Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

GTX 660 or Radeon 7870?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
December 12, 2012 1:15:54 AM

Ok, so i can't really decide between an Msi 660 TF 2GD5/OC, or an Msi R7870 Hawk/OC. Keep in mind that both are factory overclocked, with the 7870 at 77 MHz higher. The 660 has Twin Frozr III, where as the 7870 has Twin Frozr IV. There is a $30 difference, but after rebates a $25 difference. either way im willing to do it. the real problem im having, is the choice of which card is better. The classic or AMD or Nvidia choice. some of my other specs are an i5 3570k on an MSi Z77-G41 mobo, with an OCZ ModxStream Pro 700W. Also, almost every part in my computer is black and blue, which the 7870 is also. although a minimal difference, it does influence the decision a little bit. I'm probably going to order the card tommorow, so hopefully ill get some quick and educated responses.

MSI R7870 Hawk/OC
http://www.amazon.com/MSI-DisplayPort-PCI-Express-R7870...

MSI 660 TF 2GD5/OC
http://www.amazon.com/MSI-GeForce-Graphics-N660-TF/dp/B...

More about : gtx 660 radeon 7870

a b U Graphics card
December 12, 2012 1:34:25 AM

http://www.amazon.com/Gigabyte-Mini-Displayport-PCI-Exp...

I would point you to this 7870
It has a better cooler and a similar factory overclock.
Dunno if you like its look though =P

You can find the most relevant reviews with the latest drivers from both sides here
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/11/12/fall_2012_gpu...
and here
http://www.techspot.com/review/603-best-graphics-cards/

I would look closely at the games you play
Both the MSI and Gigabyte 7870 have a 10% OC over stock while the 660 has a 8% OC over stock.
For $15 I would look more towards the 7870 and also none of the hassle of MIR's

Here is a similar question in the forum
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/forum2.php?config=tom...

And one between the Hawk and the Windforce 3x
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/forum2.php?config=tom...

Hawk vs 660 - depends on how your specific games do with each card and how much u value the look =)
Gigabyte vs 660 - Gigabyte all the way
Hawk vs Gigabyte - how much you value the look of the Hawk, will lose the better cooling though
December 12, 2012 1:44:53 AM

I know its more expensive but i would get this

ASUS GTX 670 Direct CU2 2G
http://www.amazon.com/ASUS-GeForce-GTX-670-DC2-2GD5-GTX...

Its aftermarket cooler is far superior, Its a lot quieter and has better performance so it will last you a lot longer between upgrades.

But! people are having troubles with Nvidia drivers recently so i would go with the equivalent card on ATI if that worries you
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
December 12, 2012 1:56:07 AM

stickmansam said:
http://www.amazon.com/Gigabyte-Mini-Displayport-PCI-Exp...

I would point you to this 7870
It has a better cooler and a similar factory overclock.
Dunno if you like its look though =P

You can find the most relevant reviews with the latest drivers from both sides here
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/11/12/fall_2012_gpu...
and here
http://www.techspot.com/review/603-best-graphics-cards/

I would look closely at the games you play
Both the MSI and Gigabyte 7870 have a 10% OC over stock while the 660 has a 8% OC over stock.
For $15 I would look more towards the 7870 and also none of the hassle of MIR's

Here is a similar question in the forum
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/forum2.php?config=tom...

And one between the Hawk and the Windforce 3x
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/forum2.php?config=tom...

Hawk vs 660 - depends on how your specific games do with each card and how much u value the look =)
Gigabyte vs 660 - Gigabyte all the way
Hawk vs Gigabyte - how much you value the look of the Hawk, will lose the better cooling though


+1 on this.

m44matt said:
I know its more expensive but i would get this

ASUS GTX 670 Direct CU2 2G
http://www.amazon.com/ASUS-GeForce-GTX-670-DC2-2GD5-GTX...

Its aftermarket cooler is far superior, Its a lot quieter and has better performance so it will last you a lot longer between upgrades.

