Nvidia GeForce GTX 660 (OEM) Specs Surface

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]eddieroolz[/nom]Perhaps this will be the new card to beat in the one-pin requirement market.[/citation]

Perhaps. At the least, it's somewhat more balanced than the 660 TI with its weaker GPU and lower price point. It might offer somewhat similar performance to the 660 TI at a lower price point like the 670 does to the 680.
 
Nvidia have been using GF110 for 560 ti OEM version. So this OEM would not be any surprise. There are 2 posible scenario here.

1. The retail version will be significant diff by using GK106 chip with 1.5GB RAM.
2. There isnt much naming left 650Ti 660 and GTS650 will be using GK107 with DDR5. It might be GK106 might not even exist at all. Nvidia might be going back to GTX200 style, wheres they only comes with high end chip and low end chip, mid end chip will be missing and reuse previous generation chip GTX560(remember GTS250?). IMO GTX560 might be the new 9800GT. I still find my self hard to believe with all the yield problem GK104 had, there must have a huge stock pile of GK104 that have more than 1SMX damage it couldnt make it to 660ti. So the retail 660 might be using GK104 after all.
 
[citation][nom]Tomfreak[/nom]Nvidia have been using GF110 for 560 ti OEM version. So this OEM would not be any surprise. There are 2 posible scenario here.1. The retail version will be significant diff by using GK106 chip with 1.5GB RAM.2. There isnt much naming left 650Ti 660 and GTS650 will be using GK107 with DDR5. It might be GK106 might not even exist at all. Nvidia might be going back to GTX200 style, wheres they only comes with high end chip and low end chip, mid end chip will be missing and reuse previous generation chip GTX560(remember GTS250?). IMO GTX560 might be the new 9800GT. I still find my self hard to believe with all the yield problem GK104 had, there must have a huge stock pile of GK104 that have more than 1SMX damage it couldnt make it to 660ti. So the retail 660 might be using GK104 after all.[/citation]

I've read that a GTX 650 and/or 650 TI will use GK106 and GK107 will be reserved for nothing above a GTS 650. Whatever, Nvidia does, one thing seems to be clear: It probably own't make a whole lot of sense. Also, you seem to have forgotten the G in GDDR5. We wouldn't want to confuse people into thinking that GDDR5 and DDR5 are the same, would we 😉
 
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]A 192 bit GDDR5 interface, even at the high frequency of over 1.5GHz (over 6GHz effective), just doesn't give enough bandwidth for the 660 TI's GPU. Nvidia should have used a much weaker GPU with a lower clocked, but still 256 bit, memory interface. They should have also not skimped on capacity and thrown in the full 3GB rather than a mere 1.5GB plus .5GB that performs worse than the first 1.5GB. Everything about Nvidia's 6xx series seems to have been about cutting costs and making up for the losses in marketing.The resolution that you play at is not quite as important as your game selection and the settings that you play at. For example, at 1080p, the difference between playing without AA and with 4x or 8x MSAA can be the difference between a 7850 and a 7950.[/citation]

So are you saying that you think Nvidia should have cut costs by weakening the GPU in order to create a card that is sufficiently fast (not as fast as 670's GPU) and yet still able to take advantage of the 256-bit bandwidth, thereby making a more balanced card that is more capable of rendering high AA settings at 1080p (or higher if added more VRAM)? If I got that right, then what do you think the point of the 660ti is, given it's narrow 192-bit bandwidth and meager 1.5GB of VRAM?
 
[citation][nom]Augray37[/nom]So are you saying that you think Nvidia should have cut costs by weakening the GPU in order to create a card that is sufficiently fast (not as fast as 670's GPU) and yet still able to take advantage of the 256-bit bandwidth, thereby making a more balanced card that is more capable of rendering high AA settings at 1080p (or higher if added more VRAM)? If I got that right, then what do you think the point of the 660ti is, given it's narrow 192-bit bandwidth and meager 1.5GB of VRAM?[/citation]

Yes, I am saying that a card with a weaker GPU and a 256 bit GDDR5 memory interface would be more balanced and would have superior AA efficiency, even at 1080p. Also, the GTX 660 TI has 2GB or 3GB. I don't think that there are any 1.5GB models of it, although I could be wrong about that. The point of the 660 TI, as far as I can tell, was to make a card with low minimums, but high maximums and to use marketing to ignore its minimums. So far, Nvidia has done a good job of that. It also gives Nvidia a way to use GK104s that have damaged memory interfaces.
 
