GTX 660 2GB Superclocked or GTX 670 2GB FTW

Hi Guys,

I only need about $200 more dollars, then I will have enough to build my gaming pc.

When looking up some final parts, I realised that the GTX 670 2GB is about $200 more than the 660 2GB but it looks like the 660 is faster/better. Is this true?

GTX 660 2GB

(http://www.pccasegear.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=21538)

GTX 670 2GB

(http://www.pccasegear.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=193_1387&products_id=20330)

Can't wait to buy the parts but I have a lot of tests coming up. I might wait a few months/weeks to buy it.

Thanks,

GamerGal13579

evryone has been sayom g tp get the 7870 XT, and from that site i saw it for $269 *yes i am australian as well)

No the 660 is not better, what made you think that?

Nope, the 660 is in no way better. Not even close.

Of those choices, get the 670.

Should I go for the 660 Ti instead of the 670?

(http://www.pccasegear.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=193_1428&products_id=21259)

It's more than the 660 and less than the 670?

Should I go with it for now? or go straight for the higher up?

And yeah, everything in Australia cost heaps. That's just the way it is. :l

Get the GTX 670 as it has built in physX and just is a great card but I hope you can get it for cheaper than the prices you linked.  Honestly though it looks like in your country things are expensive and buying one GTX 660 and another later might be a better idea though.  I got a GTX 670 for $289 on Boxing Day in Canada but looks like you won't get anything close to that.

DeViLzzz

cheapest one is $419 *we dont have added tax on prices, so apart from shipping, thats the final price.

On average, items will appear to be twice the price in Aussie dollars VS american, so if i see something less then double the price, i consider it good. Ie new games in the USA fo for $49US (plus tax), i can get them for $79 (nothing added on top). directly comparing dollars would seem unfair as our dollar is worth slightly more then US dollar, but i am used to these differences. i bought my GF's GTX 275 for $300 3 years ago, this 7870 XT is a lot faster and would set me back $269

I don't mind spending the money for the 670 if it is definitely better. :D

The 7950 is literally on par with a 670 and costs the same as the 660ti.  Plus it comes with crysis 3 and bioshock infinite for free. Only reason to not go for it is you have some sort of discrimination towards AMD video cards :D

The 7950 is literally on par with a 670 and costs the same as the 660ti.  Plus it comes with crysis 3 and bioshock infinite for free. Only reason to not go for it is you have some sort of discrimination towards AMD video cards :D

blaznwiipspman1

Steer clear of the 660. The 660ti is a different beast however.lhughey

[QUOTE="lhughey"]Steer clear of the 660. The 660ti is a different beast however.kraken2109

I was thinking the same.  A 660 is slightly faster than a GTX 570 and about 20% slower than a 7950.  $220-230 is about right for a card like that.  

So should I go for the 670 or the 7950?

I set out to get an Nvidia card?

Is there any reason to get the 7950 instead?

So should I go for the 670 or the 7950?

I set out to get an Nvidia card?

Is there any reason to get the 7950 instead?

GamerGal13579

So should I go for the 670 or the 7950?

I set out to get an Nvidia card?

Is there any reason to get the 7950 instead?

GamerGal13579

Well the 7950 is quite a bit cheaper.

[QUOTE="GamerGal13579"]

So should I go for the 670 or the 7950?

I set out to get an Nvidia card?

Is there any reason to get the 7950 instead?

Postmortem123

Well the 7950 is quite a bit cheaper.

[QUOTE="Postmortem123"]

[QUOTE="GamerGal13579"]

So should I go for the 670 or the 7950?

I set out to get an Nvidia card?

Is there any reason to get the 7950 instead?

evildead6789

Well the 7950 is quite a bit cheaper.

[QUOTE="evildead6789"][QUOTE="Postmortem123"]

Well the 7950 is quite a bit cheaper.

Same_Jeans_On

@evildead6789, I'm not sure the 8780 xt has more overclocking headroom mate. I had a 7950 clocked to 1200Mhz and I don't think you could get a 7870 xt that could out perform that.