But! people are having troubles with Nvidia drivers recently so i would go with the equivalent card on ATI if that worries you


nonononono. we have to assume god1yy has a limited budget unless stated otherwise, so this is highly NOT recommended.
a b U Graphics card
December 12, 2012 2:24:59 AM

god1yy said:
Ok, so i can't really decide between an Msi 660 TF 2GD5/OC, or an Msi R7870 Hawk/OC. Keep in mind that both are factory overclocked, with the 7870 at 77 MHz higher. The 660 has Twin Frozr III, where as the 7870 has Twin Frozr IV. There is a $30 difference, but after rebates a $25 difference. either way im willing to do it. the real problem im having, is the choice of which card is better. The classic or AMD or Nvidia choice. some of my other specs are an i5 3570k on an MSi Z77-G41 mobo, with an OCZ ModxStream Pro 700W. Also, almost every part in my computer is black and blue, which the 7870 is also. although a minimal difference, it does influence the decision a little bit. I'm probably going to order the card tommorow, so hopefully ill get some quick and educated responses.

MSI R7870 Hawk/OC
http://www.amazon.com/MSI-DisplayPort-PCI-Express-R7870...

MSI 660 TF 2GD5/OC
http://www.amazon.com/MSI-GeForce-Graphics-N660-TF/dp/B...


Get a $220-$240 7870. It will perform within 5% of any other 7870 that costs $50+ more. If you want to spend more on a card than the normal price, you clearly want a different card lol. Then get a SAPPHIRE 7950 for $300 (Crazy good deal!)
a b U Graphics card
December 12, 2012 2:47:22 AM

The Gigabyte 7870 =D
a b U Graphics card
December 12, 2012 2:59:47 AM

I wanna say AMD in that price range, but I am not sure. Things are starting to even out. What I would say is check the latest benchmarks for the games you like to play (or are likely to buy), and see which card comes out on top.
December 12, 2012 11:19:22 AM

7870 is the better card the xfx models look nice too.
a b U Graphics card
December 12, 2012 11:55:40 AM

The difference between the two Cards are about 5% to the Radeon 7870.

But would you pay 30$ more for something that is using more power? And missing out on the cool gaming Technologies?

Adaptive vsync, FXAA, TXAA, physx, boost. All this comes with the GTX 660, keep that in mind.

Those Technologies will give you a smoother gamplay with better Visuals.

Here is a clip of the GTX 660 in Far Cry 3, it runs like a dime! (I'm the player) :) 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRnKfQaVVwM&feature=plcp
a b U Graphics card
December 12, 2012 12:16:22 PM

http://techreport.com/review/23981 [...] evisited/3

It's well worth reading the article to the end. It's a new way of testing performance, to more accurately represent the 'smoothness' delivered by a card. We'll be seeing a lot more frame latency benchmarking moving forward.

The AMD fanboys were in uproar (over 200 comments on the article) about how testing on Windows 8 was to blame. So they re-ran the tests on Windows 7:

http://techreport.com/review/24022 [...] indows-8/2

No change. Windows 8 had some negative effect on some games, and positive effect on others. The GeForce was still hugely superior.

The conclusion:

"A moral victory in the borderline-meaningless FPS sweeps doesn't overcome the fact that the Radeon HD 7950 has a persistent problem with high-latency frames across a range of test scenarios based on the latest games... If you just want bragging rights, by all means, choose the Radeon HD 7950. If you're looking for the friction-free fluidity that only comes from consistently quick frame delivery, though, our recommendation remains the GeForce GTX 660 Ti."

These are both a model up from what you're looking at, but they're architecturally very similar and the results will apply.
December 12, 2012 12:43:18 PM

From what I have learned, the nvidia cards are much faster for singular monitors and the radeon is great for dual monitors.
Personally if you are just looking for the stronger card. I would go with the Radeon. But that's just me.
I think it's a feel of how you like your computer.
a b U Graphics card
December 12, 2012 1:11:04 PM

sam_p_lay said:
http://techreport.com/review/23981 [...] evisited/3

It's well worth reading the article to the end. It's a new way of testing performance, to more accurately represent the 'smoothness' delivered by a card. We'll be seeing a lot more frame latency benchmarking moving forward

Now that is a moot point to me. What does frame latency mean? Questions come to mind, if a GPU produces frames with latency, doesn't that affect min/max/average FPS (frames per second)? I don't get this. 7950 reaches higher FPS but produces frames with latency? Confused :) 
December 12, 2012 1:31:41 PM

Very interesting, I purchased a Sapphire OC 7870 the day the 660Ti launched, and it hasn't dropped in price. I'm not a fanboy by any means but no articles posted today made me feel remotely disappointed in my decision.

Scrape together some change for a 650Ti perhaps when one drops in price?
a b U Graphics card
December 12, 2012 1:33:53 PM

technoholic said:
Now that is a moot point to me. What does frame latency mean? Questions come to mind, if a GPU produces frames with latency, doesn't that affect min/max/average FPS (frames per second)? I don't get this. 7950 reaches higher FPS but produces frames with latency? Confused :) 


That's why I posted the link :-) It's a very good explanation of the failings of frames/second.

