Hi, I'm currently running a X58A-UD3R MOBO (1366) with a intel i7 960 @ 3.20 ghz with 12gb of (4x3) tri-channel ram and two kingston 30gb ssds in raid 0. For GPU, I'm running two stock GTS 450's in SLI. The computer is two years old and I'm looking to drop a new graphics card and am currently considering two EVGA cards: the gtx 660 2048mg GDDR5 superclocked vs the GTX 660Ti Superclocked+ 3072MB GDDR5. I'm looking to eek a couple more years out of what is primarily a gaming rig with some 3d graphics modeling on the side. My debate is mainly price-to-performance. Given the extra 1000 MB, 100 cuda cores, and 100Mhz base clock, will the performance difference between these two cards be perceptible enough to justify the extra $100, or is the little bit of extra kick just 'heated seats'?
The performance difference between the 660 and 660Ti really isn't big enough to justify the $90 price difference. At best the 660Ti will offer maybe a 7 to 10% boost, and that is only in games where it doesn't get held back by the 192 bit memory bus. In other games, the 660Ti will only be ever so slightly faster, or evn equal to the 660. The extra memory on the 660Ti also won't benefit you unless you are doing multi-monitor gaming.
Frankly, unless you are obsessed with getting the highest framerates possible in Battlefield 3 at all costs, I wouldn't spend the extra $90 for the 660Ti. It really isn't worth it with that large of a price difference. That 660Ti really needs to be at least $50 cheaper to be worthwhile over the plain 660.