Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

7970 vs 660ti

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
a b U Graphics card
February 23, 2013 3:34:57 AM

Ok. I need an argument settled. I've been wanting to upgrade my graphics card. I currently have a 660ti. When I play Far cry 3 on ultra with all settings maxed out, I average 30fps. I'm playing at 1024x768 resolution. I want to upgrade to a 7970.

More info:
Battlefield 3: 70fps average on ultra 1024x768 with 660ti
Battlefield 3: 57.7fps average on ultra 2560x1600 with 7970

Am I missing something, or is this not as big an upgrade as I thought. Does resolution have that big of a hit?

More about : 7970 660ti

a b U Graphics card
February 23, 2013 3:43:25 AM

CPU?
m
0
l
February 23, 2013 3:43:49 AM

Resolution has a MASSIVE hit. My second screen broke a while ago, so i'm using a old 1440x900 one for now, when I play skyrim on my 1080p screen with my AMD 7850 I get around 85 fps. On my 900p screen I get about 140 fps. The resolution makes all the difference, if you try to run BF3 on a 1600p screen with that card, you'd get a lot less than 57 fps. Resolution is the big player, it hits you're card like nothing else but makes the game look A LOT better.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
February 23, 2013 3:44:21 AM

Yes, higher res will see a hit in performance. The 7970 will destroy that game @ 1024x768. If you tried to run the 660ti @ 2560x1600 with ultra settings you'll see the difference between the two.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 23, 2013 3:50:37 AM

redeemer said:
CPU?

3570k

Also, I keep seeing benchmarks that put nvidia cards ahead of amd by about 10%. In the case of BF3, using the 660ti and 7970 at the same resolution, there was a 20fps difference with the 660ti ahead. Is that right?
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 23, 2013 4:01:19 AM

zpwslayer said:
Yes, higher res will see a hit in performance. The 7970 will destroy that game @ 1024x768. If you tried to run the 660ti @ 2560x1600 with ultra settings you'll see the difference between the two.

Would you happen to know about what avg framerate i would get with the 7970 on 1024x768 for bf3? maxed out? If i get about 70fps with the 660ti, im guessing the 7970 would be about 90?
m
0
l
a c 76 U Graphics card
February 23, 2013 4:07:01 AM

pyr0_m4n said:
3570k

Also, I keep seeing benchmarks that put nvidia cards ahead of amd by about 10%. In the case of BF3, using the 660ti and 7970 at the same resolution, there was a 20fps difference with the 660ti ahead. Is that right?


Where are you seeing these benchmarks? The 7970 is generally on par with or superior to a 680...

If you are referring to your earlier example of

Battlefield 3: 70fps average on ultra 1024x768 with 660ti
Battlefield 3: 57.7fps average on ultra 2560x1600 with 7970

The 7970 is drawing over FIVE TIMES as many pixels as the 660Ti. Resolution is a HUGE factor. You can't compare frame rates at different resolutions like that
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 23, 2013 4:10:24 AM

unksol said:
Where are you seeing these benchmarks? The 7970 is generally on par with or superior to a 680...

If you are referring to your earlier example of

Battlefield 3: 70fps average on ultra 1024x768 with 660ti
Battlefield 3: 57.7fps average on ultra 2560x1600 with 7970

The 7970 is drawing over FIVE TIMES as many pixels as the 660Ti. Resolution is a HUGE factor. You can't compare frame rates at different resolutions like that

I know that. Unfortunately, I use the 660ti on 1024x768 and all benchmarks for the 7970 are much higher resolution. I'm just trying to get an idea of if it will make this upgrade worth it to me. I want to know what my fps would be on BF3 maxed out on ultra for 1024x768, but no one seems to have that info.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 23, 2013 4:14:20 AM

I thinks thats because most people play that game @1080p and higher..
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 23, 2013 4:17:00 AM

zpwslayer said:
I thinks thats because most people play that game @1080p and higher..

True, but based on previous info, if you had to guess, what would my fps be with the 7970 at 1024x768 if the 660ti is avg 70
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 23, 2013 4:21:12 AM

pyr0_m4n said:
3570k

Also, I keep seeing benchmarks that put nvidia cards ahead of amd by about 10%. In the case of BF3, using the 660ti and 7970 at the same resolution, there was a 20fps difference with the 660ti ahead. Is that right?



