Nvidia 660ti review

Nvidias much touted 660ti gets reviewed by Toms Hardware

Nvidia claimed this card will be somewhere between 7870 and 7950 but apparently it failed as it ended up barely slower than a reference 7870

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-660-ti-benchmark-review,3279.html

So anyone waited to see if the 660ti would deliver better performance in the $300 price segment than already released 7870 would be disappointed

Also power wise this card is slightly more power hungry at load and it doesnt scale as well when Overclocked as Amd's 7870

Finally oh the pathetic once againGPGPU performance from nvidia ( the performance hit when using global lighting on Dirt is freaking huge unlike Amd 7xxx series )

Also this means we wont see any price cuts on AMD's 78xx series since there is no reason

I would say considering this card came 3-4 months after 7870 its a small failure for nvidia

According to Techpowerup reviews , the performance summary of the GTX 660 ti beats HD 7870 and even the HD 7950.

According to Techpowerup reviews , the performance summary of the GTX 660 ti beats HD 7870 and even the HD 7950.

woomar

I would wait for the next set of drivers for this card to iron things out. Its faster then a GTX 580 and is cheaper, but its on par with a 7870 and at times nearly as fast as the 7950. Now for the Overclocking headroom is good and it allows the 660ti to approach GTX 670 range of performance. The 192bit memory bus is what kills this card at resolutions at or above 1080. They should have used 256bit and chances are that you would be definitely seeing what Nvidia claimed.04dcarraher

Yeah it's got like 140GB/s memory bandwidth, but my 6950 has 160GB/s

I just ordered the 660 ti. Comes with borderlands 2 also. It's only a little less performance than the 670. Either way, I'll be way better than the GTX 260 that I have now! haha And it's good for the price also. I didn't want to spend $100 more just for a little better performance.

Techpowerup's reviews are better IMO due to testing methodology.. which isn't surprising considering what a joke Tom's Hardware has become in recent years. The 660Ti looks like a very good card. It's still $50 cheaper than the 7950 on newegg and performs every bit as well in a good battery of tests. I can see why some people would go for the 7950, but it won't appeal as well to the majority of gamers as long as it is $30 to $50 more expensive than the 660 Ti. The 7870 ghz edition is a definite contender too. With overclocking thrown into the equation, it's anybody's game.

In case somebody wants to see a real review-

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_660_Ti_Power_Edition/28.html

With the new price cuts for the 7950, I don't see why anyone would want a 660ti. Led_poison

What new price is that? I see them for $350 on newegg.

[QUOTE="Led_poison"]With the new price cuts for the 7950, I don't see why anyone would want a 660ti. hartsickdiscipl

What new price is that? I see them for $350 on newegg.

Its coming in the next few days I imagine, well according to

http://wccftech.com/amd-announce-pricecuts-radeon-hd-7800-series-hd-7950-gtx-660-ti-launch/

so around $329 for a 7950? not bad.

I think I'd just go for the 7950 as they're the same price here.

Damn it nvidia

(°°

looks like I'm just getting a 670 now.

Techpowerup's reviews are better IMO due to testing methodology.. which isn't surprising considering what a joke Tom's Hardware has become in recent years. The 660Ti looks like a very good card. It's still $50 cheaper than the 7950 on newegg and performs every bit as well in a good battery of tests. I can see why some people would go for the 7950, but it won't appeal as well to the majority of gamers as long as it is $30 to $50 more expensive than the 660 Ti. The 7870 ghz edition is a definite contender too. With overclocking thrown into the equation, it's anybody's game.

In case somebody wants to see a real review-

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_660_Ti_Power_Edition/28.html

hartsickdiscipl

Your statement is correct except they have always been a joke

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Techpowerup's reviews are better IMO due to testing methodology.. which isn't surprising considering what a joke Tom's Hardware has become in recent years. The 660Ti looks like a very good card. It's still $50 cheaper than the 7950 on newegg and performs every bit as well in a good battery of tests. I can see why some people would go for the 7950, but it won't appeal as well to the majority of gamers as long as it is $30 to $50 more expensive than the 660 Ti. The 7870 ghz edition is a definite contender too. With overclocking thrown into the equation, it's anybody's game.

