Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Gigabyte gtx 660 Ti vs. Sapphire HD 7870 Ghz. edition

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
December 9, 2012 3:40:50 PM

both have 2 GBs with a similar price, what would be a better performer?

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks
CPU: Intel Core i5-3470 3.2GHz Quad-Core Processor ($199.99 @ Newegg)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($34.99 @ Newegg)
Motherboard: ASRock H77 Pro4/MVP ATX LGA1155 Motherboard ($87.55 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill Ares Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($37.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Samsung Spinpoint F3 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($88.98 @ Newegg)
Video Card: Gigabyte GeForce GTX 660 Ti 2GB Video Card ($269.99 @ Newegg)
Case: Cooler Master CM 690 II (Black) ATX Mid Tower Case ($59.99 @ Newegg) Power Supply: SeaSonic S12II 620W 80 PLUS Bronze Certified ATX12V / EPS12V Power Supply ($79.99 @ Newegg)
Optical Drive: Lite-On iHAS124-04 DVD/CD Writer ($22.98 @ Newegg)
Mouse: Dell 468-7409 Mouse Wired Optical Mouse ($26.97 @ Newegg)
Total: $892.42 (Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.) (Generated by PCPartPicker 2012-12-09 12:37 EST-0500)

Video Card: Sapphire Radeon HD 7870 GHz Edition 2GB Video Card

I want to purchase this probably by January 1st

This is mostly going to be used for gaming

im using a seasonic 620w

my monitor's resolution is 1920x1080

I am not looking to use crossfire or sli, but i may want to overclock a little bit, but only if necessary
a b U Graphics card
December 9, 2012 4:56:08 PM

for about 10+ than the cost of the 660ti you can get the HD 7950 wich is better than any of those 2.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 9, 2012 5:02:30 PM

7870 or 7950
Score
0
Related resources
December 9, 2012 5:08:09 PM

well please answer the orignial question, but secondly, what brand of card would you suggest for the 7950?
Score
0
a c 105 U Graphics card
December 9, 2012 5:19:03 PM

Oranjecrush said:
well please answer the orignial question, but secondly, what brand of card would you suggest for the 7950?


who you talking to ? and if you look at my link you'll see the where the 7950 sits.
Score
0
December 9, 2012 5:21:32 PM

I would recommend sapphire brand wise, very good support and lots of freebies dvi to rgb, molex to 6 pin, Hdmi cable etc. all free
Score
0
December 9, 2012 6:31:43 PM

I've owned three Sapphires and all three died within 6 months of the warranty expiring (the first died on the same month the warranty expired). I'd recommend a GTX660 anyway - it was only 5% slower than the 7870 before the new nVidia 310.70 drivers, which have narrowed the gap.

So near enough identical without v-sync (but cheaper), and you'd also get adaptive v-sync, meaning that if you use v-sync to prevent tearing and framerate drops below 60, framerate won't be massively reduced by standard v-sync like it would on the Radeons. Adaptive v-sync is basically v-sync that switches itself off when not needed, meaning your sub-60 framerates will be totally unrestricted and gameplay much smoother and more responsive.

If you do go with a Radeon though, Asus, Gigabyte, MSI and XFX are good bets (also avoid Powercolor/VTX3D). If you go with the GeForce, I've not had any bad experiences with an nVidia manufacturer but EVGA offer the best in warranties (they do here anyway, warranty terms vary by country so worth researching).
Score
0
December 9, 2012 11:25:31 PM

I am running a single monitor at 1080P and even though I haven't had this card Saphire 7870 for long I am satisfied with it so far. One of the main selling points on this particular card was the length being shorter than nine inches. My case would not fit a longer card well.
Score
0
December 10, 2012 2:31:43 AM

yeah but for a 7950 and for my case? ...
Score
0
December 10, 2012 2:52:41 AM

Get the 7870, I prefer their performance over my 660 TI.

Score
0

Best solution

December 10, 2012 3:26:22 AM

The techpowerup review has been the only site to show the improvements that people see in the 660Ti. However the 7950 has show its power since the very beginning.

I currently have a Sapphire 7950 and it has been an amazing card. Provided top notch FPS in any games that I've thrown at it. BF3, Planetside 2(since some of the optimizations), WoW, Dead Island, Minecraft, Firefall, and Guildwars 2. I've run almost every game on full graphics it is only my processor and my old ddr2 ram holding me back, which is changing shortly.

