Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

2 660's SC or a 670 FTW?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
November 6, 2012 2:54:19 PM

Hello There! I am currently researching Graphics cards, trying to figure out what I could do to build the longest lasting/best performance gaming rig with the graphics alone costing less than $500. Honestly, I would prefer to pay less, but for the sake of this question that would be the price range. I don't plan on actually buying the parts for this for about 6 months, but I figured any info I can get now will help for the future.

So based on what I have found, one of the best, "bang for your buck" cards right now is the 660 ti. The 660 itself is a good card, and the 670 is better, but as far as cost vs performance goes the 660ti seems like the way to go. Normally I would just go for something like this, a single card with the best specs I can find, however I believe that getting two cards and spending a bit more might make the computer last much longer. I only plan on using one monitor, not two, but I wouldn't want to limit that option I guess.

So here is what I have found. For ~ $460 I can get two 660's superclocked with 2GB ram e/a. (or one for $230) For $450 I can get a single 670 FTW edition with 4 GB ram. And lastly, a single 660ti FTW with 3GB ram for $360.

My questions are: In todays market, would it be better to go with the two 660's or a single better card? Is the 670 that much better than a 660ti?(worth the price difference) Is SLI/crossfire really beneficial if using a single monitor?(I got mixed information) Are there any radeon cards that would be better than the nvidia's I have mentioned(I haven't found any so far), and finally, if I did use SLI, how big would my psu have to be compared to a single better card?

It seems to me that, if I want to spend that much, two 660's would be better than a single other card, but for any game I play there has to be a SLI profile, I would probably have to get a much bigger psu, and I'm not even planing on using multiple monitors.

I also assume the prices will decline a little within the next 6 months, hopefully allowing me to get two 660ti's for the current price of two 660's if that is what I decide.

Thanks in advance!

More about : 660 670 ftw

November 6, 2012 3:11:37 PM

Having a more powerful single GPU is always better than having 2 weaker GPUs. Your always going to run into issues of microstuttering and weak scaling with SLI
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
November 6, 2012 3:16:28 PM

The 670 is a good deal better than almost all 660 Ti cards (a few with substantial memory overclocks are fairly close in performance to the 670s). Usually, it's simpler to have a single GPU setup, but there is no single GPU card that can match the performance of two GTX 660 Ti cards in most games, so you'd be compromising either way.

Two 660 Ti cards are usually beaten by similarly priced 7950s with decent factory overclocks or the boost BIOS, so I wouldn't really recommend any of them except for those such as this one:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
m
0
l
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
November 6, 2012 3:17:08 PM

Too much change will happen in 6 months. New cards from both sides and this current discussion about prices and performance will be so different. I'd suggest you re-visit the gpu market come Feb or so.

But to answer your question and post. I would go for a single 7970 GHZ edition or regular as my card at that price range. SLI/Xfire is not always worth the hassle it can give and newly released games might take time to get optimized on those configurations. Also extra VRAM on the Nvidia cards is not worth it IMO, since bandwidth is a very important factor that is not increased on those cards. If your single monitor is 1080p then a single high end card will keep you gaming comfortably. Cheers.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 6, 2012 3:17:39 PM

Basically, you're much more driver dependent with dual-GPU configs, so a single GPU config would be more desirable at that price point.

Also, since you're waiting for about another 6 months, you should probably wait and see what the next generation of graphics card looks like. AFAIK AMD are bringing out some of their next cards in the near future.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 6, 2012 3:18:36 PM

2 660's would definitely be better than 1 670. just to give you some sort of reference. a 660 is about on par with a 570. with my 2 570's in SLI, i get a little better performance than a 590 and 680. it's not up to 690 speeds, but i think these are great speeds none the less. lol.

prices will drop. to monitor prices, check out camelegg.com it trends newegg prices, from there u can visit the amazon version as well (camelcamelcamel.com) Also, i'm thinking black friday prices should be lower.

the ypical rule for SLI is get the best card u can get at the time, then SLI later, but if you wana start out good, 2 660's or 660ti's would be a great idea.