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

Is a follow-up to disprove complaints from AMD fans that Windows 8 was causing the fault (yet not affecting the GeForce somehow). But the first page is a very simple explanation of frame latency.

Short explanation to your question - frames/second is an average of the rendering time over one second. But this masks the distribution of frame render times. For some simple numbers:

- GeForce delivers 2fps. Frame one takes 500ms to render, and frame two also takes 500ms.
- Radeon delivers 2fps. Frame one takes 100ms to render. Frame two takes 900ms.

Both deliver the same framerate, but the GeForce would be much smoother (as far as 2fps goes :-)). Read the article though - it's honestly worth taking the 10 minutes out of your day to understand this.

EDIT: Also, you're misusing the word 'moot'. I know English isn't your first language but just so you know. It's typically not used in its original meaning anyway, but the commonly used meaning is similar to 'irrelevant'. Which I don't think is what you were getting at :-)
a b U Graphics card
December 12, 2012 1:37:32 PM

skidawgz said:
Very interesting, I purchased a Sapphire OC 7870 the day the 660Ti launched, and it hasn't dropped in price. I'm not a fanboy by any means but no articles posted today made me feel remotely disappointed in my decision.

Scrape together some change for a 650Ti perhaps when one drops in price?


I can sympathise - I have a Radeon too and performance is not consistently smooth. I think it's best to wait until Tech Report run frame latency benchmarks on more hardware. Problem is, it's a more time-consuming test methodology. Tech media sites are always in a race to get the first reviews out on new hardware, and frames/second benching is faster to do. Frame latency benchmarking is coming to THG though, which will hopefully set a precedent for the rest of the tech media (obviously THG is a bit more high profile than Tech Report).
a b U Graphics card
December 12, 2012 1:42:07 PM

sam_p_lay said:

EDIT: Also, you're misusing the word 'moot'. I know English isn't your first language but just so you know. It's typically not used in its original meaning anyway, but the commonly used meaning is similar to 'irrelevant'. Which I don't think is what you were getting at :-)

Sorry i didn't mean it :)  i meant to say "not so obvious" or "not so clear" :)  And thanks for the information sam you always share good information :) 
a b U Graphics card
December 12, 2012 1:52:47 PM

technoholic said:
Sorry i didn't mean it :)  i meant to say "not so obvious" or "not so clear" :)  And thanks for the information sam you always share good information :) 


Glad to be of service my friend :-) And I thought that's probably what you were getting at.
a b U Graphics card
December 12, 2012 2:28:04 PM

sam_p_lay said:
That's why I posted the link :-) It's a very good explanation of the failings of frames/second.

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

Is a follow-up to disprove complaints from AMD fans that Windows 8 was causing the fault (yet not affecting the GeForce somehow). But the first page is a very simple explanation of frame latency.

Short explanation to your question - frames/second is an average of the rendering time over one second. But this masks the distribution of frame render times. For some simple numbers:

- GeForce delivers 2fps. Frame one takes 500ms to render, and frame two also takes 500ms.
- Radeon delivers 2fps. Frame one takes 100ms to render. Frame two takes 900ms.

Both deliver the same framerate, but the GeForce would be much smoother (as far as 2fps goes :-)). Read the article though - it's honestly worth taking the 10 minutes out of your day to understand this.

EDIT: Also, you're misusing the word 'moot'. I know English isn't your first language but just so you know. It's typically not used in its original meaning anyway, but the commonly used meaning is similar to 'irrelevant'. Which I don't think is what you were getting at :-)


I read your little article, and I get what it was saying. However I have to say that I have a 7970 and it never had any stuttering problems in Borderlands 2. In fact my brother with a nvidia 560 Ti had tons of problems so he upgraded to a 7950, and guess what? The problems went away. I have had more performance issues with nvidia cards than I can remember, but AMD graphic have always given me solid performance for my dollar.

Also some of those graphs showed very little difference between the two cards anyways. The only one that seemed interesting was the stuttering one.

