660 Ti vs HD 7950

[GearShack]

This question has probably been beaten to death, but which is better? I have found a 660 Ti for $265+ Assassins Creed here: http://us.ncix.com/products/?sku=75183&vpn=GV-N66TOC-2GD&manufacture=Gigabyte&promoid=1033

I have a 7950 with a mail in rebate from newegg that brings it down to $275 here: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814131478

Pretty much which one should should I jump for?

 

[aaksheytalwar]

7950 hands down

 

[Jhatfie]

I have both cards and each has their merits, but if you are willing to overclock, then the 7950 wins pretty easily.

 

[Arkaign]

Yep, 7950. Nvidia's prices are too high in comparison imho. I bought my 670FTW back before AMD dropped their prices so low (and boosted their clocks + better drivers), so there's not much reason to consider Nvidia these days.

 

[hjalti8]

7950 with a mail in rebate from newegg that brings it down to $275 here: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814131478

I would avoid that 7950, the cooling is weak. For only 5$ more you can get this: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814202006

 

[lehtv]

7950 for sure. The Sapphire card hjalti8 linked should OC to 1.1GHz on stock volts (mine did)

 

[thephew]

I chose the 660Ti after reading this article:

http://techreport.com/review/23981/radeon-hd-7950-vs-geforce-gtx-660-ti-revisited

The 7950 displayed highly variable frame time spikes, while the 660 Ti was smooth throughout. Average fps was about the same averaging over several games, but "99th percentile frame time" strongly favored the 660 Ti. Smoothness is more important to me than max fps.

 

[The Alias]

I chose the 660Ti after reading this article:

http://techreport.com/review/23981/radeon-hd-7950-vs-geforce-gtx-660-ti-revisited

The 7950 displayed highly variable frame time spikes, while the 660 Ti was smooth throughout. Average fps was about the same averaging over several games, but "99th percentile frame time" strongly favored the 660 Ti. Smoothness is more important to me than max fps.

didn't they mess with the engine ini files to get it to run like that ? and that's just one game .

 

[cmaMath13]

Very similar performing cards when you average things out. I would go with the lower priced card. Either will MORE than meet your requirements.

 

[thephew]

didn't they mess with the engine ini files to get it to run like that ? and that's just one game .

It looks like 5 of the 7 games they tested had serious frame delay issues with the 7950. They just ran fraps for their frame times, which is a pretty standard way to do it. The 7950 spent a lot of time waiting 50ms or longer for a frame, that's no good.

 

[lavaheadache]

It looks like 5 of the 7 games they tested had serious frame delay issues with the 7950. They just ran fraps for their frame times, which is a pretty standard way to do it. The 7950 spent a lot of time waiting 50ms or longer for a frame, that's no good.

looks like "it" worked on you.

 

[chimaxi83]

That's strange, all these people on the boards who are AMD users and who really have no issues... yet a single website sways the uneducated and misinformed. Good job, I guess :thumbsup:

 

[thephew]

That's strange, all these people on the boards who are AMD users and who really have no issues... yet a single website sways the uneducated and misinformed. Good job, I guess :thumbsup:

Reproduce the test yourself and post your frame latency histogram. No other sites are really using this latency based approach, but it's starting to get some traction, as it correlates to gameplay smoothness more than average fps.

Two cards, same price, same overall performance, I bought the one that was shown empirically to have smoother frame delivery. I'm no nvidia fanboy, owned 8 straight ATI cards before this.

I'm super sensitive to frame latency, tearing, stuttering, etc, so that's going to be my overriding factor for future purchases, even if it's at the expense of average fps.

 

[Jhatfie]

That's strange, all these people on the boards who are AMD users and who really have no issues... yet a single website sways the uneducated and misinformed. Good job, I guess :thumbsup:

Well I think some people are sensitive to frame latency, so the test is certainly worth adding to reviews, however in my experience my 7950 is leaps and bounds smoother and better performing than my 660ti and the same graphics settings. I never notice any stuttering or frame-rate anomalies with it. Granted some of that could be due to the 1200Mhz overclock on my 7950, but my 660ti has a decent +190mhz core and +900mhz memory OC as well and maybe I just am not sensitive to certain types of latency. Both cards really are great, but if I had to choose one as my favorite, it would be the 7950.