SLI increases single monitor performance up to 80%, and this is true, I can vouch for it. lol. now running BF3 at ALL Ultra settings @ 1920x1080 with no problem. actually temps are cooler than pre-sli and mostly Ultra settings. lol. (less system strain i guess? and GPU is not at 100% constantly while playing BF3 anymore either)

my recommendation would be to wait and see if you can get 2 660ti's for SLI, they do not need to be FTW editions.

otherwise, i'd say get 1 670 and wait for a year or so to SLI, cause you'll be basically maxing out any game w/ that anyway...
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
November 6, 2012 3:18:57 PM

williamjuly2003 said:
Having a more powerful single GPU is always better than having 2 weaker GPUs. Your always going to run into issues of microstuttering and weak scaling.


Micro-stutter is almost non-existent with high end GTX 6xx and Radeon 79xx cards and scaling is almost always excellent. No offense, but you seem to be very out of touch with the times.
m
0
l
November 6, 2012 3:19:49 PM

blazorthon said:
Micro-stutter is almost non-existent with high end GTX 6xx and Radeon 79xx cards and scaling is almost always excellent. No offense, but you seem to be very out of touch with the times.


I didn't realize 660 non ti were high end cards oh wait there not
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
November 6, 2012 3:21:11 PM

Agreed with ohyouknow except partially for the memory. On the GTX 660 Ti, the 3GB cards have a slight advantage over the 2GB models because of the more balanced memory system (2GB on a 192 bit bus doesn't work out perfectly). Otherwise, the memory is definitely less important for Nvidia because they run out of memory bandwidth before memory capacity.
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
November 6, 2012 3:21:39 PM

williamjuly2003 said:
I didn't realize 660 non ti were high end cards oh wait there not


Yes, they are high end... The 660 Ti is a $300 card.
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
November 6, 2012 3:23:22 PM

ittimjones said:
2 660's would definitely be better than 1 670. just to give you some sort of reference. a 660 is about on par with a 570. with my 2 570's in SLI, i get a little better performance than a 590 and 680. it's not up to 690 speeds, but i think these are great speeds none the less. lol.

prices will drop. to monitor prices, check out camelegg.com it trends newegg prices, from there u can visit the amazon version as well (camelcamelcamel.com) Also, i'm thinking black friday prices should be lower.

the ypical rule for SLI is get the best card u can get at the time, then SLI later, but if you wana start out good, 2 660's or 660ti's would be a great idea.

SLI increases single monitor performance up to 80%, and this is true, I can vouch for it. lol. now running BF3 at ALL Ultra settings @ 1920x1080 with no problem. actually temps are cooler than pre-sli and mostly Ultra settings. lol. (less system strain i guess? and GPU is not at 100% constantly while playing BF3 anymore either)

my recommendation would be to wait and see if you can get 2 660ti's for SLI, they do not need to be FTW editions.

otherwise, i'd say get 1 670 and wait for a year or so to SLI, cause you'll be basically maxing out any game w/ that anyway...


The 660 is faster than the 570 and is more like right with or slightly behind the 580. The 660 Ti is a little ahead of the 660, right above the 580, at least on average.

Also, your GPU-under utilization might be more related to your CPU becoming a bottle-neck than it is to SLI, just a thought. SLI has a slight CPU overhead (a little less than that of Crossfire, but it's still there) and BF3 MP is already an extremely CPU-bottle-necked game when you load it up with players (not that it's not also already very graphically intense).
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 6, 2012 3:24:35 PM

williamjuly2003 said:
I didn't realize 660 non ti were high end cards oh wait there not

Eh, troll much? 300 dollar card is not high-end?! haha
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 6, 2012 3:25:50 PM

blazorthon said:
Yes, they are high end... The 660 Ti is a $300 card.


I believe that 650 and above is the "high-end" line, and everything below is low end.

