***Official GeForce GTX660/GTX650 Review Thread***

[RussianSensation]

What's the problem? Seem like that gamer didn't rushed out to buy overpriced products. BTW the GTX660 costs $229 and is slighly slower than a 7870 for $349 6 months ago. You should more worry about people who bought a 7870 8 weeks ago. They lost 30% of the value and that not include all the free games like Sleeping Dogs - nice to see that AMD just matches "the price/performance" point of the GTX660 after 6 months. :awe:

Great backwards logic. Let me use the same train of thought you just presented by ignoring that the gamer USED the videocard all this time to play games:

GTX280 launched for $649 June 2008
HD4890 launched for $269 April 2009

In 10 months we got the same performance for almost $400 less vs. HD7870 for $350 in March 2012 and then NV matches that for $230 7 months later. Notice how early adopters pay a premium for the latest and greatest GPU technology? They are using that card for 6-7 months. If you use the argument that "all it took is 7 months waiting to get HD7850 OC level of performance from NV", why don't we suggest waiting 6-7 more months for HD8850/8870 then?

^ That's how the world of GPUs generally works since it's so highly competitive. If you wanted GTX580 level of performance, you bought a 7850 OC or 7870 and not waited 6-7 months.

Plus, AMD cards bitcoin mine, so your cost savings argument is a lot less relevant in North America. Those original $550 7970 cards that enthusiasts bought in US/Canada are all fully paid off if a person took 10 min to set up BTC. :thumbsup:

The only reason AMD got away with pricing 7870 for $350 is because NV wouldn't drop prices on 570/580 cards and didn't show up for 6 months. You can look at it as overpriced and that's fair but against 570/580, HD7850/7870 were better cards for 6 months and since then AMD just dropped prices since after-all HD7850/7870 series is 7 months old.

Your logic is strange though because 7 months later and HD7950 for $280-300 overclocks to reach GTX680 level of performance. So what would you tell a GTX680 owner from March 2012 that he just wasted $200-220? It doesn't work like that because that person has gamed/used the 680 and enjoyed it.

Using your logic, in 6 months from now there will be some other card at $229 that will offer more performance than 660. Now the 660 has the "early adopter price premium"? NV had no choice but to price 660 at $229 or similar since HD7870's market price was $240-250. They pretty much had to undercut 7870 to even make a splash after being late half a year.

 

[AnandThenMan]

What's the problem? Seem like that gamer didn't rushed out to buy overpriced products. BTW the GTX660 costs $229 and is slighly slower than a 7870 for $349 6 months ago. You should more worry about people who bought a 7870 8 weeks ago. They lost 30% of the value and that not include all the free games like Sleeping Dogs - nice to see that AMD just matches "the price/performance" point of the GTX660 after 6 months. :awe:

RS is being kind, this is a pure troll post at best. I hope you are not being serious, although if you're not it's a pretty lame joke.

I agree with what some others are saying, Nvidia is so late with these cards that they simply are not impressive. But they do finally offer competition in the ~$200 price bracket, which is great for everyone.

 

[HurleyBird]

It's a decent card, but it's far too late.

 

[The Alias]

the thing is the 660 is outperformed by the 7870 and that's without both of them being oc'ed and we all know gcn responds more to oc'ing than kepler by a long shot so the only real reason to buy it is because of brand preference that especially goes for the 650 vs the 7770

 

[VirtualLarry]

I'm interested in a 660, it's pretty-much at my limit of affordability in terms of graphics cards.

I do DC, so CUDA is pretty important to me.

Currently running a GTX460 1GB Windforce card with a failing fan.

Thinking of getting another windforce card, but am afraid that it will have no resale value, if the fans crap out just outside of warranty limits like seems to be happening with mine.

