ASUS GeForce GTX 660 Ti Direct CU II TOP 2048 MB

[Casecutter]

Originally Posted by TheMailMan78

If you buy a 660 to play at 2560 x 1600 or 5760 x 1080 you are an idiot.

Yep, this is a 1920x card that’s it. And at $330 performance is like I figured it would be middling. And in some ways erratic, while on titles that are 40-60Fps, here on W1zzards B-M it’s not any clear winner even when OC’d. I’m sorry now what 8 months late and this is what they bring? I want to see what this is like when we see frame latencies, and 99th percentile frame production.

AMD can set 7950 with Boost at this price, while original reference 7970 can be found routinely for $370 and that can be flashed to GHz versions. This could have been earth shattering back in March when the GTX680 hit but now today, too tardy... so sorry!

If you had pick up a 7950 back end Feb– early March and put-out say $450, by now you have enjoyed using it for like 24 weeks at say $5 a week, nothing wrong there!

[Am*]

Originally Posted by 1c3d0g

Sorry to break it to you buddy, but if you want smooth performance at those kind of resolutions, you gotta pay up! There's just no way around that. You can only expect so much performance out of a $300 part. That's why the 670-680-690 were invented in the first place, to tackle extreme high resolution displays (which they do wonderfully, IMO). It's like asking a Hyundai i10 to perform a 0-100 km/h acceleration time of less than 5 seconds...now we're talking Corvette/Challenger/Ferrari/Lamborghini/Porsche (insert your favorite manufacturer) performances here, way out of the design parameters of the i10.

Or you could do like me and wait for the next generation, which will drop current ones' prices to the bottom and save you a ton of money.

Well sorry to break it to you, but that's a terrible analogy. You're trying to suggest the 660 is a Hyundai and the 680 is the Lamborghini... Well for starters a Hyundai doesn't run a slightly crippled Lambo engine, nor any other major components that are in any way comparable (which is all what the 660 is, a slightly crippled 680), secondly the performance difference between them isn't 8%-16%. Thirdly, this card was built with TRIPLE screen gaming in mind, to even suggest that running a DX9 port on a single 2560x1600 monitor on a GPU made for DX11 is taking it "out of design parameters" is ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Casecutter

Yep, this is a 1920x card that’s it. And at $330 performance is like I figured it would be middling. And in some ways erratic, while on titles that are 40-60Fps, here on W1zzards B-M it’s not any clear winner even when OC’d. I’m sorry now what 8 months late and this is what they bring? I want to see what this is like when we see frame latencies, and 99th percentile frame production.

AMD can set 7950 with Boost at this price, while original reference 7970 can be found routinely for $370 and that can be flashed to GHz versions. This could have been earth shattering back in March when the GTX680 hit but now today, too tardy... so sorry!

If you had pick up a 7950 back end Feb– early March and put-out say $450, by now you have enjoyed using it for like 24 weeks at say $5 a week, nothing wrong there!

Personally speaking, whatever I'm upgrading to next is going to be a 1080p card anyway...because I prefer running an overkill card on my monitor and get 60+FPS instead of doing what most other people seem to do, which is buy an overkill monitor and keep buying new GPUs until you find one fast enough for the monitor. But I cannot in any way see how people are rejoicing over this series of Nvidia GPUs when they have pretty much killed the enthusiast market by not even bothering to release a new chip (like a GK106), nevermind the fact that their flagship was a mid-range GPU to begin with, which just adds insult to injury. I just hope this is not going to be the future trend with Nvidia and worse yet, AMD (to release mid-range as flagships), otherwise they can count me and pretty much everyone else, out of buying any future high end GPUs.

[Crap Daddy]

Originally Posted by TheMailMan78

W1zz do you think this is a worthy upgrade to a 570? Or is the 670 a better option for the cash. I'm seeing about 15 better FPS with the 660 and 20 FPS with the 670. However the difference is a 100 bucks.

670 when it comes down a little in price. That is if don't want to go back to the red side of the street. They sell some hot juicy burgers, nice overclockers for around $330 (or even less sooner than later).

