AMD doesn't have competing features, so its a trade off no matter how you look at it.

Unless you're a heavy overclocker, you'd be better off with a 660 over the 660 Ti. It overclocked about as well as the 2GB models of the 660 Ti and it is much cheaper while being more energy efficient.
m
0
l
October 16, 2012 4:36:53 AM

blazorthon said:
From what I've read, the 3GB 660 Tis are better for overclocking (probably due to having 25% fewer memory chips and a more balanced memory system). They're the only case where I recommend a 660 Ti over a 660. The 2GB models tend to not overclock nearly as well.

The good 660 Tis might reach a stock 670, maybe even surpass a stock 670, but they won't meet a well-overclocked 670 like a 7950 would (also, AMD's drivers for single GPU setups are no worse than Nvidia's these days), so the only valid argument against AMD is PhysX and it's not like AMD doesn't have competing features, so its a trade off no matter how you look at it.

Unless you're a heavy overclocker, you'd be better off with a 660 over the 660 Ti. It overclocked about as well as the 2GB models of the 660 Ti and it is much cheaper while being more energy efficient.



Agree...
Get this: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
m
0
l
October 16, 2012 4:47:19 AM

AMD doesn't have features that compete with Physx. Any gaming/graphics card buff will tell you that. It's not a matter of opinion, so much as it is fact. I think you may be thinking of CUDA. I know AMD has something that competes with that.
m
0
l
a b Î Nvidia
October 16, 2012 4:59:22 AM

Tough choice. Most people would say get the 670, but since your gaming on 3 monitors at 768p it makes it more difficult to decide. How did you come up with the math that your setup is like a single 1080p?

I'm assuming you have low res monitors to be the cheapest way to do 3 monitors. If so, then you probably want to save some money, and I'd suggest 660Ti (yes it's overpriced).
m
0
l
October 16, 2012 1:22:12 PM

kdude63 said:
AMD doesn't have features that compete with Physx. Any gaming/graphics card buff will tell you that. It's not a matter of opinion, so much as it is fact. I think you may be thinking of CUDA. I know AMD has something that competes with that.


AMD has Direct Compute and OpenCL features in gaming such as very advanced lighting features and although they work on Nvidia cards, the performance is dismal because of Nvidia's abandonment of proper dual-precision performance. Furthermore, thanks to their high memory bandwidth consumption efficiency, AMD can generally churn out higher levels of MSAA and CSAA than Nvidia can without having poor performance.
m
0
l
a b Î Nvidia
October 16, 2012 2:21:59 PM

What does the tittle of the thread say i didn't see him asking about a amd card lol you guys are funny anyway carry on.
m
0
l
a b Î Nvidia
October 17, 2012 9:28:14 AM

bigcyco1 said:
What does the tittle of the thread say i didn't see him asking about a amd card lol you guys are funny anyway carry on.


No matter how hard you try people will always change the title to what they want it to be.

Too often on tomshardware forum I find questions and no answers; then thread dies.
m
0
l
!