Radeon HD 7970 Ghz edition is faster than GTX680 in most benchmarks especially GPGPU related applications. The problems u faces is due to being using such a low resolution like 1024 x 768 . How do u play games on that low resolution?? For playing games at 1024 x 768 u don't need a dedicated GPU, your 3570k's Intel IGP is perfectly sufficient. Its really strange
m
0
l
a c 76 U Graphics card
February 23, 2013 4:21:41 AM

Yea... I have to ask... Why? Lol. I'd much rather play at 1080p on a 660Ti than at 1024x768 on a 7970. I don't think it's worth the money. No one buys a 7970 to run that res, which is why there are no benchmarks.

I've seen people say over 100 FPS on 1280x1024 but that's just in forums so... couldn't tell you.

Maybe someone with one will crank their res down and do a test run for you.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 23, 2013 4:24:24 AM

unksol said:
Yea... I have to ask... Why? Lol. I'd much rather play at 1080p on a 660Ti than at 1024x768 on a 7970. I don't think it's worth the money. No one buys a 7970 to run that res, which is why there are no benchmarks.

I've seen people say over 100 FPS on 1280x1024 but that's just in forums so... couldn't tell you.

Maybe someone with one will crank their res down and do a test run for you.

I cranked my monitor up to 1080p and couldn't even see a difference. If I get better fps while using 720p, and it's still HD, I might as well stay at 1024x768.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 23, 2013 4:28:40 AM

pyr0_m4n said:
I cranked my monitor up to 1080p and couldn't even see a difference. If I get better fps while using 720p, and it's still HD, I might as well stay at 1024x768.

Wait, wait. Are you saying you're running 1024x768 ON PURPOSE, even though your monitor can do higher!!???
m
0
l
February 23, 2013 4:30:28 AM

What is the native resolution on your monitor?
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 23, 2013 4:31:29 AM

Every comparison I've seen is the 7990 beats the 690 in most games and is less the half the cost of the 690. The 7970 isn't much slower and should easily beat the 660ti. I would look at benchmarks comparing different games with these cards. I love both makes but I'm sure my next card will be an ATI due to price/performance reasons
m
0
l
a c 76 U Graphics card
February 23, 2013 4:35:15 AM

pyr0_m4n said:
I cranked my monitor up to 1080p and couldn't even see a difference. If I get better fps while using 720p, and it's still HD, I might as well stay at 1024x768.


1024x768 isn't HD. Although "HD" is an overused term anyway. if your monitor is native 1080p running it lower would just look awful never mind the pixelation, you can't really "see" more than 60FPS and unless you have a 120Hz monitor it can't even display it... If it's native 1024x768 is really suggest a new monitor before a gpu.

I don't get it or your setting your monitor wrong or something, but they are your eyes. yes a 7970 is better, but no there is no point at that res.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 23, 2013 4:39:56 AM

I cranked my monitor up to 1080p and couldn't even see a difference. If I get better fps while using 720p, and it's still HD, I might as well stay at 1024x768. said:
I cranked my monitor up to 1080p and couldn't even see a difference. If I get better fps while using 720p, and it's still HD, I might as well stay at 1024x768.


You sounds like an nVidia FANBOY or simply Crazy :pt1cable: 
m
0
l
February 23, 2013 4:49:39 AM

Let's take this a step further.... It all matters. Comparing the 7970 to the 660ti is a joke. The 7870xt beats the 660ti in most things, so of course the 7950 and 7970 will crush the 660ti

That aside, comparing 1440p to even 1080p is a poor comparison. I will also say that the 7970 will push more than 60fps on 1440p. Why do I say that? Because my 7870xt is pushing mid 50s on ultra settings on 1440p. So, more than likely, the 7970 is going to push 70-80fps at 1440p (not like it matters though, see below).

At 1080p my 7870xt (not yet overclocked) pushes mid 80s at 1080p on ultra. So it's reasonable to think that 7970 is going to push 110-130s at 1080p. The 660ti is going to be around the same as my card.

So, on to the next point. While what monitor you have matters, your FPS may not. The reason I say this, is unless you're using one of the new 120Hz (or 144Hz Asus) monitors, anything over 60Hz is wasted. So, what's it matter if you get 100 or 400 (tearing.... that's the only matter in this regard). If you're getting a 1440p monitor, you're getting a 60Hz monitor (yamakasi, overlord aside). So, having a solid 60fps is as good as you could hope for.