 

[antef]

I was going back and forth between these cards for a long time, but ended up going with the 660 Ti because I found one for $200, do not plan to OC, and I prefer its smaller size and lower power usage. I think it's pretty sad that even after moving to 28nm AMD is still dishing out cards with well over 200W TDPs. I looked up my old 8800 GTS 512 and was amazed that its TDP was only 135W. We should still be in that range today. Anyway, if those things don't matter to you too much, you should probably just go with whatever you can get a better deal on.

 

[Dark Shroud]

Reproduce the test yourself and post your frame latency histogram. No other sites are really using this latency based approach, but it's starting to get some traction, as it correlates to gameplay smoothness more than average fps.

Several other sites did reproduce this test with very different results. In the end it came down to being BS.

If you're happy with a 660 TI then good. The 660 TI is not as strong as a 7950 and it's still pricier than it should be considering its competition is the 7870.

Edit, here is a link to one of threads we have on that topic with all kinds of nice information.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2289221

 

[ICDP]

I was going back and forth between these cards for a long time, but ended up going with the 660 Ti because I found one for $200, do not plan to OC, and I prefer its smaller size and lower power usage. I think it's pretty sad that even after moving to 28nm AMD is still dishing out cards with well over 200W TDPs. I looked up my old 8800 GTS 512 and was amazed that its TDP was only 135W. We should still be in that range today. Anyway, if those things don't matter to you too much, you should probably just go with whatever you can get a better deal on.

The 7950 has a TDP of 200W, it is hardly "well over 200W". Of course compared to 150 TDP for the 660Ti it does suck more juice but that extra 1GB of VRAM does require slightly more power to run. If power is important then Nvidia is the way to go.

It is kind off pointless comparing a 8800GTS TDP to a 7950 for example. It is only drawing 65 more W TDP and it is massively more powerful. Hardly a step in the wrong direction is it?

 

[amenx]

I also went 660ti, despite most advising 7950. The techreport article played no part in my decision. They would have to test sample at least 10 7950s and 10 660ti's for it to be meaningful to me.

 

[Dark Shroud]

The 7950 also has double or more memory buss width than the 660 TI.

There are 3GB 660 TIs that maintain the 192bit buss but they all cost over $320.

 

[ICDP]

Reproduce the test yourself and post your frame latency histogram. No other sites are really using this latency based approach, but it's starting to get some traction, as it correlates to gameplay smoothness more than average fps.

I already did, I got similar stutters in Skyrim but found creating my own game profile fixed the problem. I also tested other games and found no such "latency" issues. It really is game specific and both AMD and Nvidia require a lot of messing with game profiles on occasion. It isn't a hardware issue that affects every AMD 7xx0 card in every game.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2289641&highlight=

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=34376473&postcount=550

Two cards, same price, same overall performance, I bought the one that was shown empirically to have smoother frame delivery. I'm no nvidia fanboy, owned 8 straight ATI cards before this.

Again this is flat out wrong, it has not been shown "empirically" to have smoother frame delivery, you are reading one site and applying their results to every single scenario. Please don't misuse the word "empirically", this would imply it was confirmed by multiple sources. Also the 660Ti does not have the same "overall performance", see the following reviews over on [H].

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/11/12/fall_2012_gpu_driver_comparison_roundup/3

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/08/23/galaxy_gtx_660_ti_gc_oc_vs_670_hd_7950/1

Here, let me show you the pertinent quote from the article.

"The most interesting stand out from this evaluation has been the NVIDIA GTX 660 Ti, which is priced significantly higher than the Radeon HD 7870 while turning in similar performance numbers. The GTX 660 Ti has lost its value at this point in time, lending way to the Radeon HD 7950 which has benefited from falling prices and new drivers."