[citation][nom]sheepsnowadays[/nom]Whats with Nvidia and the 192 bit bus? Step up already, my 6850 from 2 years ago has a 256 bit bus[/citation]
My 9600GT had a 256-bit bus!
[citation][nom]Augray37[/nom]hey blazorthon, I have a question. Isn't the 660ti more of a 1080p range card, and therefore doesn't need a larger memory bandwidth since it shouldn't really be used with higher resolution gaming? Or will it still lag behind AMD's comparable offerings at 1080p with AA turned up? Just curious, I'm not all that educated on the more detailed aspects of GPUs.[/citation]
More of a 1680x1050 card. Memory bandwidth affects AA performance a lot.
1080p is more like 670/7950 territory.
 
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]Yes, I am saying that a card with a weaker GPU and a 256 bit GDDR5 memory interface would be more balanced and would have superior AA efficiency, even at 1080p. Also, the GTX 660 TI has 2GB or 3GB. I don't think that there are any 1.5GB models of it, although I could be wrong about that. The point of the 660 TI, as far as I can tell, was to make a card with low minimums, but high maximums and to use marketing to ignore its minimums. So far, Nvidia has done a good job of that. It also gives Nvidia a way to use GK104s that have damaged memory interfaces.[/citation]

My bad, for some reason I thought it had 1.5GB. Thanks blazorthon!
 
[citation][nom]ojas[/nom]My 9600GT had a 256-bit bus!More of a 1680x1050 card. Memory bandwidth affects AA performance a lot. 1080p is more like 670/7950 territory.[/citation]

Being 256 bits-wide doesn't matter for this if it isn't GDDR5. 256 bits-wide GDDR3 (or worse) is worse than a 128 bit GDDR5 connection. It's better than DDR3, but it's nowhere near GDDR5. I wouldn't say that the 660 TI isn't capable of 1080p very well, just not as well as the 7950 or 7870 can. Heck, the 7850 can do it better when overclocked well because even the 7850 has more headroom than the 660 TI.
 
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]Being 256 bits-wide doesn't matter for this if it isn't GDDR5. 256 bits-wide GDDR3 (or worse) is worse than a 128 bit GDDR5 connection. It's better than DDR3, but it's nowhere near GDDR5. I wouldn't say that the 660 TI isn't capable of 1080p very well, just not as well as the 7950 or 7870 can. Heck, the 7850 can do it better when overclocked well because even the 7850 has more headroom than the 660 TI.[/citation]
lol blazorthon. The 9600GT was a JOKE. I mean, it did have a 256-bit bus, but i wasn't saying "oooh look it was better than the 660 Ti, yay!". That card could only pull off 1024x768.
Just meant that a 256-bit bus should be more or less standard, mid range and beyond.

Anyway. See...now i'm not getting into the OC discussion because well...you'll get variable results to what each card can do. A overclocked 7950 can meet or beat a stock 680 if you can pull it off. But then the 680 can be overclocked too.

So for simplicity's sake, let's just keep everyone at stock. At stock settings, the 7870 and GTX660 Ti, as far as i could see, were pretty much equal in terms of games, but i'd probably echo your statement and say that the 7870 does stuff marginally better. However, neither of these cards hold 60 fps min with AA turned up at 1080p long enough in most of the games at stock settings. I mean yeah they have averages of 60, but that obviously means it's been bouncing up and down around 60.

And i think it's just me, but if want a no compromise graphics solution to run at x resolution, then it MUST hold 60 fps at all costs in a majority of games (excluding biased ones, both for and against, unless of course there are more for than against) with the detail levels cranked up to the maximum, with a minimum of 4x MSAA or equivalent.
 
[citation][nom]chairman ray[/nom]Hoping this card will be around $250. Can't wait for benchmarks[/citation]

Why would you go for this as opposed to the OC'ed 7870s that have dropped to $250 in response to the launch of the 660Ti? Anybody?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom