DOWN GRADE MY GPU

Why bother? You already have the card and it will run all these games on full and it will be able to run all games in the near future on full as well... whats the point of going through all that trouble just to get 100-200 back? Seems silly

Gtx 660 ti/ Radeon HD 7870

7870 will run everything at 1080p no problem

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

$230

I have thought of the 7870 as a replacement. are the drivers good for them now?

Not really silly. because if I think he want to save some bucks by selling it and buying a cheaper but still a great card that will fit his rig.

So answering his question, I think at 250$ price range, 660 would be the best, but if you could find a 660 ti at that range then go for it, but if you could go for 7950then go for it. 7950>660ti>660.

http://www.techspot.com/review/603-best-graphics-cards/...

My needs are less than the 680 for sure and I already have my card selling for $450.00 minimum and the 7870 is $230 that is $220 to use on other things.

GTX680 would last you longer before your next upgrade, but I'd hugely recommend the GTX660 - it'll be ample for any game at 1080p, AA and high settings.

Nope. The 192bit bus really hurts it with AA. I'd recommend a 7870.

No it doesn't. Second post: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/378279-15-gtx660-78...

More importantly, you'll get massively more consistent fluid framerate delivery from nVidia hardware. Take a look at the third post on:

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/382156-15-nvidia

For explanation.

"

Your choice comes down to strengths, weaknesses, and features, then. If you don't tend to use anything more than 4x MSAA, the GeForce GTX 660 Ti will perform better than many of our results indicate, since you won't be taxing its memory subsystem as hard. Conversely, if you're a fan of lots of anti-aliasing, the Radeon cards tend to pull ahead in this price range. "

Tom's Hardware review of the 660 ti

"

Your choice comes down to strengths, weaknesses, and features, then. If you don't tend to use anything more than 4x MSAA, the GeForce GTX 660 Ti will perform better than many of our results indicate, since you won't be taxing its memory subsystem as hard. Conversely, if you're a fan of lots of anti-aliasing, the Radeon cards tend to pull ahead in this price range. "

Tom's Hardware review of the 660 ti

Read the links posted. If you take issue with anything I've said in the posts on the those links or if there's anything you don't understand, let me know and I'll explain it to you. Short version - bus width is irrelevant when taken in isolation. Bandwidth is what counts more, and you're looking at 144GB/s vs 153GB/s. I can show you how to calculate that, or just Wiki it if you don't believe me. Even bandwidth doesn't count for a thing next to performance numbers. And for those, check out the Tech Report link. You'll have to decide whether you want to take the time to read what I've posted or just take my word for it.

Damn. I really wanted to like AMD and to have one in my next system but with frametimes like that it's not going to happen.

Maybe that's why crossfire is very jittery compared to SLI?

Likewise. I'm using a Radeon at the moment, but my next card will be a GeForce (probably GTX770). I had a dual-GPU Radeon though and it was horrible. Performance was so inconsistent (not to mention rendering glitches galore). I had to wait for 4 months of driver updates before Dead Space 2 was even playable on a £500/$750 card. So I steer clear of AMD and I steer clear of multi-GPU in general! Though at least with two single-GPU cards I could just disable SLI if there were issues.

i was looking at your posts and you just say to everyone GTX GTX GTX its not the best card if you have money to spend on some bullshit then go with it i better go with amd it features less cost as same performance and with sapphire you can get free games if you buy like 7850 or more you can get free 3 any games of your choose nvidia is not have that option.

and amd performs better at reendering with sony vegas and after effects because they use OpenCL and GTX 6xx more lag sin rendering!

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/381375-15-sony-vega...

FPS isn't everything. I looked in depth at crossfire and SLI frametimes but didn't realise the difference was so big on single GPU's.

Don't say more FPS is more FPS because it isn't. Smooth gameplay is what it's about.

Thank you :-) Lager, why are you talking about video rendering? OP has made no reference it. This is for gaming. Read the Tech Report article. Or be an AMD fanboy - up to you. It really makes no difference to me, but clinging on to ignorance will just mean you make a fool of yourself. Keep an open mind to the possibility that frames/second isn't actually an accurate measure of smoothness that tells the whole story.

As for Sapphire, I've owned three. All three died within 6 months after the warranty expired. Even if I bought another Radeon, it wouldn't be a Sapphire.

My use involves Web browsing youtube and some games BF3 Borderlands 2
I do not need max frames but want something like 7870 or GTX 660 non ti
Would a 6970 be simmular to the 7870 because I would put it under water if possible.

No, a 6970 would be a bit slower than a 7870 (in frames/second, not sure about frame latency because it's not been tested). You should really check this out:

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."

If a 7950 is incapable of smooth, consistent framerate delivery, I doubt a 7870 or 6970 will do very well. The GTX660 on the other hand is really not far at all from the GTX660 Ti.

As for watercooling, I've not done it myself but I'd just say be very careful with it. My best friends both tried it and they both ended up soaking their hardware when a pipe connection came loose.

Tell me, how are those cybernetic eyes working for you? How does it feel to see every frame individually? I have noticed no choppy performance on any of my Radeon cards due to this framerate latency. 20ms variances does not make for choppy gameplay. Frankly, this whole framerate latency thing is just nitpicking, in the real world that isn't going to make any real difference to your experience. Unless you are obsessed with getting the best possible results on a frametime graph, this framerate consistency thing isn't a hugely compelling reason to buy an Nvidia card.

Granted, this generation there haven't been too many compelling reasons to buy an Nvidia card, so I can see why they want to take whatever reason they can get.

As for the OP, the only real reason to grab an Nvidia card for you is PhysX support in Borderlands 2. If you desperately want PhysX support, get the regular 660. If you are looking for higher overall framerates in a variety of games, get a 7870 and overclock it.

It definitely does make a difference. It can make 60fps look like 50. Some people can't tell the difference but the feel is there.

Nvidia cards run cooler with less power draw this gen.

Make sure your happy running at lower frames or lower details before you downgrade your card.

Downgrading to a 670 would save you a bunch of money and with almost no loss of performance.

The best choice would be GTX 660:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

If you don't care about physX, then HD 7870 would be great too:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Yeah, a lot of AMD fans got really upset by the article. Somehow it must have been Windows 8's fault and it was only affecting the Radeon somehow. A lot less comments when he repeated the results on Windows 7. As for 'they want to take whatever reason they can get', bear in mind this wasn't written by nVidia. It was written by an independent tech media site.

With regards to PhysX, it's supported in a lot more games than Borderlands 2. More than 30 games infact on the first list that came up. I can link it if necessary. And moving forward we're likely to see much more support for PhysX anyway.

That said, PhysX is hardly the most compelling argument for choosing a GeForce. It's a nice little extra (better to have it than not have it) but the real game-changer is the frame latency problems on the Radeons and adaptive v-sync, both of which result in a consistently smoother, more responsive experience with GeForce. Maybe the Radeon 8000 series will resolve it (though it's gonna be pretty last-minute for AMD now unless they delay the launch). Until then though, the best choice is pretty obvious.

Currently the ebay High bid on my 680 is $450.00 so That is a fair price and much better than I could have got here.
I am still undecided on what to get.
My top list would be 660 660ti or 7950.
The only reason I may go up to 7950 is waterblock availability.
We will see what is available once the 680 auction is over.

That's a really good price you're getting for your card. Never sold on ebay before so I wouldn't know.
I'd say the 660 or 7950 is your best choice unless you get a used or heavily discounted 660ti.
Good luck  

Best answer selected by giltyler.