650 might be mid grade or something, but everything below it is low end for sure and everything above is high end for sure (including 660)
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 6, 2012 3:26:57 PM

williamjuly2003 said:
Nvida 660 NON TI are 230$ they are mid end cards not high cards. The OP talked about SLI two 660 NON TI

Heres a link to a 660 non ti card if you don't believe me.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Apologies, I didn't read your comment properly.

But OP DID actually mean 660 Ti, read his post again. First time he mentions GTX 660 Ti but after that first mention he refers to that card as just a GTX 660 (but I'm sure he means the 660 Ti)
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
November 6, 2012 3:28:01 PM

My bad, I missed the non-TI, but still, the 660 is almost exactly as fast as the 660 Ti 2GB and is arguably high-end because of that and OP was talking about the 660 Ti most of the time anyway.
m
0
l
a c 105 U Graphics card
November 6, 2012 3:39:51 PM

I think you should let us know the machines specs and monitor and resolution before accepting advice.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 6, 2012 3:46:52 PM

Taken from here: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-car...

Quote:
The Radeon HD 7970 delivers such impressive performance at $400 that we find it hard to recommend higher-performing (but sometimes-inconsistent) multi-card configurations for more money. We'll call out some of the most promising options, though, mostly for folks with one of these cards already installed: two Radeon HD 7850 2GB cards in CrossFire for $400, two Radeon HD 7870s in CrossFire for $500,


Si i would get a 7970 or 2 7870s in xfire. and yes micro stuttering and game optimization(scalability) are still around. Get with the times.
m
0
l
November 6, 2012 3:50:56 PM

Really wish you would read the whole thing carefully

So here is what I have found. For ~ $460 I can get two 660's superclocked with 2GB ram e/a. (or one for $230) For $450 I can get a single 670 FTW edition with 4 GB ram. And lastly, a single 660ti FTW with 3GB ram for $360

Notice he mentions a SINGLE 660ti for $360
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
November 6, 2012 3:54:30 PM

yarmock said:
Taken from here: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-car...

Quote:
The Radeon HD 7970 delivers such impressive performance at $400 that we find it hard to recommend higher-performing (but sometimes-inconsistent) multi-card configurations for more money. We'll call out some of the most promising options, though, mostly for folks with one of these cards already installed: two Radeon HD 7850 2GB cards in CrossFire for $400, two Radeon HD 7870s in CrossFire for $500,


Si i would get a 7970 or 2 7870s in xfire. and yes micro stuttering and game optimization(scalability) are still around. Get with the times.


That link provides no support for your claims. It's going off of information acquired from a two years old article on different graphics cards with different drivers. Micro-stuttering is known to get less problematic as you get faster and faster GPUs and current implementations of SLI and Crossfire are optimized to minimize it too.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 6, 2012 4:02:43 PM

blazorthon said:
The 660 is faster than the 570 and is more like right with or slightly behind the 580. The 660 Ti is a little ahead of the 660, right above the 580, at least on average.

Also, your GPU-under utilization might be more related to your CPU becoming a bottle-neck than it is to SLI, just a thought. SLI has a slight CPU overhead (a little less than that of Crossfire, but it's still there) and BF3 MP is already an extremely CPU-bottle-necked game when you load it up with players (not that it's not also already very graphically intense).



You sir are incorrect.

As this benchmark shows, 1 570 is slightly slower than 1 660ti, and 1 660 isn't even tested...
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2012-vga-gpgpu/05-Al...

This shows how SLI of 570's is much better than a 590.
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2011-gaming-graphics...

from that benchmark, you can conclude that if you refer back to the original benchmark, that performance of 2 570's would be above a 590 and below 670's in sli. Since sli gives no more than 80% boost, one can determine that the score of a single 660ti would be at the mid-higher part of the range that 2 570's would be in and only slightly better than, if not the same as 570's, there for, faster than 660's.
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2012-vga-gpgpu/05-Al...


bam


Also, BF3 runs almost exclusively on the GPU, not on CPU at all. as can be seen here:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-3-graph...