@evildead6789, I'm not sure the 8780 xt has more overclocking headroom mate. I had a 7950 clocked to 1200Mhz and I don't think you could get a 7870 xt that could out perform that.

Postmortem123

http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1651/pg4/sapphire-hd-7870-xt-with-boost-tahiti-le-graphics-card-review-3dmark-2011.html

It's normal it can overclock higher since it has a higher tdp and it has less shader processors.

The hd 7950 can still be faster though, even at lower clock speeds it still has more shaders,

Like i said, the difference is small though, and the hd 7950 costs a lot more, on the other hand it uses less power.

I haven't done the math, but i think it's pretty hard to get that money back with 10W from the electricity bill. Maybe after a couple of years...

If you don't want to trifire or quad fire, i really can't see a reason why you would spend the extra money, you might as well buy a hd 7970 with boost then, that's at least worth it.

There's a reason this card get's awards on every site that reviews them.

[QUOTE="Postmortem123"]

@evildead6789, I'm not sure the 8780 xt has more overclocking headroom mate. I had a 7950 clocked to 1200Mhz and I don't think you could get a 7870 xt that could out perform that.

evildead6789

http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1651/pg4/sapphire-hd-7870-xt-with-boost-tahiti-le-graphics-card-review-3dmark-2011.html

It's normal it can overclock higher since it has a higher tdp and it has less shader processors.

The hd 7950 can still be faster though, even at lower clock speeds it still has more shaders,

Like i said, the difference is small though, and the hd 7950 costs a lot more, on the other hand it uses less power.

I haven't done the math, but i think it's pretty hard to get that money back with 10W from the electricity bill. Maybe after a couple of years...

If you don't want to trifire or quad fire, i really can't see a reason why you would spend the extra money, you might as well buy a hd 7970 with boost then, that's at least worth it.

There's a reason this card get's awards on every site that reviews them.

Well the 7950 costs a lot more where you live, in other places there isn't much difference. What have you got yours clocked to?

I imagine 1285Mhz is a golden chip.

GTX 670 is obviously beefier. More CUDA cores = the better.crippledmachine

So the 670? I don't mind paying the extra money if it is worth it. 

And could you tone down the tech speak a little guys? This is my first built computer. I don't exactly know all of these specs etc.

Just a plain and simple one or the other is better would do.

(I don't plan to overclock much if any)

Thanks,

GamerGal13579

GTX 670 is obviously beefier. More CUDA cores = the better.crippledmachine

This is only true when comparing GPUs of the same architectural design and generation.  I felt the need to clarify this because I saw someone trying to compare Kepler core counts to Fermi cards earlier on this board.  

Since you can't decide on what to get just get a 7950.  It is better than any of the cards you mentioned and maxes out every game out now including crysis 3.  Its also cheap compared to the over priced nvidia cards. Unless its a 670 or 680 I wouldn't go nvvidia and even then only the 680 or 690 make sense when you compare price. But if you are only trying to spend 300 or less stay away from nvidia IMO.  Just makes more sense if you are trying to get bang for your buck to go red at that price range. At the super high is were nvidia has value. 

[QUOTE="crippledmachine"]GTX 670 is obviously beefier. More CUDA cores = the better.GamerGal13579

So the 670? I don't mind paying the extra money if it is worth it. 

And could you tone down the tech speak a little guys? This is my first built computer. I don't exactly know all of these specs etc.

Just a plain and simple one or the other is better would do.

(I don't plan to overclock much if any)

Thanks,

GamerGal13579

[QUOTE="GamerGal13579"]

[QUOTE="crippledmachine"]GTX 670 is obviously beefier. More CUDA cores = the better.evildead6789

So the 670? I don't mind paying the extra money if it is worth it. 

And could you tone down the tech speak a little guys? This is my first built computer. I don't exactly know all of these specs etc.

Just a plain and simple one or the other is better would do.