My reason why I got the 7950; the overclock is amazing on these cards(not that I've needed it yet), the 3gig of vram is going to last for about 3-4 years at the rate video games are going(few are pushing 1.5gb of vram), and the fact that I can xfire it a year from now and be topnotch again.

I've owned 3 Sapphire cards and they have all be great. 2900xt, 2x 4850, and now a 7950. All have been topnotch cards and have shown their worth while I had them.
Share
December 10, 2012 7:31:24 PM

yeah but will the 7950 fit in my cooler master?
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 10, 2012 7:41:23 PM

Dnx said:
for about 10+ than the cost of the 660ti you can get the HD 7950 wich is better than any of those 2.


+1. This right here.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 11, 2012 1:56:47 AM

it should fit.
and i dont think you really need the hyper 212 evo since your cpu is not a k series
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 11, 2012 11:58:18 AM

The case is plenty big enough. If I were you I would spend the small premium to acquire the 3570K over the 3470. Same goes for purchasing a ASRock Z77 Extreme4, over the H77 board. The stock speed difference is minimal, but having the option to overclock easily down the road is important. Honesty there isn't much reason not to. Some CPU intensive games (Skyrim, SC2, BF3) benefit quite a bit even from a small boost such a 4GHz, and there is almost no chance that you will damage your system.

The Hyper 212 EVO is plenty enough to keep the 3570K well cooled at even 4.4GHz, and if you're worried about heat, adding another 12CM fan will lower temps an additional 5C-8C depending on your environment.
Score
0
December 11, 2012 8:53:31 PM

A Z77 costs significantly more... not exactly a small premium.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 11, 2012 9:01:09 PM

Specifications
Available Color Black
Materials Steel body / Plastic + Mesh bezel
Dimension (W / H / D) 214.5 x 496 x 528.8 mm / 8.4 x 19.5 x 20.8 inch
Weight 9.56 kg / 21.08 lb
M/B Type Micro-ATX, ATX, Mini -ITX
5.25" Drive Bays 4 (without the use of exposed 3.5" drive bay)
3.5" Drive Bays 6 hidden (4 removable), 1 exposed (converted from one 5.25" drive bay)
I/O Panel USB 3.0 x 2 (internal), USB 2.0 x 2, Mic x 1, Audio x 1 (supports HD/AC97 audio)
Expansion Slots 7+1
Cooling System Front: 140 x 25mm blue LED fan x 1 / 1200RPM / 19dBA

Rear: 120mm fan x 1 / 1200 RPM / 17dBA

Top: 140 x 25mm fanx1/1200RPM/19dBA(supports120/140mm fan x 2)

Bottom: 120mm fan x 2 (optional)

Left side: 120/140mm fan x 2 (optional)

Right side: 80 x 15mm x 1 (optional)

HDD cage: 120mm fan x 1 (optional)
Power Supply Type Standard ATX PS2 / EPS 12V
2.5" Drive Bays 2 (converted from one 3.5” drive bay)
Maximum Compatibility VGA card length:304mm / 11.96 inch

CPU cooler height:177mm / 6.96 inch
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 11, 2012 9:05:06 PM

Sapphire 7950 is my recommendation.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 11, 2012 10:43:59 PM

Oranjecrush said:
A Z77 costs significantly more... not exactly a small premium.


The price difference between an ASRock H77 Pro4 and an ASRock Z77 Extreme4 is $40. Considering all the benefit of overclocking for higher performance, and the fact that you are is spending $900 on a gaming PC, it is a small premium. And a very worthwhile one.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 11, 2012 10:45:21 PM

Embra said:
Sapphire 7950 is my recommendation.


XFX makes some nice models as well. Both Sapphire and XFX are actually towards the low end in price right right for HD 7950's and both are high quality boards with excellent support.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 12, 2012 5:03:38 AM

Here is a build that costs a scant $32 more then what you had originally. It features a unlocked K series i5, Z77 motherboard and Hyper 212 EVO for cooling. It has a SSD, which your original build did not. It also has a Radeon HD 7950 instead of a GTX 660 Ti or HD 7870. Also the PSU is beefed up enough so you can add in a second HD 7950 for CFX, and have some nice overclocking going on as well.