I'm pretty sure I've maxed out the settings and now full utilization is not needed and usage is scaled back as physical demands are being met...
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 6, 2012 4:07:22 PM

blazorthon said:
That link provides no support for your claims. It's going off of information acquired from a two years old article on different graphics cards with different drivers. Micro-stuttering is known to get less problematic as you get faster and faster GPUs and current implementations of SLI and Crossfire are optimized to minimize it too.


I didn't say its a rampant issue. Just that it exists. It may not be as bad as it once was (and exactly how bad i t was is in the eye of the beholder).

Drivers and better GPU architecture sure have helped, but its not 100% gone.

Regardless get a 7970. Or a 670 if you MUST have a Nvidia branded card.
m
0
l
November 6, 2012 4:20:15 PM

yarmock said:
I didn't say its a rampant issue. Just that it exists. It may not be as bad as it once was (and exactly how bad i t was is in the eye of the beholder).

Drivers and better GPU architecture sure have helped, but its not 100% gone.

Regardless get a 7970. Or a 670 if you MUST have a Nvidia branded card.


This ^+1

Also blazorthon try not to insult people its not pleasent to be told your behind the times. :non: 
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
November 6, 2012 4:22:49 PM

ittimjones said:
You sir are incorrect.

As this benchmark shows, 1 570 is slightly slower than 1 660ti, and 1 660 isn't even tested...
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2012-vga-gpgpu/05-Al...

This shows how SLI of 570's is much better than a 590.
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2011-gaming-graphics...

from that benchmark, you can conclude that if you refer back to the original benchmark, that performance of 2 570's would be above a 590 and below 670's in sli. Since sli gives no more than 80% boost, one can determine that the score of a single 660ti would be at the mid-higher part of the range that 2 570's would be in and only slightly better than, if not the same as 570's, there for, faster than 660's.
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2012-vga-gpgpu/05-Al...


bam


Also, BF3 runs almost exclusively on the GPU, not on CPU at all. as can be seen here:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-3-graph...

I'm pretty sure I've maxed out the settings and now full utilization is not needed and usage is scaled back as physical demands are being met...


That's only one game and it's not even a test run with new drivers.

I never said that two 570s aren't faster than a 590.

SLI can in fact give more than an 80% boost with the Kepler cards.

Furthermore, BF3 MP, NOT BF3 single player, is among the most CPU intensive games out right now, if not the most when loaded with many players, extrmely unlike its single player version.

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

660 Ti meets the 580. SLI, it generally goes well beyond the 7970 and 670 which are both only somewhat weaker than the 590. Keep in mind that this was with old drivers, it's a lot better and more consistent now, although I don't particularly like the reference 660 Ti. Any 660 Ti without a good memory overclock is wasted potential.

The GTX 660 is usually only a little slower than the 660 Ti because the only difference is the GPU which is already bottle-necked by the memory, minimizing the real-world performance difference that the inferior GPU would have made without the memory bottle-neck.
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
November 6, 2012 4:24:28 PM

williamjuly2003 said:
This ^+1

Also blazorthon try not to insult people its not pleasent to be told your behind the times. :non: 


I didn't insult, I made an observation. Claims made with outdated information aren't going to apply to newer, different situations in the same way and ignoring that fact is worse than addressing it.
m
0
l
November 6, 2012 4:31:04 PM

blazorthon said:
I didn't insult, I made an observation. Claims made with outdated information aren't going to apply to newer, different situations in the same way and ignoring that fact is worse than addressing it.


Okay ignore the fact that micro sutter is still around and pretend your right if you feel like it. You clearly aren't obeservant as you think. :pfff: 
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
November 6, 2012 4:33:03 PM

williamjuly2003 said:
Okay ignore the fact that micro sutter is still around and pretend your right if you feel like it. You clearly aren't obeservant as you think. :pfff: 


I never ignored that it's still around, I was saying that it's far less of a problem than you made it out to be and is mostly extinguished with some of the higher end cards. Most of the time, it's simply not there anymore. Sure, it cna be there in some situations, but that's mostly with the lower end cards and/or bad drivers and even then, lower end cards such as the 77xx cards still don't have it bad like some of the older cards often did.