In case somebody wants to see a real review-

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_660_Ti_Power_Edition/28.html

NailedGR

Your statement is correct except they have always been a joke

There is actually a catch in this...
660ti is an amazing card no matter..but...

Note = performance being considered at 1920 resolution cuz its more standard... and prices quoted from newegg (minimum)

Nvidia 660ti referance (300 dollars ) = 7950 ( 320 dollars )AMD 7950 is 1 % faster but also costs 20 dollars extra... At stock the choice can go on either side. Some might select 7950 because of higher Vram that might be helpful in Crossfire mode or because of its extreme overclocking headroom, or u can simply save those 20 dollars and go for 660ti straight away... Both r good choices depending upon ur needs. Also note that the TEST system incorporates 7950 with 800mhz core... There are no more 800mhz core 7950 according to AMD now, A standard 7950 at stock is now supposed to be 7950 Boost at 860mhz..
SO i suppose the lead of 7950 can be maximum of 3% at 20 dollars extra..

Nvidia 660ti overclocked ( 330 dollars ) = AMD 7950 overclocked ( 350 dollars ). Again, If both card are overclocked variants, the outcome is more or less the same, 7950 having 1-2% lead at an extra cost of 20 dollars.. 660ti shud be the choice of gamers at this price, those wanting more Vram and manual overclocking can opt for 7950 overclocked...

In the end, the i think both r great cards at their price... But this only puts 7870 at a wierd price point of 280 dollars cuz many wud just simply pay extra 20 dollars and buy 660ti which is around 7-8% faster..

In my opinion, its more or less a draw between 7950 and 660ti at their price point.. But i woulkd prefer an overclocked 7950 over 660ti cuz of 3gb vram ( more future proofing) and insane overclocking heardroom...

Its my opinion guys, u may or may not agree with it, so i dont wanna start a flame war.

But do consider significant variation between the benchmarking done by many websites...so all in all ill put 660ti sumwhere between 7870 and 7950 with 20/30 dollars gap either way. Seems quite fine..

Nvidia keeps hiking up the prices on their "mid-range" cards. Lame. I hope there's a non-ti edition coming at around 200 dollars. :/Guppy507

In fairness, this isn't really a "mid-range" card. It performs like a 7950, which is a $330-350 AMD card. In fact, the 7950 was over $400 not long ago. I was hoping that they would release the 660 Ti at around $260.. but no such luck.

[QUOTE="Guppy507"]Nvidia keeps hiking up the prices on their "mid-range" cards. Lame. I hope there's a non-ti edition coming at around 200 dollars. :/hartsickdiscipl

In fairness, this isn't really a "mid-range" card. It performs like a 7950, which is a $330-350 AMD card. In fact, the 7950 was over $400 not long ago. I was hoping that they would release the 660 Ti at around $260.. but no such luck.

Nvidia keeps hiking up the prices on their "mid-range" cards. Lame. I hope there's a non-ti edition coming at around 200 dollars. :/Guppy507

Probably not happening. Both sides totally screwed up the midrange this time around: Kepler is essentially too good, to the point where Nvidia is able to use the "mid-range" GK104 chip for their high-end cards (instead of the usual split where the "GK100" would be the 670/680 and GK104 would be the 660/Ti); while on the other side GCN isn't powerful enough to pick up the slack of AMD's new "no more leaving money on the table" pricing strategy.

So there's just this big vacuum at the $200-250 range -- Nvidia isn't going to crank out a $200 660 when they can sell the exact same chip as a $300 660 Ti, and AMD isn't willing to price their products low enough to force Nvidia to respond. Nice problems to have if you're AMD or Nvidia, but not so nice if you're someone who isn't willing to spend more than $250 on a GPU.

