[rumor] GTX660ti in August, basically a gimped GTX670

[ShintaiDK]

Problem is how VRAM is measured. Its always done wrong. Plus does it mean Windows 7 needs 2½GB minimum to run because my Windows 7 uses that on boot?

 

[SirPauly]

Can't there be some compromises on ram?

If some gamers demand more ram -- AIB differentiation may offer sku's for this potential customer.

What if a sku performs very well at 1680 x 1050 and 1920 x 1080 with less ram over-all --- offers compelling price/performance for many. And for the tweakers, power users, multi-monitor, etc... crowd, etc..........double the ram for a modest premium?

Best of both worlds.

 

[tviceman]

I think he is right though.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=33700970&postcount=71

Max Payne 3 with MSAA
Shogun 2 with MSAA
BF3 with MSAA
Medal of Honor Warfighter
GTAIV

It's also not about today's games but games in 6 months from now. Do you really want to recommend someone to spend $200-250 on a card with 1.5GB of VRAM in August 2012? Next wave of games will be pretty intensive: Crysis 3, Watch Dogs, GTA V, Metro Last Light, Tomb Raider, etc.

Also, after seeing what happened to HD4870 512mb vs. 1GB, 8800GTS 320 vs. 640mb, 8800GT 256 vs. 512mb, I am never going to recommend anyone to get a card that's barely adequate for today's games when there is a competing card for ~ $300 or so with double the VRAM and massive overclocking headroom that matches a stock 680!

Seriously anyone who wants to spend $300 on a fast GPU and is still waiting for a GTX660/660Ti is an NV fanboy imo. Even if it has 2GB of VRAM, the chances that it will beat an overclocked 7950 is pretty much 0. IIRC, the only time when NV had a mid-range card that could come close to the flagship through overclocking was GeForce 4 Ti 4200. I can't recall any other time. I doubt NV is about to release a $250-300 card that can match a GTX680 with overclocking. That would pretty much cannibalize their entire 670/680 line of very profitable $400-500 cards.

I am not even sure GTX660Ti will be a $300 card. Maybe NV is aiming to launch GTX660 at $199 against a 7850 and $249 GTX660Ti against an HD7870? Maybe they'll drop the price of GTX670 to $350 and GTX680 to $450 and release some voltage unlocked 680 Extreme Edition to retake the single-GPU performance crown? It's hard to tell but $300 card with 1.5GB of VRAM is a flop to me.

Is MSAA a requirement to play a game though? I can't remember the last time I threw a fit, raged quit because not having MSAA means the game looks like 8-bit NES, and uninstalled it because MSAA's performance hit was too big.

 

[SirPauly]

No, but it may be important to see how the sku's handle titles with AA, one may imagine.

 

[tviceman]

No, but it may be important to see how the sku's handle titles with AA, one may imagine.

My point is, AA isn't a make or break feature for 96% of game players. It's nice, yes, but never have I played a game in modern times (greater than or equal to 1680x1050) when, in mid-game action, have quit because the amount of aliasing with no AA totally unacceptable. AA is a great feature that is a subtle effect in action titles. Honestly I could go into a game, and as long as it's set to a monitor's native resolution, there are going to be points where I can't tell if I have AA enabled or not. It does wonders for making screen shots look buttery smooth, but in-game it's less noticeable.

This could be said of about any graphical "feature" (except AF, which is probably one of the biggest graphical quality improvement features), I know. But at any point you enough graphic quality processes can be applied to bring ANY graphics card to it's knees.

 

[SirPauly]

Try convincing this forum that AA isn't important or a make-or-break feature.

 

[Silverforce11]

It's not 2001, its soon 2013, some form of AA is essential. I thought we've moved on and expected better from graphics. Previously it was AF, now its just accepted.

Also don't forget the whole console vs PC gaming issue, ppl pay more $$ for expensive PC setups is just so they can enjoy a better graphics experience and AA is critical.

Now as i've said in my prior post before you start going all personal, i can't recommend a 1.5gb vram card thats being sold as a "close to upper tier" product, or even upper-midrange because already now there are games which struggle with AA on. You think it gets better in the coming 2 years?

BUT it would be fine if they priced it really low, as in mid-range or lower in terms of price, i don't see a problem because this segment isnt for maxing graphics anyway.