How am I the one who isn't observant (not that I made any claims about it anyway) when you are taking things that I've said out of context and even claiming that I've said things that I haven't said?
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 6, 2012 4:37:09 PM

I had two gtx 280's giving me a micro stutter in skyrim. Its better to get a single more powerfull gpu than two because of what I said above and the drivers are always an issue when the newest game comes out and its not optimized for your dual gpu setup
I upgraded from two 280's to a single 7970 and im getting better framerates, no minimal frame dips, less hess heat and I can play any new game like War Z alpha maxed out not having to worry if my gpu(s) will be well utilized
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
November 6, 2012 4:38:31 PM

alvine said:
I had two gtx 280's giving me a micro stutter in skyrim. Its better to get a single more powerfull gpu than two because of what I said above and the drivers are always an issue when the newest game comes out and its not optimized for your dual gpu setup
I upgraded from two 280's to a single 7970 and im getting better framerates, no minimal frame dips, less hess heat and I can play any new game like War Z alpha maxed out not having to worry if my gpu(s) will be well utilized


Are you really trying to apply data based on what, five years-old cards, on modern cards? I never denied that it's easier to work with a single GPU setup, but you can't really expect far outdated DX 10.1 cards to be relevant to such a discussion about far newer DX 11.1 cards.
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
November 6, 2012 4:40:07 PM

I am not really sure about others but i have noticed cards that cost over $250 a piece micro sutter is not a issue at least for me it is not i don't know about others maybe i am lucky lol
m
0
l
November 6, 2012 4:59:04 PM

Haha wow thanks for the quick responses guys. I was indeed talking about two 660's sli, not two 660ti's, but I did mention that by the time I buy, it would more likely be two TI's or maybe even 670's. Weather or not micro stutter is a problem, I am still unsure of a couple things.

Will two SLI cards, say the 660ti's for the sake of argument, stay up to spec, longer than any single card in the same price range?

And also, PSU requirements, because doubling my psu cost could be a huge deciding factor.


Edit:
What I do understand from all this is that weather SLI is better than one card will depend on what advances have been made in 6 months. But I am still wondering about now as Cyber monday is a few weeks away and I might decide to start building if the prices are good enough.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 6, 2012 5:00:39 PM

Wow your argument is thet older cards dont scale as well as newer cards? You obviously dont know shiz, its all about the drivers lol. Whatevery ou say next my response is Lol because you obviously dont know what you're talking about. Direct x versions dont have anything to do how the game will scale. Newer dx gives you nicer shadows and testallation noob
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 6, 2012 5:08:05 PM

zaxxon said:
Hello There! I am currently researching Graphics cards, trying to figure out what I could do to build the longest lasting/best performance gaming rig with the graphics alone costing less than $500. Honestly, I would prefer to pay less, but for the sake of this question that would be the price range. I don't plan on actually buying the parts for this for about 6 months, but I figured any info I can get now will help for the future.


rene13cross said:
Also, since you're waiting for about another 6 months, you should probably wait and see what the next generation of graphics card looks like. AFAIK AMD are bringing out some of their next cards in the near future.


Best answer so far I think...

If you were buying now I would probably recommend the 670 2gb version for a single monitor, theres nothing wrong with SLI these days, not in general anyway...sometimes game specific...but if you were buying now the gtx670 would have you playing everything comfortably and then when the time would come when you needed more horsepower then you could pick up another for about 2/3 of the price...in the long run would last you longer for near enough the same amount of money

m
0
l
November 6, 2012 5:08:09 PM

zaxxon said:
Haha wow thanks for the quick responses guys. I was indeed talking about two 660's sli, not two 660ti's, but I did mention that by the time I buy, it would more likely be two TI's or maybe even 670's. Weather or not micro stutter is a problem, I am still unsure of a couple things.

