Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

What is the best NewEgg GTX 660 ti?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
December 13, 2012 12:25:54 AM

Thinking about going with the MSI N660 PE (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...). Is that the best one available?

More about : newegg gtx 660

December 13, 2012 12:38:40 AM

Well right now I have the EVGA 660 (non-ti) super-clocked from Best Buy, but I'm planning to return it and trade up to the ti-version for roughly the same price ($270).

I'm definitely NOT planning to drop $340 on one. So I take it you're recommending the MSI N660?
m
0
l
Related resources
December 13, 2012 1:30:56 AM

Or should I do something completely different and go with an AMD 7950?

What worries me about the latter option is some reviews I've read stating that the GTX 660 ti is considerably smoother than the 7950, despite the 7950 offering more FPS on the whole.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 13, 2012 2:28:32 AM

So no one listed the revised original EVGA GTX 660 TI FTW... people just mentioned the FTW+ and the original 660 TI FTW...

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

$300 flat, 1046mhz core w/ 1124mhz boost... better than the MSI for the same price...




And yes. You should go with a 7950. It offers about the same performance as a GTX 670 when you buy a factory overclocked one.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 13, 2012 11:25:49 AM

Bobstrauss said:
Or should I do something completely different and go with an AMD 7950?

What worries me about the latter option is some reviews I've read stating that the GTX 660 ti is considerably smoother than the 7950, despite the 7950 offering more FPS on the whole.


Yeah, they're using a new benchmarking methodology (frame latency testing) as a much more accurate indicator of real-world 'smoothness'. To use some simple numbers for illustration:

- Say a GeForce and a Radeon each render two frames in a second (very low framerate just for illustration).
- GeForce renders frame one in 500ms. Frame two also takes 500ms.
- Radeon renders frame one in 200ms. But frame two takes 800ms.

Both cards have delivered 2fps, but the Radeon delivery would be a lot more jerky. Obviously you can extend that 2fps to 50fps - it would just be a much bigger explanation if I was writing out 50 frame render times for each card :-)
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 13, 2012 5:02:18 PM

sam_p_lay said:
Yeah, they're using a new benchmarking methodology (frame latency testing) as a much more accurate indicator of real-world 'smoothness'. To use some simple numbers for illustration:

- Say a GeForce and a Radeon each render two frames in a second (very low framerate just for illustration).
- GeForce renders frame one in 500ms. Frame two also takes 500ms.
- Radeon renders frame one in 200ms. But frame two takes 800ms.

Both cards have delivered 2fps, but the Radeon delivery would be a lot more jerky. Obviously you can extend that 2fps to 50fps - it would just be a much bigger explanation if I was writing out 50 frame render times for each card :-)


http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/12/does-the-radeon-...

Your words put into a review.
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
December 13, 2012 6:08:24 PM

sam_p_lay said:
Er... wrong thread mate. Interesting stuff though, haven't heard of this paste (though I've not messed with heatsinks in years).
It's supposedly one of the best.I don't use it though because it's conductive. :pfff: 
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 13, 2012 8:25:30 PM

bigcyco1 said:
It's supposedly one of the best.I don't use it though because it's conductive. :pfff: 


I thought that's the whole idea? Or you mean electrically conductive?
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
December 13, 2012 8:39:01 PM


Exactly.

So why is one more dangerous than the other?

Well, what is dangerous about conductivity? The answer is simple. Something with a conductive property will conduct an electrical charge from one object with a higher electrical potential to the other object with lower electrical potential. In other words, electricity from the circuit of highest electrical potential will flow into the circuit of lower electrical potential. Now that circuit was probably supposed to have lower potential for a reason and the excess electricity will cause that circuit to fail.

As you can see, electrical conductivity is a bad property to be present where it should not be. Unwanted electrical conductivity is almost always a harmful thing which will likely cause permanent damage to the hardware.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 13, 2012 8:45:55 PM

Well that doesn't sound like the ideal solution to slather all over your GPU then :-) When I was messing around with that stuff, I think I used something called Arctic Silver - got the job done pretty well. Guess people are always wanting something better though.
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
December 13, 2012 8:52:36 PM

True i have used it before myself and it worked quite well.I just prefer to play it safe no reason not to when there so many choices.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 13, 2012 8:57:50 PM

Agreed about that!
m
0
l
December 13, 2012 9:07:57 PM

sam_p_lay said:
Thanks :-) I'm glad they credited Tech Report there - saw the link and thought they'd copy/pasted!



Again, sounds like from the reviews that the GTX 660 ti is the best bet.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 13, 2012 9:10:29 PM

Agreed. Though I'd personally either take a GTX660 or GTX670 (GTX660 Ti is a bit too close to the GTX660 to justify the extra cost in my opinion), compared to the 7950 it's definitely the better way to go for performance that is consistently smooth/responsive.
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
December 13, 2012 9:14:00 PM

sam_p_lay said:
Agreed. Though I'd personally either take a GTX660 or GTX670 (GTX660 Ti is a bit too close to the GTX660 to justify the extra cost in my opinion), compared to the 7950 it's definitely the better way to go for performance that is consistently smooth/responsive.
+1 i agree and would do the same. ;) 
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 13, 2012 9:16:34 PM

I am actually really tempted to get one myself :-) I'm gonna stick with less demanding games though and get by on what I have until next year's models come. Then I'll get something really nice to keep me gaming on high for a while.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 13, 2012 9:32:30 PM

Ah yeah I saw that in another post - impressive! Honestly, if I was buying a card now, I'd grab a GTX670 in a heartbeat. EVGA model for the awesome warranty and I'm fixed for a good while. I had a 5970 though, and even though it was horrible for real-world smoothness, the FPS was high... so I kind of feel compelled to wait for something significantly superior in both frames/second and frame latency - i.e. waiting for the GTX700 cards.

I really shouldn't care about frames/second - I know for a fact that a GTX670 would easily twice as smooth despite only being maybe 20% higher frames/second, but it's hard to get out of a way of thinking. Plus, it's only a few months to wait now. If the GTX700 series is to GTX600 what GTX400 was to GTX200, I'm gonna be disappointed that I didn't wait. Really want something that will last years and years.
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
December 13, 2012 9:50:11 PM

Yeah i can understand that.I upgrade every two or three years no matter what lol.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 14, 2012 9:38:08 AM

Haha yeah I can associate with that - when you keep up with all this stuff, it's hard to not feel your stuff is ancient after a while and want something new. I'm still on an i7 920 but it's an awesome CPU and there's been no real progress in gaming performance since Nehalem so I'm sticking with it until Intel can pull off another C2Q > Nehalem grade advance in performance. Or many small advances that add up to it I suppose :-)
m
0
l
!