Search
Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Closed

Need a good card for SLI for $300 or less

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share

Well, I'm pretty new to the site and this is the first gaming rig I've put together from the ground up, so here goes...

APPROXIMATE PURCHASE DATE: By the end of January.

BUDGET RANGE: Up to $300 USD

USAGE FROM MOST TO LEAST IMPORTANT: Modern Gaming, running High/Ultra on all settings. 3D Modeling, Level Editors, Picture Editing, Video Editing

CURRENT GPU AND POWER SUPPLY: EVGA GTX 460 1GB SuperClocked Fermi and 500w Corsair something-or-other, plan on upgrading when I purchase a new card.

OTHER RELEVANT SYSTEM SPECS:

ASUS P8Z68-V PRO/GEN3 LGA 1155 Intel Z68 HDMI SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX Intel Motherboard with UEFI BIOS

Intel Core i5-3570K Ivy Bridge 3.4GHz (3.8GHz Turbo) LGA 1155 77W Quad-Core Desktop Processor Intel HD Graphics 4000 BX80637I53570K

PREFERRED WEBSITE(S) FOR PARTS: Newegg, Amazon

PARTS PREFERENCES: I'm an Nvidia guy, but if there's some drastic, hands-down, day/night performance advantage in favor of an AMD, I'd definitely look at it.

OVERCLOCKING: Yes SLI OR CROSSFIRE: Yes

MONITOR RESOLUTION: 1280x1024

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: Currently, I'm rocking an old 1280x1024 native-res monitor that came stock with a Dell XPS 400 Desktop. I don't really see a big enough difference between my res and say... 1080p, to justify buying a new-fangled monitor just yet. Even so, I would like to SLI cards with the horsepower to max out some of the heavy hitters (like Crysis, Far Cry 3 and Assassin's Creed 3) at 1920x1080. Also, I could see spending a little over $300, but only if we're talking something akin to double performance out of a pricier card compared to what a $300 budget would limit me too.

Card's I was looking at:

GIGABYTE GV-N66TWF2-2GD GeForce GTX 660 Ti 2GB 192-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 x16 HDCP Ready SLI Support Video Card

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

EVGA SuperClocked 02G-P4-2662-KR GeForce GTX 660 2GB 192-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 x16 HDCP Ready SLI Support Video Card

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

EVGA 02G-P4-3660-KR GeForce GTX 660 Ti 2GB 192-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 x16 HDCP Ready SLI Support Video Card

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

My main questions here are:
Why is the EVGA technically more although the same price as the GIGABYTE after mail-in rebate?

Are just a wee bit more CUDA cores really worth the $60 price jump from the Superclocked 660? (Which a friend bought recently, with very good performance results)

And if I overclock one of the more expensive cards with lower clock speeds to similiar or high speeds than the Superclocked, will they just landslide demolish it terms of performance?

More about : good card sli 300

Register or log in to remove
Graphics card Expert

Best card that fits your requirements would be the gtx 660ti. This card will max out every game you got on your current 1280x1024, and you'll be able to stick another one in sli later down the road.
Graphics card Authority

If you're going to get a 660ti and SLI later, the better way to do it would be to buy a 670. Remember by the end of January GPU's will be cheaper, especially if AMD release their HD 8000's early next year.
Related ressources
Ask the community

swagatrath said:
In case you are going to SLI, you will need the same card which you currently have....


Right, I'm building a new gaming rig right now though, but I haven't bought a card and I intend to buy one powerful enough to run games pretty good and then buy a second one later for SLI. Sorry, should've been more clear on that :) 

JJ1217 said:
If you're going to get a 660ti and SLI later, the better way to do it would be to buy a 670. Remember by the end of January GPU's will be cheaper, especially if AMD release their HD 8000's early next year.


I like this idea, but waiting sucks a lot. :(  How much better are the 670's comparably? I've seen a benchmark review with 660's and 670's but in that review it seemed like the 670 was only a little bit better, especially in the lower resolutions like what I'll be running for some time to come.

Best solution

Graphics card Authority

The 670 is much better imo, doesn't have a crappy 192 bit memory interface like the 660ti. People dismiss this because it performs close to the 670 in some games, but this article shows how the 660ti performs when AA in turned on in a *Nvidia hardcoded game*. Even the 7870 defeats the 670 when it comes to AA, but this is a rare occurence. I recommend the 670 over the 660ti. Imo, its either the 660 or the 670, not the middle ground.

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

JJ1217 said:
The 670 is much better imo, doesn't have a crappy 192 bit memory interface like the 660ti. People dismiss this because it performs close to the 670 in some games, but this article shows how the 660ti performs when AA in turned on in a *Nvidia hardcoded game*. Even the 7870 defeats the 670 when it comes to AA, but this is a rare occurence. I recommend the 670 over the 660ti. Imo, its either the 660 or the 670, not the middle ground.