Will two SLI cards, say the 660ti's for the sake of argument, stay up to spec, longer than any single card in the same price range?

And also, PSU requirements, because doubling my psu cost could be a huge deciding factor.


Well having 2 gpus will last longer than just having 1 gpu how much longer it can stay up to spec is anyone guess really depends on what developers do with graphical requirments.

You will be fine with a decent PSU brand that provides 750 Watts.
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
November 6, 2012 5:08:43 PM

alvine said:
Wow your argument is thet older cards dont scale as well as newer cards? You obviously dont know shiz, its all about the drivers lol. Whatevery ou say next my response is Lol because you obviously dont know what you're talking about. Direct x versions dont have anything to do how the game will scale. Newer dx gives you nicer shadows and testallation noob


Are you some sort of troll? You are completely wrong and/or taking things out of context, so I had to ask.

No, the drivers aren't everything. The GPU itself matters for CFX/SLI scaling and stutter just as much as the drivers. For example, no drivers will stop the DX11 VLIW5-based Radeon cards from continually being among the most stutter-ridden cards of the DX11 generations.

I never said that the DX version matters, I simply used it as an example to clarify the age difference.
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
November 6, 2012 5:11:57 PM

williamjuly2003 said:
Well having 2 gpus will last longer than just having 1 gpu how much longer it can stay up to spec is anyone guess really depends on what developers do with graphical requirments.

You will be fine with a decent PSU brand that provides 750 Watts.
I agree about the power supply one of these would be fine for even two 670's
Corsair 750TX V2
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
Seasonic made, 62 amps on the 12V, 3 yr warranty

Seasonic X750
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
80Plus Gold, 62A 12V power, 5 year warranty, fully modular
m
0
l
November 6, 2012 5:12:05 PM

That is a good point, which brings up another question. Alot of people mentioned the Radeon 7970 and looking it up, definitly has better specs, but a little less performance to cost ratio. Do you guys think a 7970 would be a better purchas than a FTW or other maxed out edition of the 670? Remember the 670 ftw has 4GB ram.

Edit:
Thanks for the psu answer
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
November 6, 2012 5:16:50 PM

The 7970 does not have an inferior performance to price ratio, at least not in the USA with some of the good models. For example, what is almost the fastest single GPU card available for almsot all gaming situations is the Gigabyte WindForce Radeon 7970 GHz Edition and it can be had for $400 while out-performign the more expensive GTX 680 and similarly priced GTX 670. What the GHz Edition cards have against them is the power consumption compared to the 7970 and the 680, but still, they're pretty much as fast as it usually gets, at least until the next graphics generation.

4GB of frame buffer capacity doesn't matter on any single GPU Nvidia card except in extremely few situations with several 680s or 670s in SLI. The same is true for 6GB versions of the 7970 except to an even greater extreme, but not necessarily for the same reason.
m
0
l
November 6, 2012 5:19:12 PM

So you are saying, like having more than 16 GB cpu ram, that more than 3 GB on a GPU, at the moment is superfluous?
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
November 6, 2012 5:20:36 PM

zaxxon said:
So you are saying, like having more than 16 GB cpu ram, that more than 3 GB on a GPU, at the moment is superfluous?


Heck, having more than 2GB is almost always superfluous. AMD only gets away with 3GB being important for them because 3GB is the proper amount for a 384 bit memory interface since 2GB would unbalance it. and the next best option is 1.5GB which is simply not future-resistant enough.
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
November 6, 2012 5:25:28 PM

zaxxon said:
That is a good point, which brings up another question. Alot of people mentioned the Radeon 7970 and looking it up, definitly has better specs, but a little less performance to cost ratio. Do you guys think a 7970 would be a better purchas than a FTW or other maxed out edition of the 670? Remember the 670 ftw has 4GB ram.