 

[notty22]

What's the problem? Seem like that gamer didn't rushed out to buy overpriced products. BTW the GTX660 costs $229 and is slighly slower than a 7870 for $349 6 months ago. You should more worry about people who bought a 7870 8 weeks ago. They lost 30% of the value and that not include all the free games like Sleeping Dogs - nice to see that AMD just matches "the price/performance" point of the GTX660 after 6 months. :awe:

I agree with you. This, 'late' metric figures in how. Pity points for the competitor ? I read debates that propose there are no more gamers looking to upgrade. Thats ignorant. Boo Hoo, if you bought in to a 369.00 7870, there is no option for you from Nvidia. All the people who hung on with gtx 460/560's / 6850's have great options from both companies now. That's all that matters. Not revisionist history drama walls of text.

 

[zebrax2]

Google "enthusiast segment", you will find that quite a few people agree it is a valid term to describe the people that buy the best of the best in the PC (gaming) world.

As for your prices, of course the differ from country to country. That doesn't change the fact, that the 660 isn't the best of the best. It is not an enthusiast part, but a mainstream or at best performance part.

While I generally would agree that enthusiast can mean something else, in the PC gaming business, it has always meant the highest performing segment. And people buying in that segment are enthusiasts. At least in my opinion.

Enthusiast segment refers to the market it is assigned to while enthusiast refer to the person. You could say that buyers in that portion of the market are mostly enthusiast that doesn't mean though that only buyers from that section are the only one that can be considered enthusiast.

 

[f1sherman]

Pretty amazing that you are claiming 660 is actually faster....

Nope. Not me.
Not even Techreport.

But they are claiming NV is smoother than AMD.

 

[Keysplayr]

It's a decent card, but it's far too late.

Too late for what? To sell? This will probably be NV's best selling card when it's all through.

@f1sherman: I read that too, that Nvidia was smoother. I would like to focus on this item just as much as many here wished the words were never uttered by the TR editor.

" If you're focused on smooth gameplay and not just nice frame rate averages, Nvidia's Kepler-based GPUs currently have the upper hand."

This is very interesting and if proves to be an accurate description of the facts, one definitely has to ask why this is.
Cause I don't think 10 or 20fps faster means squat if it isn't as smooth a gameplay as the card with 10 to 20 less. That is a game changer if it's true. AMD's sudden jump in performance with 12.8's could have sacrificed something. Something as almost transparent as microstutter on a single gpu. I don't know, but I'd love to find out either way.

 

[KingFatty]

@f1sherman: I read that too, that Nvidia was smoother. I would like to focus on this item just as much as many here wished the words were never uttered by the TR editor.

" If you're focused on smooth gameplay and not just nice frame rate averages, Nvidia's Kepler-based GPUs currently have the upper hand."

This is very interesting and if proves to be an accurate description of the facts, one definitely has to ask why this is.
Cause I don't think 10 or 20fps faster means squat if it isn't as smooth a gameplay as the card with 10 to 20 less. That is a game changer if it's true. AMD's sudden jump in performance with 12.8's could have sacrificed something. Something as almost transparent as microstutter on a single gpu. I don't know, but I'd love to find out either way.

Is the "smoother" we are talking about here, is it like microstutter?

Because some people claim to be unable to detect microstutter, and wouldn't they therefore be unable to detect the roughness/smoothness between the NVidia cards?

I guess I'm saying that the typical gamer will definitely notice a boost of 20fps faster across the board, but can he even notice "smoothness" (e.g., would it be something you can see on a chart, but unable to "feel" it?)?

 

[Keysplayr]

Is the "smoother" we are talking about here, is it like microstutter?

Because some people claim to be unable to detect microstutter, and wouldn't they therefore be unable to detect the roughness/smoothness between the NVidia cards?

I guess I'm saying that the typical gamer will definitely notice a boost of 20fps faster across the board, but can he even notice "smoothness" (e.g., would it be something you can see on a chart, but unable to "feel" it?)?

Yeah, I knew someone would go there, but I honestly don't know. I'm not saying it IS even microstutter. But whatever it is, it was enough for the TR editor to say something about it. And in reality, your questions should be presented to this editor himself.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Perhaps the "smoothness" is referring to adaptive vsync? Is it enabled by default by the NV drivers?

 

[Keysplayr]

Perhaps the "smoothness" is referring to adaptive vsync? Is it enabled by default by the NV drivers?