On the plus side it sounds like AMD is going to drop the 7850 to a price where it starts to become attractive, but aside from that or picking up a 560 Ti on the cheap it doesn't seem like there's going to be anything compelling at the $200-250 for a while.

According to Techpowerup reviews , the performance summary of the GTX 660 ti beats HD 7870 and even the HD 7950.

woomar

[QUOTE="woomar"]

According to Techpowerup reviews , the performance summary of the GTX 660 ti beats HD 7870 and even the HD 7950.

lucky_star

The 660ti seems like a massive fail. I just bought a 7970 on sale for the price of a 660ti here in Sweden, and 7950's are cheaper. 660ti shold drop at least 50 bucks to make it attractive to anyone at all.

The 660ti seems like a massive fail. I just bought a 7970 on sale for the price of a 660ti here in Sweden, and 7950's are cheaper. 660ti shold drop at least 50 bucks to make it attractive to anyone at all.

Niner0

[QUOTE="Niner0"]

The 660ti seems like a massive fail. I just bought a 7970 on sale for the price of a 660ti here in Sweden, and 7950's are cheaper. 660ti shold drop at least 50 bucks to make it attractive to anyone at all.

slipknot0129

The 660ti seems like a massive fail. I just bought a 7970 on sale for the price of a 660ti here in Sweden, and 7950's are cheaper. 660ti shold drop at least 50 bucks to make it attractive to anyone at all.

Niner0

A massive fail? Go read another 3 or 4 reviews and then say that. It looks like a great card.

[QUOTE="Niner0"]

The 660ti seems like a massive fail. I just bought a 7970 on sale for the price of a 660ti here in Sweden, and 7950's are cheaper. 660ti shold drop at least 50 bucks to make it attractive to anyone at all.

slipknot0129

It's been put into the AnandTech Bench.C_Rule

Also what seems to be a well balanced review on several of the Nvidia Partners ....

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6159/the-geforce-gtx-660-ti-review

*+

Techpowerup's reviews are better IMO due to testing methodology.. which isn't surprising considering what a joke Tom's Hardware has become in recent years. The 660Ti looks like a very good card. It's still $50 cheaper than the 7950 on newegg and performs every bit as well in a good battery of tests. I can see why some people would go for the 7950, but it won't appeal as well to the majority of gamers as long as it is $30 to $50 more expensive than the 660 Ti. The 7870 ghz edition is a definite contender too. With overclocking thrown into the equation, it's anybody's game.

In case somebody wants to see a real review-

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_660_Ti_Power_Edition/28.html

hartsickdiscipl

techpowerup ussually doesn't go beyond 4X AA and 1280x800p can skew the benchmark averages.

From http://www.pcpartspicker.com/parts/video-card/#c=113,71&sort=a5

660 Ti cost $299

7950 cost $319

660 was slower than 7950 with PC heavy games e.g. Metro 2033 DX11, Crysis 2 DX11, Dirt Showdown DX11, Skyrim, Sniper Elite V2 DX11,

Also, techpowerup didn't use 7950 boost bios.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Techpowerup's reviews are better IMO due to testing methodology.. which isn't surprising considering what a joke Tom's Hardware has become in recent years. The 660Ti looks like a very good card. It's still $50 cheaper than the 7950 on newegg and performs every bit as well in a good battery of tests. I can see why some people would go for the 7950, but it won't appeal as well to the majority of gamers as long as it is $30 to $50 more expensive than the 660 Ti. The 7870 ghz edition is a definite contender too. With overclocking thrown into the equation, it's anybody's game.

In case somebody wants to see a real review-

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_660_Ti_Power_Edition/28.html

ronvalencia

techpowerup ussually doesn't go beyond 4X AA and 1280x800p can skew the benchmark averages.