In the end, the 7970 will be a huge upgrade to the 660ti, but I would consider getting a second 660ti and running SLI. 660ti SLI will be greater than the 7970, with the exception of micro-stuttering and power consumption.

m
0
l
a c 76 U Graphics card
February 23, 2013 4:55:59 AM

spp85 said:
You sounds like an nVidia FANBOY or simply Crazy :pt1cable: 


That's uncalled for. He's looking to get an AMD card. "nvidia fanboy" had nothing to do with this. Maybe he doesn't understand native resolutions. Maybe somethings set wrong. Maybe he just LIKES it that way. He hadn't even answered our questions about the monitor yet.

He can play however he wants. Want to.be helpful and explain how he can.have a better experience or find the problem? Go for it. Name calling is not helpful.

Back to the subject
m
0
l
February 23, 2013 4:58:00 AM

spp85 said:
No Radeon HD 7970 Ghz edition is faster than GTX680 in most benchmarks especially GPGPU related applications. The problems u faces is due to being using such a low resolution like 1024 x 768 . How do u play games on that low resolution?? For playing games at 1024 x 768 u don't need a dedicated GPU, your 3570k's Intel IGP is perfectly sufficient. Its really strange


Put your money where your mouth is, or in this case your text.
Give me benchmarks, right now, that no 7970 GHz edition is better than a 680.
I dare you to, I know you won't find legit ones.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 23, 2013 5:12:20 AM

unksol said:
That's uncalled for. He's looking to get an AMD card. "nvidia fanboy" had nothing to do with this. Maybe he doesn't understand native resolutions. Maybe somethings set wrong. Maybe he just LIKES it that way. He hadn't even answered our questions about the monitor yet.

He can play however he wants. Want to.be helpful and explain how he can.have a better experience or find the problem? Go for it. Name calling is not helpful.

Back to the subject

My PC can't figure out what my monitors native resolution is. It may have something to do with the fact I'm using a TV. It defaults to 1024x768 since 1080i is the max it can display. It can't do full 1080p.
m
0
l
a c 76 U Graphics card
February 23, 2013 5:13:30 AM

Kiowa789 said:
Put your money where your mouth is, or in this case your text.
Give me benchmarks, right now, that no 7970 GHz edition is better than a 680.
I dare you to, I know you won't find legit ones.


The OP was asking about the 660Ti vs 7970. If you read it in context you can tell he's actually saying

No[.the] Radeon HD 7970 Ghz edition is faster than[the] GTX680 in most benchmarks[so it's much faster than the 660Ti]

He really just missed a period and it reads the wrong way if you take the first sentence on it's own.
m
0
l
a c 76 U Graphics card
February 23, 2013 5:17:51 AM

pyr0_m4n said:
My PC can't figure out what my monitors native resolution is. It may have something to do with the fact I'm using a TV. It defaults to 1024x768 since 1080i is the max it can display. It can't do full 1080p.


this is probably why you can't see a difference. Some early "HD" TVs could only "handle" HD content but weren't actually HD resolution. TVs dont do as well as monitors either. Do you know the make/model? We can find out what it's actually doing
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 23, 2013 5:19:14 AM

unksol said:
this is probably why you can't see a difference. Some early "HD" TVs could only "handle" HD content but weren't actually HD resolution. TVs dont do as well as monitors either. Do you know the make/model? A can find out what it's actually doing

Toshiba 32hlc56. It's also worth noting I'm going through a VGA port. There is an HDMI port, but there's a whole separate issue with that right now so I'd rather not get into that.
m
0
l
February 23, 2013 5:21:33 AM

unksol said:
The OP was asking about the 660Ti vs 7970. If you read it in context you can tell he's actually saying

No[.the] Radeon HD 7970 Ghz edition is faster than[the] GTX680 in most benchmarks[so it's much faster than the 660Ti]

He really just missed a period and it reads the wrong way if you take the first sentence on it's own.