 

[Skurge]

Mid August launch.
12-15% slower than a 670 for the 660Ti OC'd.
U$299

Can't tell you more than that.

 

[tviceman]

It's not 2001, its soon 2013, some form of AA is essential.

I don't care if it's 1984 or 2050. What year it is does not invalidate my argument. AA being on or off doesn't make or break the graphics quality Metro2033, Crysis 1, or Crysis 2 WHEN YOU ARE PLAYING THE GAME and I doubt there is anyone out there that said "28fps with AA enabled??@#$#?@ Screw this I'm going to turn down the textures, physics, particles, and post processing just so I can have AA on at acceptable frame rates."

Again, AA is a much more subtle feature than everyone here lets on about it. Yeah it's nice to have and does wonders for screenshots, but if I'm playing any given heavy action game, there are probably more instances than not during the game when I cannot tell whether AA is on or off. And even with slower games, like Civ V, I honestly can't see any significant (if any) differences without very, very close examination except during the leader screens. Triple monitor gaming is definitely going to be a bad proposition for 1.5gb of vram, but 1080p with normal levels of AA is going to be fine. We will have to wait for reviews and benchmarks to prove either one of us right or wrong, but I don't recall the gtx580 taking massive performance hits with normal levels of AA because of inadequate amounts of vram @ 1080p.

Lets wait and see how the benchmarks come out. No one was crying that the hd5870 was gimped in vram, when the gtx480 and 580 had 1.5gb. Then we went from 2 gigs to 3 gigs in a year, and now 2 gigs apparently sucks although Hardocp proved that to be a bunch of crap.

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

Mid August launch.
12-15% slower than a 670 for the 660Ti OC'd.
U$299

Can't tell you more than that.

Wouldn't a 7950 @ $310 be faster and a better buy?

 

[tviceman]

Try convincing this forum that AA isn't important or a make-or-break feature.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But in my opinion AA at high resolution gaming does not make or break graphical quality while a game is in play. Screen shots can produce noticeably better images, sure, but that's when we have time to stare at a single frame and look for differences. How often does that happen in a game? Oh right, never.

Again, it's a nice feature but these days it's blown way, way out of proportion EXCEPT in the instances where it noticeably degrades image quality (something I have seen for myself).

 

[MrK6]

I don't care if it's 1984 or 2050. What year it is does not invalidate my argument. AA being on or off doesn't make or break the graphics quality Metro2033, Crysis 1, or Crysis 2 WHEN YOU ARE PLAYING THE GAME and I doubt there is anyone out there that said "28fps with AA enabled??@#$#?@ Screw this I'm going to turn down the textures, physics, particles, and post processing just so I can have AA on at acceptable frame rates."

Again, AA is a much more subtle feature than everyone here lets on about it. Yeah it's nice to have and does wonders for screenshots, but if I'm playing any given heavy action game, there are probably more instances than not during the game when I cannot tell whether AA is on or off. And even with slower games, like Civ V, I honestly can't see any significant (if any) differences without very, very close examination except during the leader screens. Triple monitor gaming is definitely going to be a bad proposition for 1.5gb of vram, but 1080p with normal levels of AA is going to be fine. We will have to wait for reviews and benchmarks to prove either one of us right or wrong, but I don't recall the gtx580 taking massive performance hits with normal levels of AA because of inadequate amounts of vram @ 1080p.

Lets wait and see how the benchmarks come out. No one was crying that the hd5870 was gimped in vram, when the gtx480 and 580 had 1.5gb. Then we went from 2 gigs to 3 gigs in a year, and now 2 gigs apparently sucks although Hardocp proved that to be a bunch of crap.

I agree, although it very well could be helped by the fact that I play at 2560x1600. For me AA is extra sprinkles on top after I've maxed everything else (even ambient occlusion). Thankfully I have more than enough horsepower to enable it in all games, but sometimes I still don't play with it because there's no benefit. BF3 is an example - my FPS is fine with MSAA x4 (50-60FPS average), but the game's brightness hides aliasing well and I usually play with all AA off at ~80-100FPS.

Wouldn't a 7950 @ $310 be faster and a better buy?

Very much so.

