-
You heard it here first: Black Friday 2024 has arrived!
- Status
Wisecracker
Splendid
- Jan 15, 2007
- 8,104
- 17
- 31,965
3 out of 4 ain't bad .... :lol:
If you'd been paying attention over the last few months, you could have snagged an HD6950 for $200, or less.
- Mar 7, 2003
- 12,012
- 0
- 40,790
[citation][nom]refillable[/nom]What's Up with reviews on other websites?In Techpowerup It trade blows with a 7950, not a 7870?In Hardwarecanucks It also trade blows with 7950, not 7870?And many more...[/citation]
What's up is differences in settings.
As mentioned on the last page, I tested Nvidias settigs and came up with better results for the 660 Ti. it can be summed up in two words: Tessellation, and 8x MSAA
First off, I don't use maximum tessellation unless it provides a visual benefit, and doesn't cause too much of a frame rate hit. In the case of the 660 ti and the games we tested, I found it fails on both counts. Nvidia and other sites crank up tessellation, and I believe this gives the GeForce a sizable advantage in a number of tests.
Also, I use 8x MSAA if the hardware can handle it. in the case of the 660 Ti, it can in many cases, so we enabled it. Our results suggest that this gives it a bit of a disadvantage compared to the radeons.
To be clear, I wasn't looking to cripple the 660 Ti. In fact, I chose the game settings based on what the 660 Ti can handle. I don't have much use for benchmarks that are so low they're unplayable (meaning the detail is cranked too high to be usable) or frame rates too high (meaning the hardware can handle much higher settings so we're not squeezing the most out of it). I try to find settings that give at least 30 FPS minimum and at least 40 FPS average during game play. Settings that are meaningful in a real-world scenario for folks who want the best looking visuals their graphics card can handle.
If you look at the benchmarks, you'll see that the 660 Ti handled every game, at every resolution, with smooth minimum and average frame rates unless (a) the game was so easy to render that even the highest settings provided ridiculously high frame rates or (b) the game was so tough to render at a certain resolution or settings that it dropped just below playable.
In any case, it comes down to this: I don't think the other sites have done anything wrong, their results are just as valid as our own. But it just so happens that the tessellation and 8x MSAA settings have a dramatic effect on 660 Ti performance relative to the Radeons.
It's all different sides of the same coin.
After working with Nvidia and trying out their settings there's only one major discrepancy between results that we can't figure out, and that's Skyrim. We get the same 660 Ti frame rate they did with their save game, but our 7870 result is much higher than theirs. We've replicated this on two of our test machines, with the 7870 confirmed as running at reference clocks, and we haven't found the cause of that discrepancy yet. But everything else seems to sync up.
What's up is differences in settings.
As mentioned on the last page, I tested Nvidias settigs and came up with better results for the 660 Ti. it can be summed up in two words: Tessellation, and 8x MSAA
First off, I don't use maximum tessellation unless it provides a visual benefit, and doesn't cause too much of a frame rate hit. In the case of the 660 ti and the games we tested, I found it fails on both counts. Nvidia and other sites crank up tessellation, and I believe this gives the GeForce a sizable advantage in a number of tests.
Also, I use 8x MSAA if the hardware can handle it. in the case of the 660 Ti, it can in many cases, so we enabled it. Our results suggest that this gives it a bit of a disadvantage compared to the radeons.
To be clear, I wasn't looking to cripple the 660 Ti. In fact, I chose the game settings based on what the 660 Ti can handle. I don't have much use for benchmarks that are so low they're unplayable (meaning the detail is cranked too high to be usable) or frame rates too high (meaning the hardware can handle much higher settings so we're not squeezing the most out of it). I try to find settings that give at least 30 FPS minimum and at least 40 FPS average during game play. Settings that are meaningful in a real-world scenario for folks who want the best looking visuals their graphics card can handle.
If you look at the benchmarks, you'll see that the 660 Ti handled every game, at every resolution, with smooth minimum and average frame rates unless (a) the game was so easy to render that even the highest settings provided ridiculously high frame rates or (b) the game was so tough to render at a certain resolution or settings that it dropped just below playable.