I don't think that's it because for sure the editor would have known that is what is was. I mean, don't you think? Something like Adaptive V-sync, or just V-sync could show a "hitch" when jumping down from 60 to 30, or shutting off V-Sync on the fly like adaptive V-sync does when the framerate would drop below 60 for example. Not a constant feeling of not playing that game smoothly.
Again, best thing to do is ask the TR editor. Maybe he opened up a can of worms he can't close.

 

[chimaxi83]

Too late for what? To sell? This will probably be NV's best selling card when it's all through.

@f1sherman: I read that too, that Nvidia was smoother. I would like to focus on this item just as much as many here wished the words were never uttered by the TR editor.

" If you're focused on smooth gameplay and not just nice frame rate averages, Nvidia's Kepler-based GPUs currently have the upper hand."

This is very interesting and if proves to be an accurate description of the facts, one definitely has to ask why this is.
Cause I don't think 10 or 20fps faster means squat if it isn't as smooth a gameplay as the card with 10 to 20 less. That is a game changer if it's true. AMD's sudden jump in performance with 12.8's could have sacrificed something. Something as almost transparent as microstutter on a single gpu. I don't know, but I'd love to find out either way.

You just can't get over Nvidia not having the performance crown, eh? Keep the thinly veiled driver cheating accusations going :thumbup:

Anyway, Hardocp also says Nvidia is providing a smoother experience, lately at least. I own both top end single GPU cards, and the only game that I've had "smoother" game play with is my 680, even though my 7970 has higher average/minimums, is Battlefield 3. I'm pretty sure the "smoother" that's being mentioned is dependent on the individual user, their system, and their eyes.

 

[Keysplayr]

You just can't get over Nvidia not having the performance crown, eh? Keep the thinly veiled driver cheating accusations going :thumbup:

Anyway, Hardocp also says Nvidia is providing a smoother experience, lately at least. I own both top end single GPU cards, and the only game that I've had "smoother" game play with is my 680, even though my 7970 has higher average/minimums, is Battlefield 3. I'm pretty sure the "smoother" that's being mentioned is dependent on the individual user, their system, and their eyes.

WUT? LOL can you believe this guy?
Thinly veiled? Dude if I wanted to I could just say that AMD cheated with their drivers. I'm not a beat around the bush type of guy.
But, I don't know for sure, nor do I have any proof of this. All I have is a sudden jump in performance on AMD cards after 12.8, and reports of smoother gameplay, even with slower fps, on competing Nvidia cards. As you have just mentioned yourself.

So, get off the personal train, and stay on the data train. Please. Don't care which I want to win or which I like better.

 

[RussianSensation]

@f1sherman: I read that too, that Nvidia was smoother. I would like to focus on this item just as much as many here wished the words were never uttered by the TR editor.

You can focus all you want but when a review tests 5 games, you may get higher playability from 660 because the review failed to add Dirt Showdown into the FPS average playability graph in the conclusion.

Since when are 5 games conclusive of anything?

15 games at TPU - 660 loses by 9%, after-market ~ 7870
18 games at Computerbase - 660 loses by 7%
15 games at Xbitlabs - 660 loses by 7-9%
" Its advantage is so huge in the last three games that it is an average 3-8% ahead of the GeForce GTX 660 at 1920x1080 and 7 to 9% ahead at 2560x1400 across all the tests."
17 games at HT4U - 660 loses by 6%

That's 4 major reviewers that tested 15+ games and 660 lost in each one of them. There goes your theory. :thumbsup:

I counter your cherry-picked 5 games review with HardOCP's similarly small review and 7870 and 660 are both factory overclocked:

Overall the new ASUS GeForce GTX 660 DirectCU II seems to compete well with a price comparative factory overclocked Radeon HD 7870. While the gameplay experience is mostly the same between the two video cards, for the most part the overclocked Radeon HD 7870 seems to take the performance lead. If you look back at every game, the overclocked Radeon HD 7870 is on top in terms of raw performance, though the in-game quality settings attained are the same. ~ Only 5 games tested as TPU

Then you have Tom's Hardware that tested 8 games with MSAA:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-660-geforce-gtx-650-benchmark,3297-24.html

That is a game changer if it's true. AMD's sudden jump in performance with 12.8's could have sacrificed something. Something as almost transparent as microstutter on a single gpu. I don't know, but I'd love to find out either way.