 

[njdevilsfan87]

I don't care if it's 1984 or 2050. What year it is does not invalidate my argument. AA being on or off doesn't make or break the graphics quality Metro2033, Crysis 1, or Crysis 2 WHEN YOU ARE PLAYING THE GAME and I doubt there is anyone out there that said "28fps with AA enabled??@#$#?@ Screw this I'm going to turn down the textures, physics, particles, and post processing just so I can have AA on at acceptable frame rates."

Again, AA is a much more subtle feature than everyone here lets on about it. Yeah it's nice to have and does wonders for screenshots, but if I'm playing any given heavy action game, there are probably more instances than not during the game when I cannot tell whether AA is on or off. And even with slower games, like Civ V, I honestly can't see any significant (if any) differences without very, very close examination except during the leader screens. Triple monitor gaming is definitely going to be a bad proposition for 1.5gb of vram, but 1080p with normal levels of AA is going to be fine. We will have to wait for reviews and benchmarks to prove either one of us right or wrong, but I don't recall the gtx580 taking massive performance hits with normal levels of AA because of inadequate amounts of vram @ 1080p.

Lets wait and see how the benchmarks come out. No one was crying that the hd5870 was gimped in vram, when the gtx480 and 580 had 1.5gb. Then we went from 2 gigs to 3 gigs in a year, and now 2 gigs apparently sucks although Hardocp proved that to be a bunch of crap.

It depends on the game, but for most games, AA is a requirement to me. The pixel shimmering and crawling without it enabled really bothers me. There are a few exceptions (like you said Metro, and that's because it's a dark game), but brighter games like Crysis and Skyrim absolutely require some form of AA to me. But that's just me.

And I also agree that 1.5gb is enough for 1080p, but at the same time I believe that is the absolute minimum anyone should be considering for that resolution today.

 

[tviceman]

Wouldn't a 7950 @ $310 be faster and a better buy?

Cheapest I see is $330 before rebate ($310 with rebate). But yeah an hd8950 should be a little bit faster. However, the hd7950's days are numbered. I'm anticipating AMD is going to bring an hd7950GE to market, priced at $400, and then bring out a third Tahiti-based hd7930 (or hd7890).

 

[tviceman]

It depends on the game, but for most games, AA is a requirement to me. The pixel shimmering and crawling without it enabled really bothers me. There are a few exceptions (like you said Metro, and that's because it's a dark game), but brighter games like Crysis and Skyrim absolutely some form of AA to me.

But I also agree that 1.5gb is enough for 1080p, but at the same time I believe that is the absolute minimum anyone should be considering for that resolution today.

I do agree that brighter games benefit more from AA. And I do also agree that 1.5gb is probably the minimum people looking at $250+ video cards should be considering, if they want to "future proof" their purchase.

 

[njdevilsfan87]

I don't care so much about future-proofing, but I do value peace of mind. But everyone has a threshold there.

 

[Skurge]

Wouldn't a 7950 @ $310 be faster and a better buy?

That's for custom cards. I don't know if the reference cards will cost the same or less.

 

[Silverforce11]

I do agree that brighter games benefit more from AA. And I do also agree that 1.5gb is probably the minimum people looking at $250+ video cards should be considering, if they want to "future proof" their purchase.

And this comes back to my OP which u had an issue with. I noted that depending on its price, 1.5gb may be fine.. or it may be something to avoid.

If its priced in the high-end segment, 1.5gb is not fine at all as there's already no "proofing" now, nevermind in the future. It's a simple concept, high-end prices comes with the expecation of performance, ie. maxing out games @ 1080p. But if its going to be mid-range prices<$250, 1.5gb will be fine. We have no disagreement.

 

[moonbogg]

Anything under 2gb is asking for trouble regrdless of resolution. If you play under 1080p, then you should have an xbox. PC gaming isn't your thing.

 

[AtenRa]

If you play under 1080p, then you should have an xbox. PC gaming isn't your thing.

I will have to disagree with that.

 

[RussianSensation]

Is MSAA a requirement to play a game though? I can't remember the last time I threw a fit, raged quit because not having MSAA means the game looks like 8-bit NES, and uninstalled it because MSAA's performance hit was too big.

