wow. Just seen the review (tt) and the ti has only a 192bit bus. But is is amazingly fast. faster than the 7950. It is very powerful, Wow
So you chose the two games Nvidia does not very well in. Cherry picking
I believe it will tie the 7950 overall.
Nope.
You read the review with benchmarks up to page 12 not including AA/AF. I posted the only page that matters, 13, and GTX660Ti falls off a cliff, losing to the GTX580. The server is currently down, but you can see some of them in this post. Who is going to spend $300 on a card and not use AA/AF? This card has no chance whatsoever against a 1.1ghz 7950.
Sorry I am not trying to cherry pick. It's because those are the only ones posted on our forum and the website is down. The review itself had very few games tested. I found all of them here if you want to take a look. With AA on, minimum and average frame rates drop a lot, even in older games such as Far Cry 2.
I doubt it will tie an HD7950 unless looking at 800mhz 7950 and no AA. At 860mhz the 7950 card is just 10% slower than the GTX670 at 1080P and can use AA/AF, plus 30-40% more overclocking headroom. For enthusiasts, the 7950 seems to be the clear choice.
ur absolutely correct about overclocked 7950 being more powerful. I have no doubt that when you have max overclocked run up, the 7950 will befaster than the gtx660ti can do. I believe that a +1100mhz 7950 will be able to catch the 680. I can agree with this completely.
But its still not looking good for the 7950 when no matter how you spin it. 95% of card buyers wont be pushing their cards at all. i doubt even 5% of users do. Its not gonna matter in the grand scheme. If the 660ti drops at the middle of 200-300 range, then AMD has a huge huge loss coming
Take off your green shades m8.. for a $299 card to tank in performance so hard with AA, is utter fail. At $200, you could have an argument, $299.. no way in hell will informed buyers even touch this.
Faster than GTX 650 Ti , slower than GTX 670 , duh...
Launch MSRP $200-$329
And since we are at predictions...
Anyone knows what happened with you_know_whose prediction about Kepler
being fast via PhysX block. Being faster than Tahiti, but only in NV sponsored games;
elsewhere slower than Pitcairn.
Was he bamboozled or what?
What happens is he makes outrageous claims about stuff, then when he ends up being way off base he says the articles he posted were full of fake information he made up to see what other sites try to steal / feed off his articles. It's all a bunch of BS, the guy is a sensationalist - worthless one - with an obviously targeted agenda, and says things just to get page hits.
TT seems to imply the 660ti will be a mid 200$ card not a $300 one. if all this is true, AMD will be in a lot of hurt.
The last thing AMD and all of you should do is pretend this card is no big deal. It looks pretty capable to me. Especially if its closer to the 250 mark.
i dont understand the specs. Something doesnt smell correct. Perhaps there are 2 versions and numbers are getting crossed. idk but the performance doesnt fit the specs.
on another note. Go back to those charts and look at the before and after for all the Gk104 cards. They all take a similar performance hit for the AA test
One thing I haven't seen considered is the effect 660ti pricing would have on 5x0 series cards. If it comes in at ~$250, the 560ti, 560ti-448, 570, and 580 would all require massive price cuts to even make sense anymore. Can't see vendors being very happy if their stock of older cards becomes unsellable, so I'd imagine they'll stick to the $299 MSRP for reference cards and customs will cost even more.
Sorry I am not trying to cherry pick. It's because those are the only ones posted on our forum and the website is down. The review itself had very few games tested. I found all of them here if you want to take a look. With AA on, minimum and average frame rates drop a lot, even in older games such as Far Cry 2.
I doubt it will tie an HD7950 unless looking at 800mhz 7950 and no AA. At 860mhz the 7950 card is just 10% slower than the GTX670 at 1080P and can use AA/AF, plus 30-40% more overclocking headroom. For enthusiasts, the 7950 seems to be the clear choice.
1. Final performance of the 660Ti is not known yet. 2. The 7950 comes at 800MHz. There certainly will be OC versions of the 660Ti as well. Apples to apples, please.
4. OC is not guaranteed, especially 30-40%.
For example Nvidia very often does better in popular games and games that aren't over after 6h.
AMD now has regained the lead in SKYRIM, Dirt 3, BF3 with AA.
And it is not nonsensical to argue over 10% as is constantly happening in forums all over the world?
While these subjective observations should most certainly not enter any kind of rating, they are noteworthy. Why, in your opinion, doesn't it make sense? Doesn't it affect the gamer when most of the time he has better performance? I believe it indeed does.
And of course you have to have a certain level of demand, no argument there. But there are other segments beside highend. So if a certain game is unimportant for the performance assessment of GTX680 vs HD7970, this might not be true for GTX650 vs HD7770 for example.
Because every gamer prefers different games. A game you think is relevant because you like it, I may not.
I don't play World of Warcraft any more and haven't for several years, so it's irrelevant to me how a card benches in that game. Just to give an example. For a lot of people it is going to be relevant.
It's just completely subjective whereas benchmark results are not subjective. Look at how a card performs in a given slice of repeatable game play and that is how it performs. That is not subjective. Gamers will look at all the benchmarks and then use their subjective preferences in games that matter to them and decide what they want to do with their money.