(I don't plan to overclock much if any)

Thanks,

GamerGal13579

[QUOTE="evildead6789"][QUOTE="GamerGal13579"]

So the 670? I don't mind paying the extra money if it is worth it. 

And could you tone down the tech speak a little guys? This is my first built computer. I don't exactly know all of these specs etc.

Just a plain and simple one or the other is better would do.

(I don't plan to overclock much if any)

Thanks,

GamerGal13579

mitu123

[QUOTE="mitu123"][QUOTE="evildead6789"] A gtx 670 costs a lot more and doesn't give you that much more performance Performance/dollar is the highest with a hd 7870 xt If you want nvidia, performance/dollar is the highest with the 660ti.evildead6789

There is a certain point where the level of performance just isn't good enough, no matter how cheap it is.  

[QUOTE="mitu123"][QUOTE="evildead6789"] A gtx 670 costs a lot more and doesn't give you that much more performance Performance/dollar is the highest with a hd 7870 xt If you want nvidia, performance/dollar is the highest with the 660ti.evildead6789

[QUOTE="evildead6789"][QUOTE="mitu123"] Overclock a 670 and you can get around 680 performance, lol.mitu123

There is a certain point where the level of performance just isn't good enough, no matter how cheap it is.  

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="evildead6789"] Apparently you don't know what performance/dollar means.evildead6789

There is a certain point where the level of performance just isn't good enough, no matter how cheap it is.  

LOL.  What I said was not intended to be a shot at the 660 Ti.  Of course you would take it that way.  The fact is that different people have different requirements for how much performance they are looking to buy.  If a person absolutely wants and needs 60+ FPS in a specific game, and they need to spend $400 to get it, they will do it.  Telling them that a card that's $100 less will give them 52 fps and is therefore a better value isn't getting them what they want.  Performance per dollar is only worth something when the card hits the user's performance targets.  

BTW, when I bought my particular version of 560 Ti (Gigabyte SOC- 2 years ago), it was the best performer for the dollar under $300, being a heavily factory OC'd version that is on par with a stock 570/6970 in most games.  It has been a good investment, and is doing the job for me for the time being.  That doesn't mean that I would've told someone not to buy a GTX 580, because my card provides better performance for the dollar.  In fact, if you look at the "performance per dollar" charts that show up in many reviews, you'll see that the cheapest GPUs are often near the top.  Does that make them smarter choices?  Of course not.  Not if you have the money to spend.  

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7770/28.html

[QUOTE="GamerGal13579"]

[QUOTE="crippledmachine"]GTX 670 is obviously beefier. More CUDA cores = the better.evildead6789

So the 670? I don't mind paying the extra money if it is worth it. 

And could you tone down the tech speak a little guys? This is my first built computer. I don't exactly know all of these specs etc.

Just a plain and simple one or the other is better would do.

(I don't plan to overclock much if any)

Thanks,

GamerGal13579

I have to disagree. If you want performance/dollar the 660ti is not the best option for nvidia.  If I for some reason absolutely had to go nvidia I would go with a 670. The performance you get actually makes sense for the price you pay.  I just can't recommended anyone get a 660ti for 300. If it was 250 then sure but for 300 the AMD option vastly superior especially if you over clock. You can get a 7950 for 300 and even with a light overclock you are outperforming a 670. If you go ham you could even get near a 680. All for 300 vs a 660ti that overclocks decently but with no where the  ceiling of the 7950 and only has 192bit bus on the memory which means if you go past 1080p you will see significantly lower performance.  7950 has 3GB of RAM at 384bit. Faster RAM, faster clock speed, more memory, higher OC potential. Its just the superior card.  The fact that you can get a 7950 for the same price rules out the 660ti IMO.  You have to jump up to the 670 to see value with nvidia. At the lower levels AMD has better options IMO. 

[QUOTE="mitu123"][QUOTE="evildead6789"] A gtx 670 costs a lot more and doesn't give you that much more performance Performance/dollar is the highest with a hd 7870 xt If you want nvidia, performance/dollar is the highest with the 660ti.evildead6789

My GTX 670 Signature 2 says it knows what performance/dollar means.