More conspiracy theories>>>> ? I mean it can't possibly have anything to do with the fact that TPU only tested 5 games?

I love it how 4 major reviews that tested 15+ games are ignored by 1 review out of 20 that tested just 5 games is used for utmost accuracy.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Lets be realistic here guys basically if the minimum/average frame rate is 30 fps your eyes can't see a difference, I think we all get distracted by small points. Basically buy what's in your price range that works well for the games you play.

 

[ocre]

there are some completely vested people who would prefer this card not ever see the light of day. This would solely benefit AMD and no one out side of their company. For the rest of us, its effects will be far reaching. Perhaps by some its importance will be grossly underestimated but in the end this matters little...... none the less

As for being too late.....maybe.....but only to people who already bought GPUs and who wont be in the market to buy anytime soon. Those potential customers wont at all be effected by this card in the market. But the market never stops, its a constant flow. And that flow is soon to be accelerating into high gear.

There will be many consumers lining up in the next few months rushing into the holidays and the fresh start of a new year. The competition will be fierce as things start heating up. With everyday the 28nm line up is looking better and better and this will continue from the top to bottom.

So I invite with open arms the next few months that are coming fast. Its gonna be a great one. Its really a win for us all. The more fierce they go at it, the better the landscape is for us consumers. The competition is so tight right now, closer than its ever been. Its a setup for the perfect storm......quite unique circumstance.

With their hands all laid out, going full force into the epic grand finale. It will be great for us all. Good times

 

[RussianSensation]

You just can't get over Nvidia not having the performance crown, eh? Keep the thinly veiled driver cheating accusations going :thumbup:

I don't think Keys can. You can't ask a guy who works for Coca-Cola if Pepsi tastes better and expect an honest public answer?

Team Green still has not admitted that they lost even a single generation (or that GeForce 5 was basically a failure or that GeForce 7 was a flop in the 2nd part of its life against X1900 series in shader intensive DX9 titles). Even now, GPGPU doesn't matter anymore, performance / Watt > overclocking or top performance and launching late is not a big deal.

Also, price/performance is suddenly a factor for the $229 GTX660 vs. $240 HD7870 but it's not a factor for HD7950 OC vs. GTX670 OC or for HD7970 GE vs. GTX680. Overclocking counted for GTX460 but it's not counted for HD7850 for 6 months or when comparing 7950 vs. 660Ti. Interesting.

Here is the real story of this entire generation: When NV wins, it's barely winning. When AMD wins, it's winning by bigger percentages.

Let's go back to this TechReport on a game-by-game basis:

BF3 - GTX660 wins by 4%
http://techreport.com/r.x/geforce-gtx-660/bf3-fps.gif

Skyrim - 7870 wins by 10%
http://techreport.com/r.x/geforce-gtx-660/skyrim-fps.gif

Batman AC - 660 wins by 4%
http://techreport.com/r.x/geforce-gtx-660/arkham-fps.gif

Max Payne 3 - 7870 wins by 14%
http://techreport.com/r.x/geforce-gtx-660/max3-fps.gif

Dirt Showdown - 7870 wins by 61%
http://techreport.com/r.x/geforce-gtx-660/dirt-fps.gif

Crysis 2 - tie
http://techreport.com/r.x/geforce-gtx-660/crysis-fps.gif

Looks to me like overall, when AMD cards are faster, their lead is more substantial.

If you plan to play a wide variety of games, the 7870 is actually the safer option. This is actually seen in the 4 large reviews I linked where they each tested 15+ games and where the 7870 was unanimously the more consistent performer. This is actually the same scenario that we see with HD7970/7970 GE vs. 670/680.