P.S. The program "Radeon Pro" eliminates all those issues. I just never needed to download it. Maybe Tech Powerup should. Oh and they are known for being Nvidia bias.
a b U Graphics card
December 12, 2012 2:54:28 PM

CaptainTom said:
I read your little article, and I get what it was saying. However I have to say that I have a 7970 and it never had any stuttering problems in Borderlands 2. In fact my brother with a nvidia 560 Ti had tons of problems so he upgraded to a 7950, and guess what? The problems went away. I have had more performance issues with nvidia cards than I can remember, but AMD graphic have always given me solid performance for my dollar.

Also some of those graphs showed very little difference between the two cards anyways. The only one that seemed interesting was the stuttering one.

P.S. The program "Radeon Pro" eliminates all those issues. I just never needed to download it. Maybe Tech Powerup should. Oh and they are known for being Nvidia bias.


Yeah it really upset a lot of AMD fans - they blamed Windows 8 initially so he re-ran the tests on Windows 7 - same result. Several games were really stop-start up/down performance on the Radeon. As you say, some games were equal. As for Radeon Pro, firstly it's beta software - no guarantees it will work correctly and not cause glitches. Secondly, you have to manually configure it for every game. The nVidia solutions just work out of the box.

As for your 7970, it's a top-end card. Even with massively inconsistent frame render time, it should still be good enough (through 'brute force' of high frames/second) in today's games. But what about tomorrow's? High frame latency will be a lot more noticeable at lower framerates, so unless you're upgrading your Radeon every year to stay at the top, you're gonna want something with a more consistent output.

EDIT: Regarding their bias, I was actually reading an article on there earlier about journalistic integrity etc... they seem like a pretty trustworthy bunch? Don't spose you have a link to back up the bias thing? No worries if not.
a b U Graphics card
December 12, 2012 3:08:18 PM

CaptainTom said:
I read your little article, and I get what it was saying. However I have to say that I have a 7970 and it never had any stuttering problems in Borderlands 2. In fact my brother with a nvidia 560 Ti had tons of problems so he upgraded to a 7950, and guess what? The problems went away. I have had more performance issues with nvidia cards than I can remember, but AMD graphic have always given me solid performance for my dollar.

Also some of those graphs showed very little difference between the two cards anyways. The only one that seemed interesting was the stuttering one.

P.S. The program "Radeon Pro" eliminates all those issues. I just never needed to download it. Maybe Tech Powerup should. Oh and they are known for being Nvidia bias.


You can't even compara GTX 560 ti and Radeon 7950? The performance gap between those two Cards are too huge.
a b U Graphics card
December 12, 2012 5:03:25 PM

sam_p_lay said:
Yeah it really upset a lot of AMD fans - they blamed Windows 8 initially so he re-ran the tests on Windows 7 - same result. Several games were really stop-start up/down performance on the Radeon. As you say, some games were equal. As for Radeon Pro, firstly it's beta software - no guarantees it will work correctly and not cause glitches. Secondly, you have to manually configure it for every game. The nVidia solutions just work out of the box.

As for your 7970, it's a top-end card. Even with massively inconsistent frame render time, it should still be good enough (through 'brute force' of high frames/second) in today's games. But what about tomorrow's? High frame latency will be a lot more noticeable at lower framerates, so unless you're upgrading your Radeon every year to stay at the top, you're gonna want something with a more consistent output.

EDIT: Regarding their bias, I was actually reading an article on there earlier about journalistic integrity etc... they seem like a pretty trustworthy bunch? Don't spose you have a link to back up the bias thing? No worries if not.


You would be surprised how taxing some games can be given the right (Sometimes useless lol) settings. For instance Metro: 2033 can still keep frame rates around 30 FPS in some areas. It still feels like 30 FPS and no stuttering is felt (I know stuttering).

Like you said some games may be worse than others. However that is not AMD's fault and I think it is the exception, not the rule.

As for their bias. I just here a lot of people say that, and I trust TH for more. I can always replicate TH's benchmark results, but TP always has my radeon cards performing higher than what they got. Idk why, but it's always the case for me and others I have talked to.

I still think the 7870 offers far more value than the 660 at the same price point and will stay stronger longer due to its bandwidth.

Though I do applaud you for having something Pro Nvidia to say that isn't some BS about drivers or sounding like an absolute fanboy for once. It's just refreshing...
a b U Graphics card
December 12, 2012 5:21:19 PM

CaptainTom said:
You would be surprised how taxing some games can be given the right (Sometimes useless lol) settings. For instance Metro: 2033 can still keep frame rates around 30 FPS in some areas. It still feels like 30 FPS and no stuttering is felt (I know stuttering).

Like you said some games may be worse than others. However that is not AMD's fault and I think it is the exception, not the rule.