Yes I know, the answer is really the 7970, what angers me is that he stated that overall the 680 wins over the 7970 Ghz, which is simply not true.
The fact that he brought up another Nvidia card, which isn't the one involved, he brought up an unrelated card, and says otherwise on the performance of the card we are supposed to me talking about in the first place, the 7970 Ghz is a clear winner of the 680, and this is to the Op

I'd say grab a 7970, good card, better than a 660 ti, and a really good bang for your buck card as well, Resolution does play a major role in Graphics card performance, but I'm not going to lecture about it because others already have in this thread.
I hope you make the choice you want to, if not, well there's always next time.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 23, 2013 5:27:02 AM

nitrium said:
Wait, wait. Are you saying you're running 1024x768 ON PURPOSE, even though your monitor can do higher!!???

I take that back. It wasn't running in true 1080p. I had it at 1280x1024, but that resolution only works while in a game. If I'm at the desktop, it shows up weird.
m
0
l
a c 76 U Graphics card
February 23, 2013 5:29:47 AM

Kiowa789 said:
Yes I know, the answer is really the 7970, what angers me is that he stated that overall the 680 wins over the 7970 Ghz, which is simply not true.
The fact that he brought up another Nvidia card, which isn't the one involved, he brought up an unrelated card, and says otherwise on the performance of the card we are supposed to me talking about in the first place, the 7970 Ghz is a clear winner of the 680, and this is to the Op


My point was he was actually saying the 7970 beats the 680. He just types fast and left out a period so the no looks like it goes with the sentence when that's not what he was saying. Easy to misunderstand. But this is off topic.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 23, 2013 5:31:43 AM

1280x1024. If I can display that, shouldn't I be able to display 1080P?
m
0
l
a c 76 U Graphics card
February 23, 2013 5:35:02 AM

pyr0_m4n said:
Toshiba 32hlc56. It's also worth noting I'm going through a VGA port. There is an HDMI port, but there's a whole separate issue with that right now so I'd rather not get into that.


Native resolution is 1366 x 768. So is you run 1920x1080 you won't see an improvement. It might actually look worse. You can set that res. But the pixels aren't physically there to display it properly. If your up close it will also look really pixelated.

I think what would improve your experience thr most is a decent 1080p monitor. The 660Ti can run BF3 at that res already. Then evaluate if you need a.better GPU. Maybe borrow a friends if you want to try it out?
m
0
l
February 23, 2013 5:41:08 AM

spp85 said:
No Radeon HD 7970 Ghz edition is faster than GTX680 in most benchmarks especially GPGPU related applications. The problems u faces is due to being using such a low resolution like 1024 x 768 . How do u play games on that low resolution?? For playing games at 1024 x 768 u don't need a dedicated GPU, your 3570k's Intel IGP is perfectly sufficient. Its really strange


lol.






And 7970 GHz is even better at higher resolutions.
Nice try, nvidia troll.
m
0
l
a c 76 U Graphics card
February 23, 2013 6:01:46 AM

rmpumper said:
lol.

And 7970 GHz is even better at higher resolutions.
Nice try, nvidia troll.


Ok. Last time I'll try. He was clearly saying

"No. 7970 is better than the 680."

Read the question. Read his answer. He just missed the period. He was agreeing with all of us. This does not address the OPs issue so lets drop the friendly fire lol

OPs question
" In the case of BF3, using the 660ti and 7970 at the same resolution, there was a 20fps difference with the 660ti ahead. Is that right?"

His answer
"No. The 7970 is even faster than the 680"
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 23, 2013 6:58:02 AM

Two problems. One, you are using a vga cable and not the HDMI.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Graphics_Array

As you can see vga gives a crappy high resolution. You need to go with the HDMI.

Second, the 7970 is only a moderate step up from a 660ti. I'd recommend simply getting a second 660ti. Much cheaper than the 7970 and it will give you a good 50% above a 7970, in fact, dual 660ti's will max out a 1920X1080 display in anything.
m
0
l
a c 76 U Graphics card
February 23, 2013 7:06:29 AM

babernet_1 said:
Two problems. One, you are using a vga cable and not the HDMI.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Graphics_Array

As you can see vga gives a crappy high resolution. You need to go with the HDMI.

Second, the 7970 is only a moderate step up from a 660ti. I'd recommend simply getting a second 660ti. Much cheaper than the 7970 and it will give you a good 50% above a 7970, in fact, dual 660ti's will max out a 1920X1080 display in anything.


VGA is fine at 1080p. It's not AS good but it's not BAD. But he's not at a high res. We also don't know if he has.an SLI board. And the GPU is not the issue. He's getting 70FPS.