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


Man, this article is a little disheartening. The AA destroyed the 660Ti but I never imagined the 670 would be hit that hard.
Graphics card Authority

Crazyboy1432 said:
Man, this article is a little disheartening. The AA destroyed the 660Ti but I never imagined the 670 would be hit that hard.


The 660ti is still getting 60 fps, I'm not saying its bad frame rates, they are terrific, its just showing you the impact of AA on the 660ti.

thanks for the great info, i bought evga gtx 660 ftw signature 2 3gb, and am allround very happy with it
it looks like for 60% of price of 670 i have 70% of min fps of 670.

best
revro

JJ1217 said:
The 660ti is still getting 60 fps, I'm not saying its bad frame rates, they are terrific, its just showing you the impact of AA on the 660ti.


Cool, thanks. I had no idea AA had such a huge impact on performance. Definitely gave me food for thought, especially with the suggestion of the cards dropping in price at the beginning of next year. I'd jump on a 670 in my ~$300 price range in a heartbeat.

revro said:
thanks for the great info, i bought evga gtx 660 ftw signature 2 3gb, and am allround very happy with it
it looks like for 60% of price of 670 i have 70% of min fps of 670.

best
revro


Cool, just to check though, doesn't VRAM only help performance on higher resolutions? I read that the main thing VRAM does is store pixel data for rendering and that more than 2GB was ultimately a waste for monitors like mine that cap at 1280x1024. Any truth to this?

spentshells said:
660 non ti in SLI should be plenty powerful


Yeah, it should be, but I'd be willing to spend a little extra for longetivity. For example: If SLI 660's would last me 4 years, the final year being only comfortable performance and not destroying every game, but 670's would make it 5ish, that'd be worth some extra cash to me. Probably not exact or realistic time periods, but you get that idea. :) 

Graphics card Authority

Crazyboy1432 said:
Cool, thanks. I had no idea AA had such a huge impact on performance. Definitely gave me food for thought, especially with the suggestion of the cards dropping in price at the beginning of next year. I'd jump on a 670 in my ~$300 price range in a heartbeat.



Cool, just to check though, doesn't VRAM only help performance on higher resolutions? I read that the main thing VRAM does is store pixel data for rendering and that more than 2GB was ultimately a waste for monitors like mine that cap at 1280x1024. Any truth to this?



Yeah, it should be, but I'd be willing to spend a little extra for longetivity. For example: If SLI 660's would last me 4 years, the final year being only comfortable performance and not destroying every game, but 670's would make it 5ish, that'd be worth some extra cash to me. Probably not exact or realistic time periods, but you get that idea. :) 


Yeah obviously 3GB is a waste for 1280x1024, but its useful for higher resolution like 2560x1440. I game on 2560x1440, and I can tell you games like Crysis 2 and Skyrim **occasionally** exceed 2GB and then drop to like 6 FPS. Although most games don't even get close to 2GB on 1080p, so its fine.

Well for it lasting 4-5 years, that is definitely pushing it. The 9500 GT which came out like 4 and a half years ago, can't even run games today comfortably at 1080p. When I had one it ran BF3 at 640x480 at like 25 fps average. So think about it that way.

I managed to get close on 1080p to 2gb in very heavilly modded and high textured skyrim, otherwise even with everything maxed out i get like 1.3-1.5gb vram usage in bf3 for example. many people say that either go 660 factory overclocked or 670 factory overclocked as ti has 40% more cuda cores but these are just killing each others on 192bit bus and you get with ti 10% more performance which equals to factory overclocked 660 that is 70eur cheaper
on 16p mp maps in bf3 i have 50-60fps mostly around 55
on 64p mp maps in bf3 i have 35-60fps mostly around 45, i guess my problem is quad core running on stock 2.83GHz but i am allright with it
so 660 is a beast herself

also gtx has fxaa their own version of aa and this one takes much less performance than msaa tougn bf3 uses only msaa. i switched from 5750 to 660ftw as in bf3 getting 60fps was only able to do on low details and i wanted eye candy :)  even if i in future switch to high details it will rock.

this year we get only few great games crysis 3, gta v if ever, bf4, but we are in status where hardware has runned away from software requirements. dont fool yourself to think that new hw on consoles will cruss pc, no way they already have locked hw spec from previous generations and now are making software development so even new consoles will be behindin performance again compared to pc hw next year when consoles come out

best
revro
Register or log in to remove
Ask the community
Read discussions in other Graphics & Displays categories
!