[QUOTE="evildead6789"][QUOTE="mitu123"]

 

There is a certain point where the level of performance just isn't good enough, no matter how cheap it is.  

hartsickdiscipl

LOL.  What I said was not intended to be a shot at the 660 Ti.  Of course you would take it that way.  The fact is that different people have different requirements for how much performance they are looking to buy.  If a person absolutely wants and needs 60+ FPS in a specific game, and they need to spend $400 to get it, they will do it.  Telling them that a card that's $100 less will give them 52 fps and is therefore a better value isn't getting them what they want.  Performance per dollar is only worth something when the card hits the user's performance targets.  

BTW, when I bought my particular version of 560 Ti (Gigabyte SOC- 2 years ago), it was the best performer for the dollar under $300, being a heavily factory OC'd version that is on par with a stock 570/6970 in most games.  It has been a good investment, and is doing the job for me for the time being.  That doesn't mean that I would've told someone not to buy a GTX 580, because my card provides better performance for the dollar.  In fact, if you look at the "performance per dollar" charts that show up in many reviews, you'll see that the cheapest GPUs are often near the top.  Does that make them smarter choices?  Of course not.  Not if you have the money to spend.  

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7770/28.html

Exactly.  Well said.  And thank you.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="evildead6789"] Says the guy with a crappy gtx 560 ti...Elann2008

LOL.  What I said was not intended to be a shot at the 660 Ti.  Of course you would take it that way.  The fact is that different people have different requirements for how much performance they are looking to buy.  If a person absolutely wants and needs 60+ FPS in a specific game, and they need to spend $400 to get it, they will do it.  Telling them that a card that's $100 less will give them 52 fps and is therefore a better value isn't getting them what they want.  Performance per dollar is only worth something when the card hits the user's performance targets.  

BTW, when I bought my particular version of 560 Ti (Gigabyte SOC- 2 years ago), it was the best performer for the dollar under $300, being a heavily factory OC'd version that is on par with a stock 570/6970 in most games.  It has been a good investment, and is doing the job for me for the time being.  That doesn't mean that I would've told someone not to buy a GTX 580, because my card provides better performance for the dollar.  In fact, if you look at the "performance per dollar" charts that show up in many reviews, you'll see that the cheapest GPUs are often near the top.  Does that make them smarter choices?  Of course not.  Not if you have the money to spend.  

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7770/28.html

Exactly.  Well said.  And thank you.

Very well said, but I have to disagree.  You're giving the average performance per dollar from the site techpowerup but you seem to have completely forgotten that the op isn't looking in this price range. He was talking about a gtx 670 and gtx 660. Which are like double or triple the price of a hd 7770.

You're giving the example of someone wanting 60 fps and instead only getting 52 fps but he never asked that. He's comparing a gtx 660 with a gtx 670 and is wondering if the gtx 660 isn't faster (which is totally not the case)

He also said he doesn't know a lot about this stuff, so i highly doubt he's thinking about 60 fps+ framerates, he just wants a good gaming experience but he has to save up another 200$ if he wants to buy that gtx 670.If you read what he says you can clearly understand he wants the fastest card possible for this budget. 

If we give him advice, i think it's only fair we explain as much as we can. A gtx 670 maybe a very nice card, but it's hard to defend it's price if you look at the other options.

Tomshardware shows this very nicely in their monthy article 'best graphics cards for the money'

You can see it when you read any review of the hd 7870 xt. The price is very sharp, the gtx 670 maybe a little bit faster but it's hard to defend like an extra 150-200$ for only a few fps more, In some cases the gtx 670 is even slower than the hd 7870 xt. If you off course really want to spend that kind of money, the gtx 670 is faster, but so are 4 geforce titans in sli, they cost 4000$, no sane person with a normal budget will buy it.

That doesn't mean when you buy the gtx 670 that your crazy, but you're paying top dollar for that 5 or 10 fps extra in some games.