[TheMailMan78]

Originally Posted by Crap Daddy

670 when it comes down a little in price. That is if don't want to go back to the red side of the street. They sell some hot juicy burgers, nice overclockers for around $330.

Nope. Not until they get better driver support.

[NdMk2o1o]

Originally Posted by Am*

Well sorry to break it to you, but that's a terrible analogy. You're trying to suggest the 660 is a Hyundai and the 680 is the Lamborghini... Well for starters a Hyundai doesn't run a slightly crippled Lambo engine, nor any other major components that are in any way comparable (which is all what the 660 is, a slightly crippled 680), secondly the performance difference between them isn't 8%-16%. Thirdly, this card was built with TRIPLE screen gaming in mind, to even suggest that running a DX9 port on a single 2560x1600 monitor on a GPU made for DX11 is taking it "out of design parameters" is ridiculous..............

Spot on with the analogy, though comparing GPU's to cars is like comparing apples to chimpanzees anyway (see what I did there?) I hate analogies :P

Have to disagree saying this card was built for triple monitor gaming, no single GPU is built for triple monitor gaming regardless of what marketing says, since triple monitor gaming came along with the HD 5*** series you have always needed a multi GPU setup to get any kind of acceptable gaming performance.

[Frick]

Originally Posted by Am*

Thirdly, this card was built with TRIPLE screen gaming in mind, to even suggest that running a DX9 port on a single 2560x1600 monitor on a GPU made for DX11 is taking it "out of design parameters" is ridiculous.

No it's not. Where did you find that out? As someone above me said, single cards are not enough for it (depending on what you play of course). Seems decent enough for me in price too, sandwiched between the 7870 and the 7950 in both price and performance.

[Xzibit]

Originally Posted by 1c3d0g

It's like asking a Hyundai i10 to perform a 0-100 km/h acceleration time of less than 5 seconds...now we're talking Corvette/Challenger/Ferrari/Lamborghini/Porsche (insert your favorite manufacturer) performances here, way out of the design parameters of the i10.

Those south koreans are getting close tho.. 5.2sec

2013 Hyundai Genesis Coupe 3.8 Track Spec

[TheMailMan78]

Originally Posted by Xzibit

Those south koreans are getting close tho.. 5.2sec

2013 Hyundai Genesis Coupe 3.8 Track Spec

Still a girls car.

[LAN_deRf_HA]

I'd like to see the galaxy one reviewed. Couldn't go back to under 3 GB but I really need 4 GBs, which interestingly enough galaxy has the cheapest 4 GB 670 as well.

[Jeffredo]

Damn I wish I had waited six more weeks and saved a $100 (instead of buying a GTX 670). This would have been a better match for my hoary old Phenom II X4 980 BE.

[1c3d0g]

Looks like I touched a nerve with Am*.

Whatever, man. If you have an ax to grind with NVIDIA, go ahead, I'm sure they won't miss your business, as they'll be selling millions of these cards anyway. Meanwhile for those who are educated about GPU's, they will know what to expect from a $300 part and, if you have enough cash for a triple monitor solution, you damn well know you need a $500+ GPU to power your rig smoothly. End of story.

[Delta6326]

Originally Posted by Xzibit

Those south koreans are getting close tho.. 5.2sec

2013 Hyundai Genesis Coupe 3.8 Track Spec

My Jeep does 5.7

Originally Posted by LAN_deRf_HA

I'd like to see the galaxy one reviewed. Couldn't go back to under 3 GB but I really need 4 GBs, which interestingly enough galaxy has the cheapest 4 GB 670 as well.

3GB won't affect performance with this 192Bit bus it needs more lanes.

Originally Posted by Am*

Well sorry to break it to you, but that's a terrible analogy. You're trying to suggest the 660 is a Hyundai and the 680 is the Lamborghini... Well for starters a Hyundai doesn't run a slightly crippled Lambo engine, nor any other major components that are in any way comparable (which is all what the 660 is, a slightly crippled 680), secondly the performance difference between them isn't 8%-16%. Thirdly, this card was built with TRIPLE screen gaming in mind, to even suggest that running a DX9 port on a single 2560x1600 monitor on a GPU made for DX11 is taking it "out of design parameters" is ridiculous.