In any case, it comes down to this: I don't think the other sites have done anything wrong, their results are just as valid as our own. But it just so happens that the tessellation and 8x MSAA settings have a dramatic effect on 660 Ti performance relative to the Radeons.
It's all different sides of the same coin.
After working with Nvidia and trying out their settings there's only one major discrepancy between results that we can't figure out, and that's Skyrim. We get the same 660 Ti frame rate they did with their save game, but our 7870 result is much higher than theirs. We've replicated this on two of our test machines, with the 7870 confirmed as running at reference clocks, and we haven't found the cause of that discrepancy yet. But everything else seems to sync up.
megamanx00
Splendid
- Sep 3, 2008
- 8,216
- 2
- 31,465
dademurphy
Honorable
- Aug 16, 2012
- 40
- 0
- 10,530
I just purchased a GTX 670 (knowing the 660ti was in the pipeline) but not I am not sure how satisfied I am with the purchase. Not sure if I feel like I am getting $100 more performance than what the 660ti offers but I'm not really overclocking at this point... I want to feel good about the 670 purchase but this makes it slightly more difficult.
So considering how settings dependent the back and forth is, can we call it a draw in performance at the very least?
Also, what role does FXAA play in deciding whether to get a 660 ti over a 7870? It is applicable in a lot of AA situations from nvidia control panel and some people prefer FXAA.
Also, what role does FXAA play in deciding whether to get a 660 ti over a 7870? It is applicable in a lot of AA situations from nvidia control panel and some people prefer FXAA.
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 21
- 43,265
[citation][nom]technoholic[/nom]if i were Nvidia, would call this card "non-Ti" 660 and i would produce a card with better memory bandwidth and call it a "Ti". That time it would be an overkill card and force AMD to drop prices a lot. Nvidia only has gtx680, 670 and at last 660 Ti for desktop in their product line as of now (correct me if i am wrong). 660 Ti performs well (with bad pricing) but is a late comer like 680 and 670. That does not give us much flexibility to choose from IMO. Yes there are custom cards from different manifacturers but they are basically overclocked cards with better cooling. AMD has a more complete product line, from top to toe. Let's see it, AMD's cards are very well segmented in this generation (price/performance-wise) and has more variants for different budgets. IMO that is why we don't see a "wow" factor in current 660 Ti with this price. At the same time, it is now AMD's turn to produce a card which performs in between 7870 and 7950 (call it 7890 or 7900 maybe). Not that AMD can't compete, but because they can push the competition to a harder point for Nvidia. Especially now, when Nvidia faces production issues[/citation]
These isn't much room between the 670 and the 660 TI for another card (same for the 7870 and the 7950) and making a card above the 660 TI (and switching it to 660 TI with this card as the 660) wouldn't make much sense because then the new 660 TI would basically be a 670 unless the GPU is taken down a notch to 6 SMXs instead of the 670's 7. Even then, it would probably still perform almost on-par with the much more expensive GTX 680.
As much as I don't like it, because of how they made the Kepler GPUs, bringing down the memory bandwidth might have been the only way to make a card that is weaker than the 680 without taking out a lot of SMXs because these GPUs are just that fast and memory bandwidth bottle-necked. Compare a Llano A8 with the GPU at 500MHz to the same GPU at 1GHz and the performance difference probably would be similar to cutting the SMX count in half and leaving the GPU with the same memory bandwidth as the 680, but I admit that that is just speculation.
These isn't much room between the 670 and the 660 TI for another card (same for the 7870 and the 7950) and making a card above the 660 TI (and switching it to 660 TI with this card as the 660) wouldn't make much sense because then the new 660 TI would basically be a 670 unless the GPU is taken down a notch to 6 SMXs instead of the 670's 7. Even then, it would probably still perform almost on-par with the much more expensive GTX 680.