And like i said , if you really want nvidia , the 660 ti seems a much better deal (for the op, a gtx660 and a gtx 660 ti are not the same, the gtx 660ti is considerably faster)

Stupid discussion is stupid. A GTX 670 is way better than a 7870, so what if 7870 has better price/performance? Lower tier product having better price/performance? Thats not news at all.

You can see it when you read any review of the hd 7870 xt. The price is very sharp, the gtx 670 maybe a little bit faster but it's hard to defend like an extra 150-200$ for only a few fps more, In some cases the gtx 670 is even slower than the hd 7870 xt. If you off course really want to spend that kind of money, the gtx 670 is faster, but so are 4 geforce titans in sli, they cost 4000$, no sane person with a normal budget will buy it.

That doesn't mean when you buy the gtx 670 that your crazy, but you're paying top dollar for that 5 or 10 fps extra in some games.

evildead6789

[QUOTE="evildead6789"]

You can see it when you read any review of the hd 7870 xt. The price is very sharp, the gtx 670 maybe a little bit faster but it's hard to defend like an extra 150-200$ for only a few fps more, In some cases the gtx 670 is even slower than the hd 7870 xt. If you off course really want to spend that kind of money, the gtx 670 is faster, but so are 4 geforce titans in sli, they cost 4000$, no sane person with a normal budget will buy it.

That doesn't mean when you buy the gtx 670 that your crazy, but you're paying top dollar for that 5 or 10 fps extra in some games.

Gambler_3

So it's not a beefed up 7870, it's a 7950 with 10 percent of his shaders processors disables and then beefed up, the 7870 xt has a higer tdp of a hd 7950.

Look at the benchmarks and the reviews before you spout your idiot opinions.

http://www.techradar.com/reviews/pc-mac/pc-components/graphics-cards/sapphire-radeon-hd-7870-xt-1130535/review

A 7870 xt is not a 7870, it's not like some magical thing, it's the same chip as in a hd 7950, only with some shader processors disabled and with higher clock rate The 7870 uses the pitcairn chip, the 7870 xt a tahiti chip, which is used in the 7970 and a 7950.

So it's not a beefed up 7870, it's a 7950 with 10 percent of his shaders processors disables and then beefed up, the 7870 xt has a higer tdp of a hd 7950.

Look at the benchmarks and the reviews before you spout your idiot opinions.

http://www.techradar.com/reviews/pc-mac/pc-components/graphics-cards/sapphire-radeon-hd-7870-xt-1130535/review

evildead6789

Link.

Just slighly better than regular OC versions of the 7870 and no match for "boost" versions of other cards. :lol:

There is a pretty obvious gulf between the 7870XT and high end cards, stop kidding yourself.

[QUOTE="evildead6789"]

A 7870 xt is not a 7870, it's not like some magical thing, it's the same chip as in a hd 7950, only with some shader processors disabled and with higher clock rate The 7870 uses the pitcairn chip, the 7870 xt a tahiti chip, which is used in the 7970 and a 7950.

So it's not a beefed up 7870, it's a 7950 with 10 percent of his shaders processors disables and then beefed up, the 7870 xt has a higer tdp of a hd 7950.

Look at the benchmarks and the reviews before you spout your idiot opinions.

http://www.techradar.com/reviews/pc-mac/pc-components/graphics-cards/sapphire-radeon-hd-7870-xt-1130535/review

Gambler_3

Link.

There is a pretty obvious gulf between the 7870XT and high end cards, stop kidding yourself.

It's amazing how you're able to interpret a review completely wrong. The 7870 from powercolor is also based on the tahiti le chip.

The other 7870 is a normal hd 7870 chip but it's an oc edition. The 7950 with boost from his is also an oc edtion.  that's not a normal hd 7950. It outperforms the reference hd 7970 ghz edition. Kinda weird for chip that's higher ranked , isn't it.

The 7870 xt and powercolor version are not oc editions.