From http://www.pcpartspicker.com/parts/video-card/#c=113,71&sort=a5

660 Ti cost $299

7950 cost $319

660 was slower than 7950 with PC heavy games e.g. Metro 2033, Crysis 2, Dirt Showdown, Skyrim,

Why does anybody need to go beyond 4xAA? I've never seen a need to go any higher than that when gaming at any decent resolution. GTX 660 Ti was only 1% slower than 7950 at 1920x1200 when looking at the results as a composite, which is really the only way to come to an unbiased conclusion.

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Techpowerup's reviews are better IMO due to testing methodology.. which isn't surprising considering what a joke Tom's Hardware has become in recent years. The 660Ti looks like a very good card. It's still $50 cheaper than the 7950 on newegg and performs every bit as well in a good battery of tests. I can see why some people would go for the 7950, but it won't appeal as well to the majority of gamers as long as it is $30 to $50 more expensive than the 660 Ti. The 7870 ghz edition is a definite contender too. With overclocking thrown into the equation, it's anybody's game.

In case somebody wants to see a real review-

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_660_Ti_Power_Edition/28.html

hartsickdiscipl

techpowerup ussually doesn't go beyond 4X AA and 1280x800p can skew the benchmark averages.

From http://www.pcpartspicker.com/parts/video-card/#c=113,71&sort=a5

660 Ti cost $299

7950 cost $319

660 was slower than 7950 with PC heavy games e.g. Metro 2033, Crysis 2, Dirt Showdown, Skyrim,

Why does anybody need to go beyond 4xAA? I've never seen a need to go any higher than that when gaming at any decent resolution. GTX 660 Ti was only 1% slower than 7950 at 1920x1200 when looking at the results as a composite, which is really the only way to come to an unbiased conclusion.

With 4xAA issue, what happened to "maxing out" the game?

Composites can be skewed e.g. it's missing Dirt Showdown,

As for unbiased claims, techpowerup used an overclocked 660 Ti while it didn't use Sapphire 7950 950 Mhz edition nor it the use of 7950's boost bios.

MSI's 660 PE cost $307.55 while Visiontek 7950 cost $319.99

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

techpowerup ussually doesn't go beyond 4X AA and 1280x800p can skew the benchmark averages.

From http://www.pcpartspicker.com/parts/video-card/#c=113,71&sort=a5

660 Ti cost $299

7950 cost $319

660 was slower than 7950 with PC heavy games e.g. Metro 2033, Crysis 2, Dirt Showdown, Skyrim,

ronvalencia

Why does anybody need to go beyond 4xAA? I've never seen a need to go any higher than that when gaming at any decent resolution. GTX 660 Ti was only 1% slower than 7950 at 1920x1200 when looking at the results as a composite, which is really the only way to come to an unbiased conclusion.

With 4xAA issue, what happened to "maxing out" the game?

Composites can be skewed e.g. it's missing Dirt Showdown,

As for unbiased claims, techpowerup used an overclocked 660 Ti while it didn't use Sapphire 7950 950 Mhz edition nor it the use of 7950's boost bios.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

techpowerup ussually doesn't go beyond 4X AA and 1280x800p can skew the benchmark averages.

From http://www.pcpartspicker.com/parts/video-card/#c=113,71&sort=a5

660 Ti cost $299

7950 cost $319

660 was slower than 7950 with PC heavy games e.g. Metro 2033, Crysis 2, Dirt Showdown, Skyrim,

ronvalencia

Why does anybody need to go beyond 4xAA? I've never seen a need to go any higher than that when gaming at any decent resolution. GTX 660 Ti was only 1% slower than 7950 at 1920x1200 when looking at the results as a composite, which is really the only way to come to an unbiased conclusion.

With 4xAA issue, what happened to "maxing out" the game?