As much as I don't like it, because of how they made the Kepler GPUs, bringing down the memory bandwidth might have been the only way to make a card that is weaker than the 680 without taking out a lot of SMXs because these GPUs are just that fast and memory bandwidth bottle-necked. Compare a Llano A8 with the GPU at 500MHz to the same GPU at 1GHz and the performance difference probably would be similar to cutting the SMX count in half and leaving the GPU with the same memory bandwidth as the 680, but I admit that that is just speculation.
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 21
- 43,265
[citation][nom]blibba[/nom]That's if you don't use AA while playing BF3 at >1080p, tbf. I use 4xAA at 2048*1152 and I'm still using a 9800GTX+...[/citation]
If you overclock, then the 660 TI chokes compared to even the 7850, let alone the 7870 and 7950, even at 1080p without AA.
Also, I'd have to ask what games you play, the other settings that you use, and what frame rates that you're getting because several games can take the 660 TI down relative to the 7950 pretty significantly even at 1080p.
If you overclock, then the 660 TI chokes compared to even the 7850, let alone the 7870 and 7950, even at 1080p without AA.
Also, I'd have to ask what games you play, the other settings that you use, and what frame rates that you're getting because several games can take the 660 TI down relative to the 7950 pretty significantly even at 1080p.
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 21
- 43,265
[citation][nom]dademurphy[/nom]I just purchased a GTX 670 (knowing the 660ti was in the pipeline) but not I am not sure how satisfied I am with the purchase. Not sure if I feel like I am getting $100 more performance than what the 660ti offers but I'm not really overclocking at this point... I want to feel good about the 670 purchase but this makes it slightly more difficult.[/citation]
The 670 has a significant advantage and is a much better card for overclocking. You got your money's worth with it and I can admit that as someone whom prefers Radeon 79xx cards over the top GTX 6xx cards.
The 670 has a significant advantage and is a much better card for overclocking. You got your money's worth with it and I can admit that as someone whom prefers Radeon 79xx cards over the top GTX 6xx cards.
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 21
- 43,265
[citation][nom]mohit9206[/nom]whats the difference between a Ti and a non Ti graphics card ? also when is the the non Ti GTX660 coming and what will it cost ? something around $200 would be nice. else would have to get GTX650 instead..[/citation]
TI is just a way for Nvidia to differentiate two different models. The GTX 660 (or as you referred to it, non-Ti) is supposedly going to have a weaker GPU than the 660 TI, but the GPU really isn't as important as the memory bandwidth because the Kepler GPUs are just too fast, so it will probably perform similarly to the GTX 660 TI, maybe a little under. It will probably beat the Radeon 7850 in stock performance (although definitely not in overclocking performance) at a similarly slightly higher price.
[citation][nom]Wisecracker[/nom]3 out of 4 ain't bad .... If you'd been paying attention over the last few months, you could have snagged an HD6950 for $200, or less.[/citation]
The GTX 650 can probably meet or beat the Radeon 6950 2GiB, at least at stock. If I had to guess, I'd say that the GTX 650 and the GTX 660 will probably overclock about as far as the GTX 660 TI does and that's still farther than the 6950.
TI is just a way for Nvidia to differentiate two different models. The GTX 660 (or as you referred to it, non-Ti) is supposedly going to have a weaker GPU than the 660 TI, but the GPU really isn't as important as the memory bandwidth because the Kepler GPUs are just too fast, so it will probably perform similarly to the GTX 660 TI, maybe a little under. It will probably beat the Radeon 7850 in stock performance (although definitely not in overclocking performance) at a similarly slightly higher price.
[citation][nom]Wisecracker[/nom]3 out of 4 ain't bad .... If you'd been paying attention over the last few months, you could have snagged an HD6950 for $200, or less.[/citation]
The GTX 650 can probably meet or beat the Radeon 6950 2GiB, at least at stock. If I had to guess, I'd say that the GTX 650 and the GTX 660 will probably overclock about as far as the GTX 660 TI does and that's still farther than the 6950.