If you would have read the the conclusion of the article,  you wouldn't have made such a fool of yourself again. They're clearly saying the 7870 xt is a superior chip to the 7870 and there might be some confusion because of the fact that it comes at stock clock out of the box while a lot of other 7870's on a custom pcb come as oc editions, factory overclocked. They didn't even touch the voltage on that xt version, which at this point you now can change.

Off course if the article that posted was actually up to date , it would have closer to the truth. The review from techradar is from 24 february, while tweaktown is still from january, where they still used the old drivers.

And since the last driver update there was big difference in performance, especially in comparison with nvidia cards, which brings met to the next point. I was comparing hd 7870 xt with a gtx 670 and gtx 660 ti, not with a hd 7950 or 7970. So the so called gulf you're speaking about between the 7950 and the 7870 xt has nothing to do with i said, but it's a fact if you use voltage tweaking, you would come closer to that oc'd 7950 than in the article you posted.

The card also get's the editors choice award on the very article you just posted. Weird, because according to you there's no difference with the normal hd 7870.

hardwareheaven also gave the card an award

http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1651/pg13/sapphire-hd-7870-xt-with-boost-tahiti-le-graphics-card-review-conclusion.html

Tomshardware also ranks this card higher than the 7870 and closer to the 7950 in their article

'Best graphics cards for the money'

So off course, you're right and everyone else is wrong :lol:

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

[QUOTE="evildead6789"]

A 7870 xt is not a 7870, it's not like some magical thing, it's the same chip as in a hd 7950, only with some shader processors disabled and with higher clock rate The 7870 uses the pitcairn chip, the 7870 xt a tahiti chip, which is used in the 7970 and a 7950.

So it's not a beefed up 7870, it's a 7950 with 10 percent of his shaders processors disables and then beefed up, the 7870 xt has a higer tdp of a hd 7950.

Look at the benchmarks and the reviews before you spout your idiot opinions.

http://www.techradar.com/reviews/pc-mac/pc-components/graphics-cards/sapphire-radeon-hd-7870-xt-1130535/review

evildead6789

Link.

There is a pretty obvious gulf between the 7870XT and high end cards, stop kidding yourself.

It's amazing how you're able to interpret a review completely wrong. The 7870 from powercolor is also based on the tahiti le chip.

The other 7870 is a normal hd 7870 chip but it's an oc edition. The 7950 with boost from his is also an oc edtion.  that's not a normal hd 7950. It outperforms the reference hd 7970 ghz edition. Kinda weird for chip that's higher ranked , isn't it.

The 7870 xt and powercolor version are not oc editions.

If you would have read the the conclusion of the article,  you wouldn't have made such a fool of yourself again. They're clearly saying the 7870 xt is a superior chip to the 7870 and there might be some confusion because of the fact that it comes at stock clock out of the box while a lot of other 7870's on a custom pcb come as oc editions, factory overclocked. They didn't even touch the voltage on that xt version, which at this point you now can change.

Off course if the article that posted was actually up to date , it would have closer to the truth. The review from techradar is from 24 february, while tweaktown is still from january, where they still used the old drivers.

And since the last driver update there was big difference in performance, especially in comparison with nvidia cards, which brings met to the next point. I was comparing hd 7870 xt with a gtx 670 and gtx 660 ti, not with a hd 7950 or 7970. So the so called gulf you're speaking about between the 7950 and the 7870 xt has nothing to do with i said, but it's a fact if you use voltage tweaking, you would come closer to that oc'd 7950 than in the article you posted.

The card also get's the editors choice award on the very article you just posted. Weird, because according to you there's no difference with the normal hd 7870.

hardwareheaven also gave the card an award

http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1651/pg13/sapphire-hd-7870-xt-with-boost-tahiti-le-graphics-card-review-conclusion.html

Tomshardware also ranks this card higher than the 7870 and closer to the 7950 in their article

'Best graphics cards for the money'

So off course, you're right and everyone else is wrong :lol:

That sounds exactly like you.