 

[sze5003]

I think they are not that big of an improvement, the 650 at least in toms review they did ok and compared it to an older generation card. So its just using the lower chip base. All I can hope for is more Amd price decreases.

 

[notty22]

From Anands review:

[QUOTE The real question of course isn’t how the GTX 660 compares to the GTX 660 Ti, but rather how it compares to the Radeon HD 7870 in the face of AMD’s earlier price drops. Even with a more balanced shader-to-ROP ratio for GTX 660, the question of who wins remains to be heavily dependent on the game being tested. AMD controls their traditional strongholds of Crysis, DiRT, and Civilization V, while NVIDIA controls Battlefield 3, Starcraft II, and Portal 2. The end result is that the GTX 660 is on average 4% ahead of the 7870, but once again this is an anything-but-equal scenario; even swapping out a single game could easily shift the balance, reiterating the importance of individual games when relative performance is so inconsistent.
Meanwhile when it comes to physical metrics like power consumption, temperature, and noise, NVIDIA does have a clear edge thanks to another efficient rendition of the Kepler architecture with GK106. GK106 doesn’t enjoy nearly the same advantage over Pitcairn that GK104 did over Tahiti, but it’s still enough to get the same job done with less power consumed and less noise generated. It’s also just enough to make GTX 660 the preferable card over 7870 (at least as far as reference cards go) though by no means is 7870 suddenly a poor choice.
][/QUOTE]

 

[VirtualLarry]

Can someone explain to me in simple terms, why, in the TH benchmarks, the 650 was doing worse than the 550ti? The 550ti only has 192 SPs. The 650 has 384. I was thinking of picking up a 650 to replace my GTX460 1GB card, since it has a similar number of SPs. (Mine has 336)

But is the 650 really a much slower card? The 550ti is weaker than the GTX460 1GB, so if the 650 is weaker still?

Edit: Are these lower-end Kepler cards completely unbalanced?

 

[Termie]

Can someone explain to me in simple terms, why, in the TH benchmarks, the 650 was doing worse than the 550ti? The 550ti only has 192 SPs. The 650 has 384. I was thinking of picking up a 650 to replace my GTX460 1GB card, since it has a similar number of SPs. (Mine has 336)

But is the 650 really a much slower card? The 550ti is weaker than the GTX460 1GB, so if the 650 is weaker still?

Edit: Are these lower-end Kepler cards completely unbalanced?

Definitely do not buy a 650 to replace a 460. You can't directly compare the number of SPs. It's a different architecture, and the 650 is much, much weaker than a 460.

 

[SolMiester]

Too late for what? To sell? This will probably be NV's best selling card when it's all through.

@f1sherman: I read that too, that Nvidia was smoother. I would like to focus on this item just as much as many here wished the words were never uttered by the TR editor.

" If you're focused on smooth gameplay and not just nice frame rate averages, Nvidia's Kepler-based GPUs currently have the upper hand."

This is very interesting and if proves to be an accurate description of the facts, one definitely has to ask why this is.
Cause I don't think 10 or 20fps faster means squat if it isn't as smooth a gameplay as the card with 10 to 20 less. That is a game changer if it's true. AMD's sudden jump in performance with 12.8's could have sacrificed something. Something as almost transparent as microstutter on a single gpu. I don't know, but I'd love to find out either way.

Wasnt that description used with 680 on surround against eyefinity too on 680 release?

 

[toyota]

Can someone explain to me in simple terms, why, in the TH benchmarks, the 650 was doing worse than the 550ti? The 550ti only has 192 SPs. The 650 has 384. I was thinking of picking up a 650 to replace my GTX460 1GB card, since it has a similar number of SPs. (Mine has 336)

But is the 650 really a much slower card? The 550ti is weaker than the GTX460 1GB, so if the 650 is weaker still?

Edit: Are these lower-end Kepler cards completely unbalanced?

come on now, you know better than that. this is different architecture here and there are no more specific shader clocks so you cant just look at the shaders. clock for clock the shaders in Kepler are way slower than they were on previous gpus from Nvidia.