The experience/quality problem here is that he is using an old 32 inch 1366x768 TV that he though.could do 1080p but it just didn't look any better. Also probably a poor refresh rate,.and not running it at it's native res.

His GPU is plenty for his TV. If he wants a better.experience then he needs a new monitor, which the 660Ti can already handle. After that he can worry about FPS but honestly I don't think he'd.be worried.about it with how much better a proper monitor would look.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 23, 2013 8:25:28 AM

unksol said:
VGA is fine at 1080p. It's not AS good but it's not BAD. But he's not at a high res. We also don't know if he has.an SLI board. And the GPU is not the issue. He's getting 70FPS.

The experience/quality problem here is that he is using an old 32 inch 1366x768 TV that he though.could do 1080p but it just didn't look any better. Also probably a poor refresh rate,.and not running it at it's native res.

His GPU is plenty for his TV. If he wants a better.experience then he needs a new monitor, which the 660Ti can already handle. After that he can worry about FPS but honestly I don't think he'd.be worried.about it with how much better a proper monitor would look.


By some odd coincidence, I just replaced a vga cable on a large monitor in 1920 X 1080 resolution with a DVI cable. Though the resolution was unchanged, the colors were better and the picture was sharper. There is a difference. Though, of course, he needs a monitor. I'd recommend a 1920 by 1200, the extra vertical size is really nice, am enjoying it now.
m
0
l
a c 76 U Graphics card
February 23, 2013 8:42:11 AM

babernet_1 said:
By some odd coincidence, I just replaced a vga cable on a large monitor in 1920 X 1080 resolution with a DVI cable. Though the resolution was unchanged, the colors were better and the picture was sharper. There is a difference. Though, of course, he needs a monitor. I'd recommend a 1920 by 1200, the extra vertical size is really nice, am enjoying it now.


The digital signal definitely helps with sharpness. I kinda wonder if the color settings might have been different between the inputs but maybe it helps with that too. love my 1920x1200 (3 years old)but unfortunately they are very expensive now (stupid "HD" TVs)
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 23, 2013 8:45:39 AM

babernet_1 said:
Second, the 7970 is only a moderate step up from a 660ti. I'd recommend simply getting a second 660ti. Much cheaper than the 7970 and it will give you a good 50% above a 7970, in fact, dual 660ti's will max out a 1920X1080 display in anything.


+1

This should be the 1st answer of this post.
7970 is faster than 660ti, but the difference is not much to justify the money you will spend in order to get one.
Getting a second 660ti is probably, by far the best option.
Although I would say 660ti is a very good GPU from this generation and a real upgrade (without diminishing returns) it would be from maxwell.
m
0
l
February 23, 2013 8:49:22 AM

Memnarchon said:
+1

This should be the 1st answer of this post.
7970 is faster than 660ti, but the difference is not much to justify the money you will spend in order to get one.
Getting a second 660ti is probably, by far the best option.
Although I would say 660ti is a very good GPU from this generation and a real upgrade (without diminishing returns) it would be from maxwell.


While I believe I was the first to suggest a second 660ti as an upgrade instead of the 7970, someone else pointed out that it might not be an option. Another thing to consider here, is OP can probably sell his 660ti to make up for some of the cost of the 7970, should he not be able to SLI (PSU/MOBO limitations), or lack of desire to SLI due to the issues inherent to it.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 23, 2013 9:00:02 AM

eyeage said:
While I believe I was the first to suggest a second 660ti as an upgrade instead of the 7970, someone else pointed out that it might not be an option. Another thing to consider here, is OP can probably sell his 660ti to make up for some of the cost of the 7970, should he not be able to SLI (PSU/MOBO limitations), or lack of desire to SLI due to the issues inherent to it.

Well your post was around in the middle of this conversation and not the 1st :p .
Also even if he sell his 660ti (lets say the new has a price of $280 at least, he could sell it for $200) he also needs an other $185 in order to reach the cheapest 7970 at the moment we speak at newegg. An other $185 for 21-32% performance (depends on nonGE to GE).