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 21
- 43,265
[citation][nom]foldspace[/nom]So considering how settings dependent the back and forth is, can we call it a draw in performance at the very least?Also, what role does FXAA play in deciding whether to get a 660 ti over a 7870? It is applicable in a lot of AA situations from nvidia control panel and some people prefer FXAA.[/citation]
A tie at stock is something that I could call it. However, not when overclocking is considered. It becomes a clear win or AMD with the 7870 and especially the 7950 when overclocking is considered.
A tie at stock is something that I could call it. However, not when overclocking is considered. It becomes a clear win or AMD with the 7870 and especially the 7950 when overclocking is considered.
CagedAlchemist
Honorable
- Jul 25, 2012
- 124
- 0
- 10,680
What about the ASUS version or the Gigabyte version...you can't just base it all on just the MSI.
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 21
- 43,265
[citation][nom]CagedAlchemist[/nom]What about the ASUS version or the Gigabyte version...you can't just base it all on just the MSI.[/citation]
Same hardware at same clocks says that the can. Overclocking might be somewhat different on other cards, but stock performance will be identical within the same system if the hardware and clocks are identical.
Same hardware at same clocks says that the can. Overclocking might be somewhat different on other cards, but stock performance will be identical within the same system if the hardware and clocks are identical.
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 21
- 43,265
[citation][nom]zooted[/nom]I wish there was a card falling between the 7770 and 7850 There is a HUGE performance gap that is completely left open.[/citation]
You could ask Tom's if they still have that 768 core 7850-single slot engineering sample
Otherwise, AMD seems rather adamant about not making a reference card between the 7770 and the 7850. I agree with you in that there should be one (as do many other people), but AMD says that they don't want to do it.
You could ask Tom's if they still have that 768 core 7850-single slot engineering sample
Otherwise, AMD seems rather adamant about not making a reference card between the 7770 and the 7850. I agree with you in that there should be one (as do many other people), but AMD says that they don't want to do it.
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 21
- 43,265
[citation][nom]Vaysh[/nom]Meh. Gonna wait on Maxwell. Definitely too pricey, coming from a 460 1gig.[/citation]
I'd like to see how Maxwell does too. Also, you might be more interested in the upcoming GTX 650 than the GTX 660 and the GTX 660 TI. It should give you a good performance boost at around $200.
I'd like to see how Maxwell does too. Also, you might be more interested in the upcoming GTX 650 than the GTX 660 and the GTX 660 TI. It should give you a good performance boost at around $200.
Wisecracker
Splendid
- Jan 15, 2007
- 8,104
- 17
- 31,965
Hey, Blaze?
My understanding is the GTX650 most likely will be a re-badged GT640-GK107 with DDR5 instead of DDR3.
GK106 most likely will be the GTX660, or the *GTX650ti*
My understanding is the GTX650 most likely will be a re-badged GT640-GK107 with DDR5 instead of DDR3.
GK106 most likely will be the GTX660, or the *GTX650ti*
rockstar_7
Distinguished
- Nov 22, 2011
- 249
- 0
- 18,710
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 21
- 43,265
The GTS 650 is supposed to be the GDDR5 GT 640, not GTX 650 according to this. The GTX 650 should have GK106 with 768 CUDA cores as well as the same 192 bit GDDR5 bus as the GTX 660 and GTX 660 TI.
http://wccftech.com/nvidia-geforce-gtx-660-gtx-650-gts-650-specifications-launch-dates-confirmed/
It seems as if Nvidia changed the former GTX 650 to the GTS 650 and made a new GTX 650 to replace it which should be a GTX 650 TI IMO, but oh well. It would be nice if Nvidia and even AMD were more consistent in their naming schemes across generations. We'll see what the truth is when Nvidia lets us all in on it.
Dark Lord of Tech
Retired Moderator
- Aug 18, 2009
- 128,670
- 1,808
- 159,590
davemaster84
Distinguished
- Jun 15, 2011
- 464
- 0
- 18,810
I find this review a little silly , Why they put side by side the 670 and the 7970? That is why the gap seems like that, they should use the 680 which is the nvidia´s flagship. Otherwise it will always look like ATI has the clear advantage
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
Review AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D Review: Devastating Gaming Performance- Started by Admin
- Replies: 202
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram