GTX660 vs GTX660 Ti

[puleva4ever]

Does it really worth the price difference of 100$ between both of them?

I mean, I was trying to build a new (gaming) PC and I had this doubt. Because the only differences that I saw are:


GTX660 Ti --> 331.00$
GPU Boost Clock : 1137 MHz
GPU Base Clock : 1059 MHz
CUDA cores : 1344


GTX660 --> 234.00$
GPU Boost Clock : 1033 MHz
GPU Base Clock : 980 MHz
CUDA cores : 960


They have the same:
Video Memory: 2GB
Memory Interface: 192 bits
Memory Clock: 6008 MHz (1502 MHz GDDR5)
(Non-overclocked)

BTW. Do the CUDA cores affect significantly the performance while playing? (Also, if any of you wish, I'd like a quick explanation of what CUDA cores are)

 

[DarthVans88]

660Ti is essentially an modified/overclocked 660, so yeah, it's definitely better than the 660. However, I'm also interested to know whether it justifies a $100 price increase. I mean, can't a person just tweak their own 660 to get it near to 660Ti spec. I'm also looking at this card at the moment...

 

[amuffin]

GTX 670's are sold around that price range.

The 660ti uses the GK104 chip, while the 660 uses the GK106 chip.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6159/the-geforce-gtx-660-ti-review
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6276/nvidia-geforce-gtx-660-review-gk106-rounds-out-the-kepler-family

I would consider something from AMD.

 

[Ravyu]

The GTX 660 cards are not very good for their value for money. AMD has a far better performance/ cost ratio (The 7950 is close to $330 and is decently better than a GTX 660 ti) And for the GTX 660, the AMD HD 7870 is better @ $240. Also, the bandwidth for both the 660 models are 192 bit (Not very good for modern games @ high resolutions), while the HD 7950 has 384 bit and the HD 7870 has 256 bit.

However, if you really like Nvidia, the GTX 670 is probably a better option for you @ $350 and is better than a HD 7950. It is a high end card that offers very good value for its price if you can find it for $330.


CUDA cores are basically stuff that is used for editing, like Rendering and encoding. The kepler series are not good for that (the Fermi GPU's which are last gen cards are much better at this) as Kepler is mainly focused for gaming, that's why the power consumption happens to be lower than competing AMD cards

 

[Ravyu]

The GTX 660 cards are not very good for their value for money. AMD has a far better performance/ cost ratio (The 7950 is close to $330 and is decently better than a GTX 660 ti) And for the GTX 660, the AMD HD 7870 is better @ $240. Also, the bandwidth for both the 660 models are 192 bit (Not very good for modern games @ high resolutions), while the HD 7950 has 384 bit and the HD 7870 has 256 bit.

However, if you really like Nvidia, the GTX 670 is probably a better option for you @ $350 and is better than a HD 7950. It is a high end card that offers very good value for its price if you can find it for $330.


CUDA cores are basically stuff that is used for editing, like Rendering and encoding. The kepler series are not good for that (the Fermi GPU's which are last gen cards are much better at this) as Kepler is mainly focused for gaming, that's why the power consumption happens to be lower than competing AMD cards

 

[puleva4ever]

The GTX 660 cards are not very good for their value for money. AMD has a far better performance/ cost ratio (The 7950 is close to $330 and is decently better than a GTX 660 ti) And for the GTX 660, the AMD HD 7870 is better @ $240. Also, the bandwidth for both the 660 models are 192 bit (Not very good for modern games @ high resolutions), while the HD 7950 has 384 bit and the HD 7870 has 256 bit.

However, if you really like Nvidia, the GTX 670 is probably a better option for you @ $350 and is better than a HD 7950. It is a high end card that offers very good value for its price if you can find it for $330.


CUDA cores are basically stuff that is used for editing, like Rendering and encoding. The kepler series are not good for that (the Fermi GPU's which are last gen cards are much better at this) as Kepler is mainly focused for gaming, that's why the power consumption happens to be lower than competing AMD cards

First of all, thank you for the great answer!

I found a good price HD 7870 ($229) and a GTX 660 Ti ($288) (Looking for the closest price between them)

Differences:

HD 7870
1050 MHz Core Clock
1280 x Stream Processors
256 -bit GDDR5
5000 MHz Effective
153,6 GB/s Memory Bandwidth


GTX660 Ti
1344 CUDA Cores
980 MHz GPU
1059MHz Boost Clock
192 bit GDDR5
6008 MHz (effective)
144.19 GB/s Memory Bandwidth


Worth the difference now? ($59)
I really guess not. Actually I think that GTX 660 Ti is worse because the bits and memory bandwidth difference...

 

[sam_p_lay]

Ravyu is a bit off on the memory bus width... I've already explained this (a few times actually) in other threads, so I'll just post a link instead of copy/paste:

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/378279-15-gtx660-7850-7870

He's also wrong about the GTX660 offering poor value - it offers excellent value. The GTX660 Ti however is poor value - you're looking at just shy of 10% average framerate gain, for a considerable price difference. Of course actual prices will vary by country, but the best prices for GTX660s should be well below the best 7870 prices (which in turn are cheaper than the GTX660 Ti).

EDIT: Just scroll to the second post on that link.

 

[larrym]

Ravyu is a bit off on the memory bus width... I've already explained this (a few times actually) in other threads, so I'll just post a link instead of copy/paste:

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/378279-15-gtx660-7850-7870

He's also wrong about the GTX660 offering poor value - it offers excellent value. The GTX660 Ti however is poor value - you're looking at just shy of 10% average framerate gain, for a considerable price difference. Of course actual prices will vary by country, but the best prices for GTX660s should be well below the best 7870 prices (which in turn are cheaper than the GTX660 Ti).

EDIT: Just scroll to the second post on that link.

ˆ+1

 

[spentshells]

660 is the best nvidia value at the moment but really if you consider a 660ti a 670 makes so much more sense but if you need to keep that money close a 7950 boost or regular edition are nice cards as well.

Even a 7870 is a much better buy unless you really want nvidia

 

[sam_p_lay]

Also, I'd agree with the GTX670 recommendations here - 7970-grade performance for considerably less money. It's not as good value as the GTX660 (though that's not surprising considering that high-end cards rarely do offer the best value) but it's a much smarter buy than the GTX660 Ti. The Ti was a decent enough option when it launched, but the GTX660 has made it a bit pointless.

 

[redtailed]

You should be able to get a 660 Ti non-reference overclocked from the manufacturer for on the order of $275.

The 670 is significantly more than that. For games that are not memory bandwidth hogs, the 660 TI will perform near to the 670. I would recommend if you get a 660 Ti, you et a non-reference factory overclocked edition.

 

[puleva4ever]

What about the memory clock? It's ok the HD 7870 (5000 MHz) and GTX 660 Ti (6008 MHz) difference?

I mean, will I notice the difference in-game?

 

[sam_p_lay]

You don't need to worry about that - it's bandwidth that matters (bus width and memory clock multiply together to determine bandwidth) and the two cards are pretty much identical.

I explained it in that link I posted - http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/378279-15-gtx660-7850-7870

Don't get too caught up in technical specs - it can be interesting to learn and understand, but it's useless for making comparisons when you have benchmarks.

Would be like using a car's horsepower to speculate about what its 0-60 time might be. Why bother speculating when you can just look at the actual 0-60 time (i.e. the end result)? Horsepower and bandwidth are a means to an ends, but neither can accurately project performance because so many other factors are at play.

 

[puleva4ever]

You don't need to worry about that - it's bandwidth that matters (bus width and memory clock multiply together to determine bandwidth) and the two cards are pretty much identical.

I explained it in that link I posted - http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/378279-15-gtx660-7850-7870

Don't get too caught up in technical specs - it can be interesting to learn and understand, but it's useless for making comparisons when you have benchmarks.

Would be like using a car's horsepower to speculate about what its 0-60 time might be. Why bother speculating when you can just look at the actual 0-60 time (i.e. the end result)? Horsepower and bandwidth are a means to an ends, but neither can accurately project performance because so many other factors are at play.

Yeah I looked at the benchmarks and the HD 7870 has better FPS avarage than the GTX 660 Ti (http://tinyurl.com/benchmarkss)

But then I realized that the ATI Radeon has not PhysX, which annoyed me. And the true is that PhysX make the game look more spectacular. I saw in some posts to put a GTX just for activate the PhysX but I don't like it at all. Any advice is welcome.

BTW, I have a 1920x1080 screen.

 

[sam_p_lay]

Well it varies from game to game - Crysis 2 and Battlefield 3 are faster on the GTX660 Ti. I agree about PhysX - I'm using a Radeon at the moment and it's OK, but I can't help feeling I'm missing out. When the game developer has coded in the PhysX stuff, I feel I'm not really experiencing the game 'the way it's meant to be played'.

Honestly though I'm not sure the GTX660 Ti is the best card for the money. It's not a bad choice, but as you mentioned in your original post, not really worth paying significantly more for, when the GTX660 is nearly as fast. My advice is to pick up a GTX660.

 

[darksparten]

The 660Ti can actually perform up to 50% better at times, it's not common but you typically get 5-10% more performance/fps.

The main difference is factory custom versions/OC and the GK104 Fermi in the 660 vs the GK106 Kepler in the 660Ti.

Good luck!