Composites can be skewed e.g. it's missing Dirt Showdown,

As for unbiased claims, techpowerup used an overclocked 660 Ti while it didn't use Sapphire 7950 950 Mhz edition nor it the use of 7950's boost bios.

MSI's 660 PE cost $307.55 while Visiontek 7950 cost $319.99

Since games have different amounts of max anti-aliasing, I've never considered it to be part of "maxing out" a game. Maxing out a game means max detail settings. If AA is applied on it's own by selecting the highest detail presets, that's fine. AA is a separate consideration altogether.

Pay closer attention to the techpowerup review. The feature the overclocked 660 Ti, but they also tested a standard one and put the results into their performance summary. The standard card is only 1% behind the 7950 at 1920x1200.

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Why does anybody need to go beyond 4xAA? I've never seen a need to go any higher than that when gaming at any decent resolution. GTX 660 Ti was only 1% slower than 7950 at 1920x1200 when looking at the results as a composite, which is really the only way to come to an unbiased conclusion.

C_Rule

With 4xAA issue, what happened to "maxing out" the game?

Composites can be skewed e.g. it's missing Dirt Showdown,

As for unbiased claims, techpowerup used an overclocked 660 Ti while it didn't use Sapphire 7950 950 Mhz edition nor it the use of 7950's boost bios.

8X MSAA is not 16X MSAA.

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Why does anybody need to go beyond 4xAA? I've never seen a need to go any higher than that when gaming at any decent resolution. GTX 660 Ti was only 1% slower than 7950 at 1920x1200 when looking at the results as a composite, which is really the only way to come to an unbiased conclusion.

hartsickdiscipl

With 4xAA issue, what happened to "maxing out" the game?

Composites can be skewed e.g. it's missing Dirt Showdown,

As for unbiased claims, techpowerup used an overclocked 660 Ti while it didn't use Sapphire 7950 950 Mhz edition nor it the use of 7950's boost bios.

MSI's 660 PE cost $307.55 while Visiontek 7950 cost $319.99

Since games have different amounts of max anti-aliasing, I've never considered it to be part of "maxing out" a game. Maxing out a game means max detail settings. If AA is applied on it's own by selecting the highest detail presets, that's fine. AA is a separate consideration altogether.

Pay closer attention to the techpowerup review. The feature the overclocked 660 Ti, but they also tested a standard one and put the results into their performance summary. The standard card is only 1% behind the 7950 at 1920x1200.

From http://techreport.com/articles.x/23419/6 techpowerup is missing an entire game genre i.e. racing.

GI is not even enabled.

Sapphire 7950 Flex http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Sapphire/HD_7950_Flex/6.html

[QUOTE="C_Rule"][QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

With 4xAA issue, what happened to "maxing out" the game?

Composites can be skewed e.g. it's missing Dirt Showdown,

As for unbiased claims, techpowerup used an overclocked 660 Ti while it didn't use Sapphire 7950 950 Mhz edition nor it the use of 7950's boost bios.

ronvalencia

8X MSAA is not 16X MSAA.

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

[QUOTE="C_Rule"] No reviewer should use more than 4x AA. It's hard to draw real-world conclusions when a GPU reviewer uses stupid and unnecessary amounts of AA.C_Rule

8X MSAA is not 16X MSAA.

With Skyrim's frame rates beyond 60, it's logical to use GPU's excess performance for higher MSAA.

PS; I'm using the same argument as with 8800 GTX vs 2900XT (inferior MSAA).

[QUOTE="C_Rule"][QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

8X MSAA is not 16X MSAA.

ronvalencia

With frame rates beyond 60, it's logical to use GPU's excess performance for higher MSAA.

PS; I'm using the same argument as with 8800 GTX vs 2900XT (inferior MSAA)

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

[QUOTE="C_Rule"] Umm... What?C_Rule

With frame rates beyond 60, it's logical to use GPU's excess performance for higher MSAA.