As for their bias. I just here a lot of people say that, and I trust TH for more. I can always replicate TH's benchmark results, but TP always has my radeon cards performing higher than what they got. Idk why, but it's always the case for me and others I have talked to.

I still think the 7870 offers far more value than the 660 at the same price point and will stay stronger longer due to its bandwidth.

Though I do applaud you for having something Pro Nvidia to say that isn't some BS about drivers or sounding like an absolute fanboy for once. It's just refreshing...


Appreciate that :-) And I'm honestly not interested in assigning blame or who's fault the latency problems are, just looking at the data and what it's saying about smoothness.

Re the GTX660/7870 comparison though, GTX660 is cheaper? I know we're not talking about a massive difference, but are you really getting any extra for your money? And the bandwidth thing is a non-issue. The Radeons have a 6% advantage there (153GB/s vs 144GB/s). Take a look at this:

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/378279-15-gtx660-78...

EDIT: I mean the second post on it :-)
a b U Graphics card
December 12, 2012 8:54:55 PM

They were comparing a overclocked 660ti to a stock 7950 in that review by techreport so take that in mind
The MSI 7870 is overpriced but comparing the $230 Gigagbyte 7870 and the $230 - $15 MIR MSI 660, i would go for the 7870

I have never really had serious issues with cards from AMD or Nvidia other than DOA's
a b U Graphics card
December 12, 2012 9:03:48 PM

stickmansam said:
They were comparing a overclocked 660ti to a stock 7950 in that review by techreport so take that in mind
The MSI 7870 is overpriced but comparing the $230 Gigagbyte 7870 and the $230 - $15 MIR MSI 660, i would go for the 7870

I have never really had serious issues with cards from AMD or Nvidia other than DOA's


Yeah I saw that pointed out - I'm used to seeing factory-overclocked cards benchmarked on THG but clocked down to stock speeds. I assumed the same would be happening here, didn't occur to me they'd run it at full speed!

Still, that factory overclock couldn't account for more than the tiniest fraction of the differences there. The amount of real-world performance it would add is negligible. I'm actually more interested anyway in the implications for the entire current GeForce/Radeon lineups. We're looking at GPUs that are very similar architecturally - it's reasonable to assume that had they been comparing a GTX660 and 7870 instead that we'd be seeing the same results. Not guaranteed of course, but very likely.
a b U Graphics card
December 12, 2012 9:20:30 PM

sam_p_lay said:
Appreciate that :-) And I'm honestly not interested in assigning blame or who's fault the latency problems are, just looking at the data and what it's saying about smoothness.

Re the GTX660/7870 comparison though, GTX660 is cheaper? I know we're not talking about a massive difference, but are you really getting any extra for your money? And the bandwidth thing is a non-issue. The Radeons have a 6% advantage there (153GB/s vs 144GB/s). Take a look at this:

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/378279-15-gtx660-78...

EDIT: I mean the second post on it :-)


Here's what I have just found doing research:

-The 7870 used to be $220 and the 660 used to be $240 (This was crazy stupid)
-The 7870 is about 5-10% stronger in most settings and handles AA better

Here is the game changer:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

That is a 660 for $200 so holy sh!t! First time I have seen a good deal on this card.

However here is a 7870 for $230 and it has 3 fans:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...


Conclusion:

At the end of the day these prices are the opposite of what I am used to. However the 7870 is still not a bad deal. For $30 you get more and better games (Far Cry 3 is generally agreed to be better than AC3), and about 5% more performance. It is also worth noting that the 7000 is famous for its overclocking abilities. The 7850 2GB is $15 cheaper and will trade blows if they are both overclocked to their max. The 7870 will be about 10% stronger when they are both OC'd too. I believe that the price/performance difference does justify the 7870, and if you want Far Cry 3 and Hitman it is the clear winner. But overall that specific 660 is the best deal now if you are on a tight budget. BUY IT NOW BEFORE IT IS OUT OF STOCK!!! [See I am not a fanboy ;)  ]
a b U Graphics card
December 12, 2012 9:56:36 PM

Haha good :-D We have enough of those already! Honestly, some of the 200+ comments on the Tech Report article about frame latency problems made me cringe. So many furious AMD fanboys! And the issue had to be that Windows 8 was used - it was somehow affecting the Radeon but not the GeForce. I was really impressed that the guy actually re-ran all the tests in Windows 7 for them. Guess he had to though for credibility... the Windows 7 benches got a hell of a lot less comments :-)

I keep telling people 'these are huge tech corporations - none of them are looking out for your best interests, they're just trying to maximise profits'. Not that there's anything at all wrong with that - they're businesses and they're doing exactly what they should be doing. But people look at AMD like it's some kind of wounded puppy that needs defending. I get that people want to support the 'little guy' but we're still talking about a colossal tech corporation with more money and power than any of us will ever have. They neither need nor appreciate (or even recognise) their loving (and angry!) supporters.

EDIT: Just have to point out that regarding Far Cry 3 vs Assassin's Creed 3, it's a pretty subjective thing! I know there are review scores, but they're very different games so it'll be down to personal preference. I'm gonna play both when I get new card though :-D
a b U Graphics card
December 12, 2012 10:33:36 PM

sam_p_lay said:
Haha good :-D We have enough of those already! Honestly, some of the 200+ comments on the Tech Report article about frame latency problems made me cringe. So many furious AMD fanboys! And the issue had to be that Windows 8 was used - it was somehow affecting the Radeon but not the GeForce. I was really impressed that the guy actually re-ran all the tests in Windows 7 for them. Guess he had to though for credibility... the Windows 7 benches got a hell of a lot less comments :-)

I keep telling people 'these are huge tech corporations - none of them are looking out for your best interests, they're just trying to maximise profits'. Not that there's anything at all wrong with that - they're businesses and they're doing exactly what they should be doing. But people look at AMD like it's some kind of wounded puppy that needs defending. I get that people want to support the 'little guy' but we're still talking about a colossal tech corporation with more money and power than any of us will ever have. They neither need nor appreciate (or even recognise) their loving (and angry!) supporters.

EDIT: Just have to point out that regarding Far Cry 3 vs Assassin's Creed 3, it's a pretty subjective thing! I know there are review scores, but they're very different games so it'll be down to personal preference. I'm gonna play both when I get new card though :-D


The thing is there is this weird perception that Nvidia=Intel (Especially among PC noobs). The fact is AMD wins some gens (Like this one imo) and Nvidia wins others (The last one). Neither is always weaker or stronger, but AMD offers more performance while Nvidia offers Physx and better advertising.

AMD also tends to make more balanced cards that were built for a specific price point. For instance the 660 and 670 are the only solid cards from Nvidia this gen imo. The 680/660 Ti are jokes price/performance wise, and the 650 Ti (Like the 550 Ti) are just awful performers compared to their competition.

Whereas all of AMD's cards are evenly spaced and are fair considerations (The 7870 was too close to the 7950 for a while though).

I obviously lean heavily towards AMD because I like how they approach problems (Brute force FTW! BOOM!), and I find that they almost always offer greater value per dollar. It is also clear that you lean towards Nvidia though!

I will say that I would love to see Tomshardware do some Frame latency tests on a bunch of games (Personally I like Metro: 2033, BF3, and Skyrim as benchmarks since they cover all bases and seem pretty fair). But I also want them to do more overclocking comparisons too.
December 13, 2012 5:29:59 AM

all of the Nvidia's 660 reviews weren't done with the latest driver "310.54" so i've personally tested the 2 cards when using the latest driver and i found that they are both perform the same in a game like BF3 the 660 performs a bit better on the other hand the 7870 performs also a bit better in metro .
To sum up i found they are both good cards they perform nearly the same but u shoiuld go for the cheaper one in ur country also the one that offers better game bundles for u .however if u r looking forward to overclocking your card i think u should go then to the 7870 !
a b U Graphics card
December 13, 2012 10:26:36 AM

@ CaptainTom - I completely agree about the strong and weak points of nVidia's lineup. It's only the GTX660 and GTX670 I'd ever recommend (I just can't see the point in GTX680 or GTX690). I'd also not recommend GTX660 Ti in the past, except I do now where the alternative is the 7950. In that case, I just don't see how anyone could argue with the results on http://techreport.com/review/24022/does-the-radeon-hd-7...

Though I'd always advise a GTX660 over a GTX660 Ti - nobody could tell that performance difference in the real world :-)

@ Sandouby_96 - There's actually a newer and better nVidia driver still - 310.70. That's the one that brings performance advances over a whole load of games. Like I say though, consistently smooth delivery of high framerates is the real reason to go nVidia :-)

EDIT: Actually... there is a good use of the GTX690 where you're using a triple-monitor setup and want everything maxxed. But doesn't apply to most of us :-)
!