Edit:
Thanks for the psu answer
It depends on which card you prefer both are within spitting distance of each other performance wise so look at the features Geforce:
CUDA
PhysX, ADap. Vsync
3D Surround


Radeon:
Eyefinity
APP
AMD3D
m
0
l
November 6, 2012 5:25:39 PM

Aha, that makes sense then. So definitely a 7970 Ghz edition over a 670 FTW edition(both being $450 on amazon)?

edit: ninja'd by cyco... and now I"m unsure because I am more familiar with the features of geforce than I am with radeon.
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
November 6, 2012 5:29:49 PM

It depends on which model you go for, don't just choose a type of card.

Example:
http://pcpartpicker.com/part/gigabyte-video-card-gvr797...
This 7970 GHz Edition will generally (not always, jsut most of the time) beat any GTX 670 or 680 despite being available for only $410 right now (it was $400 earlier, my bad on the price change).

Among the 670s and 680s, some models do still stick out. Example:
http://pcpartpicker.com/part/zotac-video-card-zt6030210...
m
0
l
November 6, 2012 5:34:02 PM

alright, well as to not get bogged down in these actual cards,( as I most likely won't be getting them before new ones come out, ) how would they compare, performance wise to two 660's? and to be clear, I am looking at this 660.

http://www.amazon.com/EVGA-GeForce-SUPERCLOCKED-Graphic...

would the 7970 still beat two of them out, or would sli out perform/out last the single card? two 660's would be ~$10 more
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
November 6, 2012 5:35:26 PM

Well blazorthon is amd guy so that's going to be his choice i am a fan of both so i would choose by which favored the games i play and look at which features i am interested in however the 7970Ghz comes with three free games i am not sure i could pass that up lol.
m
0
l

Best solution

a c 87 U Graphics card
November 6, 2012 5:36:06 PM

Two 660s would generally beat the regular 7970, but I'm not sure if they'd best the Gigabyte WindForce 7970 GHz Edition model. It'd probably be close.
Share
November 6, 2012 5:41:25 PM

lol I definitly understand that(@ cyco). I myself am a Geforce guy, but only because I have done more research concirning them. Infact my laptop is running an A8 with discrete 6620.

Right now I am kinda torn between simplicity and coolness. From an enthusiast perspective, having two cards is just awesome especially for display purposes, but since I have never used SLI or crossfire, I don't know if I would be able to take full advantage of the features or even know how to properly use them. Remember I am probably only going to use a single monitor anyway.(though eyefinity is sweet.)

I am also torn by the fact that, though I enjoy games, I am not a huge gamer and won't buy every new and latest game that comes out. I recently bought a Geforce 560 for a kinda family desktop and found I don't even have a pc game yet that can max it out.(shameful I know. most of my new games are ps3 games...) I don't know if I will ever even need more than a single 660ti. not at least for the next 4 years(which btw is how long I want it to last at least)
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
November 6, 2012 5:46:18 PM

If you don't think that you'll put such high end cards to heavy use, then I don't think that I can recommend them because it'd seem wasteful. Maybe something more like a single GTX 660 or a single Radeon 7870 would be more worth your money for you.
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
November 6, 2012 5:49:39 PM

blazorthon said:
If you don't think that you'll put such high end cards to heavy use, then I don't think that I can recommend them because it'd seem wasteful. Maybe something more like a single GTX 660 or a single Radeon 7870 would be more worth your money for you.
Maybe you can understand his writing i am confused it doesn't make sense to me http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/376724-33-info-7970-r...
m
0
l
November 6, 2012 5:50:28 PM

Right well, I do a lot of computer programming, game modding etc, and do plan on having more games in the future, but I really appreciate graphics and want to be able to take full advantage of any game I decide to get. I think a 660ti might be all I need if I decide to get one now, but like I said, I also don't want to have to upgrade in 4 years because I can no longer play games at mid to high levels. Lasting longer is more important to me than how much immediate use it will be.
m
0
l
!