PS; I'm using the same argument as with 8800 GTX vs 2900XT (inferior MSAA)

Exactly. I don't see a damn bit of difference once I get over 4xAA in the vast majority of games. Anything higher is pointless.

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

[QUOTE="C_Rule"] Umm... What?C_Rule

With frame rates beyond 60, it's logical to use GPU's excess performance for higher MSAA.

PS; I'm using the same argument as with 8800 GTX vs 2900XT (inferior MSAA)

Exactly. I don't see a damn bit of difference once I get over 4xAA in the vast majority of games. Anything higher is pointless.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

With 4xAA issue, what happened to "maxing out" the game?

Composites can be skewed e.g. it's missing Dirt Showdown,

As for unbiased claims, techpowerup used an overclocked 660 Ti while it didn't use Sapphire 7950 950 Mhz edition nor it the use of 7950's boost bios.

MSI's 660 PE cost $307.55 while Visiontek 7950 cost $319.99

ronvalencia

Since games have different amounts of max anti-aliasing, I've never considered it to be part of "maxing out" a game. Maxing out a game means max detail settings. If AA is applied on it's own by selecting the highest detail presets, that's fine. AA is a separate consideration altogether.

Pay closer attention to the techpowerup review. The feature the overclocked 660 Ti, but they also tested a standard one and put the results into their performance summary. The standard card is only 1% behind the 7950 at 1920x1200.

From http://techreport.com/articles.x/23419/6 techpowerup is missing an entire game genre i.e. racing.

GI is not even enabled.

Give me a break.. Dirt? Everybody knows that the EGO game engine LOVES AMD cards. It always has. That's probably why they left it out of the review.

[QUOTE="C_Rule"][QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

With frame rates beyond 60, it's logical to use GPU's excess performance for higher MSAA.

PS; I'm using the same argument as with 8800 GTX vs 2900XT (inferior MSAA)

hartsickdiscipl

Exactly. I don't see a damn bit of difference once I get over 4xAA in the vast majority of games. Anything higher is pointless.

Compare

MSI GeForce GTX 660 Ti Power http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_660_Ti_Power_Edition/6.html

Sapphire HD 7950 Flex http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Sapphire/HD_7950_Flex/6.html

Radeon HD HD 7950 Boost reference http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7950_Boost_BIOS_Upgrade/3.html

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

[QUOTE="C_Rule"] Umm... What?C_Rule

With frame rates beyond 60, it's logical to use GPU's excess performance for higher MSAA.

PS; I'm using the same argument as with 8800 GTX vs 2900XT (inferior MSAA)

Can a typical LCD display more than 60 fps when this Skyrim benchmark already exceeds 60 fps?

[QUOTE="C_Rule"][QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

With frame rates beyond 60, it's logical to use GPU's excess performance for higher MSAA.

PS; I'm using the same argument as with 8800 GTX vs 2900XT (inferior MSAA)

ronvalencia

Can a typical LCD display more than 60 fps when this Skyrim benchmark already exceeds 60 fps?

So you link me to a performance comparison between the 660 Ti and the 7950 in which both cards perform at over 60fps up to 1920x1200, and then proceed to imply that nothing over 60fps matters in your very next post? LMFAO! Get out.

Give me a break.. Dirt? Everybody knows that the EGO game engine LOVES AMD cards. It always has. That's probably why they left it out of the review. hartsickdiscipl

But anyways, there are bound to be some sort of bias in most big budget games. Normally DiRT 3 or Showdown is used in benchmarks in various places.

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

[QUOTE="C_Rule"] Not if it makes no difference to the picture. And what if I want moar frames?????hartsickdiscipl

Can a typical LCD display more than 60 fps when this Skyrim benchmark already exceeds 60 fps?

So you link me to a performance comparison between the 660 Ti and the 7950 in which both cards perform at over 60fps up to 1920x1200, and then proceed to imply that nothing over 60fps matters in your very next post? LMFAO! Get out.