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/s6VJ
Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/s6VJ/by_merchant/
Benchmarks: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/s6VJ/benchmarks/

CPU: Intel Core i5-3570K 3.4GHz Quad-Core Processor ($169.99 @ Microcenter)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 Plus 76.8 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($19.99 @ Newegg)
Motherboard: ASRock Z77 Extreme3 ATX LGA1155 Motherboard ($132.86 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws X Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($38.99 @ NCIX US)
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($69.99 @ NCIX US)
Storage: Crucial V4 128GB 2.5" Solid State Disk ($79.00 @ B&H)
Video Card: XFX Radeon HD 7950 3GB Video Card ($269.99 @ NCIX US)
Case: Corsair 300R ATX Mid Tower Case ($78.98 @ Amazon)
Power Supply: Corsair Builder 750W 80 PLUS Bronze Certified ATX12V / EPS12V Power Supply ($64.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $924.78
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2012-12-12 01:54 EST-0500)
Score
0
December 12, 2012 3:46:10 PM

I have many issues with that review.

1. It's the only one showing something like this. Out of all of the other review sites this is the only one that is actually doing anything like this. Might be an issue with how they did it, might not be. Seems a little weird to try and start a new standard, as they are passing it off as, now in the market.

2. If you looked into how they are bench marking the cards, 3 of the benchmarks are using FXAA which is easier to run on a Geforce card since it has the hardware coding in it already. The work load then on the Radeon card is going to be harder and show those outlying FPS in the 99% time above the different milliseconds.

3. My issue with the 660Ti is this, it is to cut back to be worth the money you pay for the life time of the card. I knew when I bought my 7950, I will get 3-4 years out of my card. On the lines of the 660Ti, I'm looking at 2-3. I don't see that card lasting.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 12, 2012 3:54:48 PM

Alright, I'll try to address those...

1. That's exactly why the results differ - they're using a testing methodology that much more accurately reflects real-world 'smoothness' of performance. People have been discussing it for over a decade since the days of nVidia TNT2, but Tech Report are the first to actually implement it. Much of the reason being that the testing is more time-consuming and the tech media sites are always in race to get the first reviews out.

You can expect to see a lot more frame latency benchmarking though - it's coming to THG and between Tom's and Tech Report, will set a precedent for the tech media industry.

2. FXAA doesn't run on AMD hardware, so there's not going to be any performance impact on them. Radeons use morphological AA instead.

3. Those are just guesses at how long the cards will last. Nobody really knows the rate at which hardware requirements will advance, only that they will advance. The best we can do is base our projections on relative performance in today's games. And in today's games, the GTX660 Ti seems to be delivering a massively superior experience.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 12, 2012 4:00:19 PM

Check out Scott's excellent response on here:

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/380802-15-frames-me...

(it's the big post with lots of bold type :-))

Frames/second is a crude and inaccurate measure of performance because it averages out dips/spikes in framerate. Even a minimum fps measure is still averaged over a second. It's just the second with the fewest number of frames rendered. Consider this:

- GeForce renders two frames. Frame one takes 500ms to render. Frame two takes 500ms to render.
- Radeon renders two frames. Frame one takes 100ms to render. Frame two takes 900ms to render.

I'm using a very low framerate just to make it easier to imagine. Now both cards have delivered 2fps. Identical framerate. But the GeForce will be much smoother (as far as 2fps goes :-)) due to a more consistent delivery of frames. Check out the first page on:

http://techreport.com/review/24022/does-the-radeon-hd-7...

For a really good illustration of what I'm talking about.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 12, 2012 5:00:09 PM

^^ I agree with you m8 but then how are we supposed to compare two GPUs?
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 12, 2012 5:16:49 PM

jaideep1337 said:
^^ I agree with you m8 but then how are we supposed to compare two GPUs?


That is the problem! Based on the information we have, nVidia is delivering much more consistent performance. Since adjacent models (7870, 7970, GTX660 etc) are architecturally very similar, it's reasonable to assume these latency issues apply to those comparisons also, especially since it's likely a failing of AMD's drivers. nVidia has always had the edge when it comes to software talent and clearly not just in frames/second! Catalyst 12.11 could finally compete on that, but not for frame latency and true smoothness.

Short answer: we'll just have to wait for more benchmarking to be done. Frame latency benchmarking is coming to THG though so for Radeon 8000 vs GTX700 comparisons, we should have some useful data :-) Meantime, Tech Report is definitely a site to keep an eye on for new benchmarks.
Score
0
December 19, 2012 12:03:17 AM

Best answer selected by Oranjecrush.
Score
0
!