It is not worthy to do such a small upgrade for so much money.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 23, 2013 9:18:44 AM

unksol said:
The OP was asking about the 660Ti vs 7970. If you read it in context you can tell he's actually saying

No[.the] Radeon HD 7970 Ghz edition is faster than[the] GTX680 in most benchmarks[so it's much faster than the 660Ti]

He really just missed a period and it reads the wrong way if you take the first sentence on it's own.




You are right, thanks for pointing out to public and I made the corrections there :love: 
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 23, 2013 9:20:20 AM

Ok. Last time I'll try. He was clearly saying

"No. 7970 is better than the 680."

Read the question. Read his answer. He just missed the period. He was agreeing with all of us. This does not address the OPs issue so lets drop the friendly fire lol

OPs question
" In the case of BF3, using the 660ti and 7970 at the same resolution, there was a 20fps difference with the 660ti ahead. Is that right?"

His answer
"No. The 7970 is even faster than the 680" said:
Ok. Last time I'll try. He was clearly saying

"No. 7970 is better than the 680."

Read the question. Read his answer. He just missed the period. He was agreeing with all of us. This does not address the OPs issue so lets drop the friendly fire lol

OPs question
" In the case of BF3, using the 660ti and 7970 at the same resolution, there was a 20fps difference with the 660ti ahead. Is that right?"

His answer
"No. The 7970 is even faster than the 680"



You are right, thanks for pointing out to public and I made the corrections there :love: 
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 23, 2013 4:05:42 PM

Memnarchon said:
Well your post was around in the middle of this conversation and not the 1st :p .
Also even if he sell his 660ti (lets say the new has a price of $280 at least, he could sell it for $200) he also needs an other $185 in order to reach the cheapest 7970 at the moment we speak at newegg. An other $185 for 21-32% performance (depends on nonGE to GE).
http://tpucdn.com/reviews/VTX3D/Radeon_HD_7870_XT_Black/images/perfrel_1920.gif

It is not worthy to do such a small upgrade for so much money.

My 660ti is $300 new. Even if I got $200 for it, that brings the price down from $420 to $220. The 7970 comes with crysis 3 and bioshock infinite (two games I was planning to get.) Thats another $120 credit. In actuality, I would be paying about $100 for this card.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 23, 2013 4:19:45 PM

Ridiculous the 7970>all 600 series cards!
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 23, 2013 4:21:59 PM

spp85 said:
You are right, thanks for pointing out to public and I made the corrections there :love: 

I hope you learned the valuable lesson of using punctuation. The entire meaning of your post was lost, just by the omission of a simple period. Sure writing phone txt style is super fast, but if you don't want to confuse your readers, proper sentence structure is highly useful.
m
0
l
a c 76 U Graphics card
February 23, 2013 4:45:00 PM

nitrium said:
I hope you learned the valuable lesson of using punctuation. The entire meaning of your post was lost, just by the omission of a simple period. Sure writing phone txt style is super fast, but if you don't want to confuse your readers, proper sentence structure is highly useful.


Context is still key. Anyone who read the question and answer would know exactly what he meant.... And phones and auto correct don't play nice. It's a forum. It happens
m
0
l
a c 76 U Graphics card
February 23, 2013 4:48:51 PM

pyr0_m4n said:
My 660ti is $300 new. Even if I got $200 for it, that brings the price down from $420 to $220. The 7970 comes with crysis 3 and bioshock infinite (two games I was planning to get.) Thats another $120 credit. In actuality, I would be paying about $100 for this card.


you can get 7970s cheaper than that. And if you want those games you can definitely find the value. But again. I would not until you upgrade your monitor. The 660Ti can.drive 1080p and I really think you'd love the improvement. The FPS improvement of a 7970 won't even be noticeable with your current TV
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 23, 2013 5:14:43 PM

pyr0_m4n said:
My 660ti is $300 new. Even if I got $200 for it, that brings the price down from $420 to $220. The 7970 comes with crysis 3 and bioshock infinite (two games I was planning to get.) Thats another $120 credit. In actuality, I would be paying about $100 for this card.

Although it seems nice, I would never recommend such upgrade. The 7870XT and the 660TI are the last GPUs you can buy before starting to pay a lot of money for a little boost.
On the other hand such an upgrade wouldn't hurt anyone since you will pay only $100 (ofc this depends on your wallet).

What I am trying to say is that if you don't have problem paying $100 for a 21-31% upgrade go for it. If you think that $100 is too much, then don't.
m
0
l
!