SNIP*


Personally speaking, whatever I'm upgrading to next is going to be a 1080p card anyway...because I prefer running an overkill card on my monitor and get 60+FPS instead of doing what most other people seem to do, which is buy an overkill monitor and keep buying new GPUs until you find one fast enough for the monitor. But I cannot in any way see how people are rejoicing over this series of Nvidia GPUs when they have pretty much killed the enthusiast market by not even bothering to release a new chip (like a GK106), nevermind the fact that their flagship was a mid-range GPU to begin with, which just adds insult to injury. I just hope this is not going to be the future trend with Nvidia and worse yet, AMD (to release mid-range as flagships), otherwise they can count me and pretty much everyone else, out of buying any future high end GPUs.

660 Ti is perfect for 1200p and less

I liked the analogy, anyway this is not meant for 3monitors you maybe able to do 3, but fps will be hit, probably around 25-45fps in games at 5760x1080.

I would never use a 660 Ti for 1600p, honestly I wouldn't even use a 670 only 680 for 1600p.

[LAN_deRf_HA]

Originally Posted by Delta6326

3GB won't affect performance with this 192Bit bus it needs more lanes.

That's not how it works. Bandwidth is what matters.

[Rei86]

Originally Posted by Am*

Well sorry to break it to you, but that's a terrible analogy. You're trying to suggest the 660 is a Hyundai and the 680 is the Lamborghini... Well for starters a Hyundai doesn't run a slightly crippled Lambo engine, nor any other major components that are in any way comparable (which is all what the 660 is, a slightly crippled 680), secondly the performance difference between them isn't 8%-16%. Thirdly, this card was built with TRIPLE screen gaming in mind, to even suggest that running a DX9 port on a single 2560x1600 monitor on a GPU made for DX11 is taking it "out of design parameters" is ridiculous.

Since I love cars so much I can't let this comment go from both of you.

The GTX690 can be considered the Lambo Aventador, The GTX680 a Gallardo LP-570-4, the GTX670 a Audi R8 5.2 FSi...and the GTX660ti the Audi S6.

If you're not a car guy the Aventador is Lambo flagship V12, the Gallardo runs a V10, the R8 5.2 runs a detuned Gallardo V10, and the S6 is even further detuned Gallardo V10..

BTW don't know if this is considered unwanted advertising but this Asus 660 can be had for $299.99 USD atm on newegg.

[Benetanegia]

Originally Posted by Rei86

BTW don't know if this is considered unwanted advertising but this Asus 660 can be had for $299.99 USD atm on newegg.

Not the TOP model.

But yeah I'd take that one instead. $30 cheaper and with same excelent cooler, you can overclock it yourself. Maybe the TOP model can achieve higher clocks because of better binning and maybe somewhat better power delivery, but I doubt it and the clock increase wouldn't be enough to make up the 10% price difference.

Such an amazing custom design for reference price is amazing. And there's an MSI PE with TwinFrozr too, again not the OC model tested by W1zz, but close enough.

[Rei86]

Originally Posted by Benetanegia

Not the TOP model.

But yeah I'd take that one instead. $30 cheaper and with same excelent cooler, you can overclock it yourself. Maybe the TOP model can achieve higher clocks because of better binning and maybe somewhat better power delivery, but I doubt it and the clock increase wouldn't be enough to make up the 10% price difference.

Such an amazing custom design for reference price is amazing. And there's an MSI too.

Ah you're right its only 915/980 but hell its still good value. Probably can OC it too the TOP models 1059core without any hiccups and save 30bucks.

[W1zzard]

Originally Posted by Benetanegia

But yeah I'd take that one instead. $30 cheaper and with same excelent cooler, you can overclock it yourself. Maybe the TOP model can achieve higher clocks because of better binning and maybe somewhat better power delivery, but I doubt it and the clock increase wouldn't be enough to make up the 10% price difference.

that's what i would recommend to all users, who are willing to do some manual oc.

if you are lazy/unknowledgable and just want something that works out of the box without messing around, spend the extra money