By all means enjoy your GTX 660Ti and be happy in the fact it is a good card. Just don't make stuff up to justify your purchase.

I'm super sensitive to frame latency, tearing, stuttering, etc, so that's going to be my overriding factor for future purchases, even if it's at the expense of average fps.

Good for you, I suggest you take more than the results from one single web site prior to making any decisions though.

 

[thephew]

Edit, here is a link to one of threads we have on that topic with all kinds of nice information.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2289221

It looks like the consensus on that thread is that the AMD 7-series card produce superior average fps than their price-equivalent Nvidia competition, but frame latency is a very real and measurable phenomenon that is worse with the AMD cards. BrightCandle owns both 7970s and 680s, and confirms the frame latency is much worse with the 7970 (single card mode, SLI vs. CF is an even worse story for AMD).

The only refuting of the TR article I've found is anecdotal; everyone that has tried empirically has replicated their frame latency measurements.

 

[amenx]

The 7950 also has double or more memory buss width than the 660 TI.

Yet the 660ti keeps up with it quite well and in some cases does better. Quite impressive for a mid-range card which also soundly beats Nvidias last gen flagship the 580 despite that card also having double bus width.

There are 3GB 660 TIs that maintain the 192bit buss but they all cost over $320.

All 660 TIs have 192bit bus. If what you're getting at is that 3gb 'better aligns' with the 192bit bus then 2gb, then yes, you're right. Still havent seen reviews where it makes a big difference.

 

[ICDP]

It looks like the consensus on that thread is that the AMD 7-series card produce superior average fps than their price-equivalent Nvidia competition, but frame latency is a very real and measurable phenomenon that is worse with the AMD cards.

I showed you links to my own testing above. The general consensus did not conclude anything of the sort. Go ahead and keep generalising based on one web site review. Try convincing yourself that the 7950 always suffers from frame latency issues, just don't try to pass it as fact.

BrightCandle owns both 7970s and 680s, and confirms the frame latency is much worse with the 7970 (single card mode, SLI vs. CF is an even worse story for AMD).

I also have a GTX 680 and HD 7970 and in my testing of both frame latency is game dependent. In almost all cases it is possible to reduce or eliminate any stutter by using 3rd party tools such as NvidiaInspector or RadeonPro.

The only refuting of the TR article I've found is anecdotal; everyone that has tried empirically has replicated their frame latency measurements.

I used the scientific method to test these allegations myself and apart from Skyrim (which is fixable) found no such replication.

 

[Shmee]

I would say 7950, if you can afford it. Haven't had either, but the 7950s generally OC like beasts and many have voltage control.

 

[antef]

The 7950 has a TDP of 200W, it is hardly "well over 200W". Of course compared to 150 TDP for the 660Ti it does suck more juice but that extra 1GB of VRAM does require slightly more power to run. If power is important then Nvidia is the way to go.

It is kind off pointless comparing a 8800GTS TDP to a 7950 for example. It is only drawing 65 more W TDP and it is massively more powerful. Hardly a step in the wrong direction is it?

The new 7950 cards (the "boost" update) have increased that to 225W, according to this site's review. So when comparing to older cards, I'm not sure that's 100% a step in the right direction. More performance shouldn't come at the cost of significantly more power, that is what architectural improvements should help us avoid. Considering Intel CPUs now have a 77W TDP and are very powerful (admittedly on very different workloads than GPUs), it seems GPUs should be doing a lot better in the power department.

Of course, these things go in cycles, some gens they focus on performance, others on power consumption. I like that Nvidia seemed to especially focus on power this gen and really bring it down. Like others have said though, if you're not really concerned about that, the 7950 does seem to deliver slightly higher FPS than the 660 Ti after recent driver updates, but probably not enough to significantly affect when you will upgrade next in the future, which is why I would purchase based on the deals you can find.