I admit that in some games MSAA doesn't work very well (like Max Payne 3), but the new post-processing FXAA/MLAA aren't brilliant either. They tend to blur textures and result in some loss of detail (BF3 and Crysis 2 for example). Also, MSAA works really well in older titles and in racing games. Dirt 2/3 without AA has jaggies all over the cars. Also, to me Crysis 1 without AA looks terrible. It's actually one game where AA is a must imo due to so foliage, all set on a bright island, etc. A game like Metro 2033 is very dark which is why jaggies are not very noticeable. What about Just Cause 2?

I think it's also less noticeable for you since you have 2560x1440 screen. I am not saying that AA overrides the other graphics settings such as shadows, particle effects, ambient occlusion, etc. but it's nice to have. It's not about throwing a fit for not using MSAA but why spend ~ $300 on a GPU with 1.5GB of VRAM when HD7950 overclocks to GTX680 speeds/7970GE speed and has 3GB of VRAM? What about next wave of games launching in 6-8 months?

Also, what about using 8xMSAA / Super Sampling in older/less demanding games?
Alan Wake
Trine 2
Arma 2
Mass Effect 3

I don't think it's necessary to make the sacrifice of not using MSAA/SSAA if you want to when a competing card is perfectly capable of using that setting at the same $300 price level.

Would you honestly pay $300 for a 1.5GB GTX660Ti that has performance equal to a stock HD7950 3GB, but that has 30-40% of additional overclocking headroom? You love NV drivers that much?

Also, this isn't even a stock budget 7950 we are talking about. The HD7950 MSI TwinFroz cooling is system very similar to your GTX670 PE card. The card is also based on the HD7970 PCB with its power regulation. I can only imagine at how budget the GTX660Ti PCB and components will be.

I don't know about you but a $310 HD7950 card that runs at 64*C at load and has a quieter fan than GTX670/680 is pretty impressive to me. Considering the cooler and PCB NV used for a GTX670 reference, I don't have a lot of confidence that a $300 GTX660Ti will be built like a $300 GPU should be.

 

[vailr]

Whatever happened to AMD's Radeon HD7790?
As compared with the HD7770's 128 bit memory interface, it was supposed to have 256 bit memory interface. Thus: the lowest priced HD7000 series card that has 256 bit memory interface.

 

[tviceman]

I admit that in some games MSAA doesn't work very well (like Max Payne 3), but the new post-processing FXAA/MLAA aren't brilliant either. They tend to blur textures and result in some loss of detail (BF3 and Crysis 2 for example). Also, MSAA works really well in older titles and in racing games. Dirt 2/3 without AA has jaggies all over the cars. Also, to me Crysis 1 without AA looks terrible. It's actually one game where AA is a must imo due to so foliage, all set on a bright island, etc. A game like Metro 2033 is very dark which is why jaggies are not very noticeable. What about Just Cause 2?

I think it's also less noticeable for you since you have 2560x1440 screen. I am not saying that AA overrides the other graphics settings such as shadows, particle effects, ambient occlusion, etc. but it's nice to have. It's not about throwing a fit for not using MSAA but why spend ~ $300 on a GPU with 1.5GB of VRAM when HD7950 overclocks to GTX680 speeds/7970GE speed and has 3GB of VRAM? What about next wave of games launching in 6-8 months?

Also, what about using 8xMSAA / Super Sampling in older/less demanding games?
Alan Wake
Trine 2
Arma 2
Mass Effect 3

I don't think it's necessary to make the sacrifice of not using MSAA/SSAA if you want to when a competing card is perfectly capable of using that setting at the same $300 price level.

Would you honestly pay $300 for a 1.5GB GTX660Ti that has performance equal to a stock HD7950 3GB, but that has 30-40% of additional overclocking headroom? You love NV drivers that much?

Also, this isn't even a stock budget 7950 we are talking about. The HD7950 MSI TwinFroz cooling is system very similar to your GTX670 PE card. The card is also based on the HD7970 PCB with its power regulation. I can only imagine at how budget the GTX660Ti PCB and components will be.

I don't know about you but a $310 HD7950 card that runs at 64*C at load and has a quieter fan than GTX670/680 is pretty impressive to me. Considering the cooler and PCB NV used for a GTX670 reference, I don't have a lot of confidence that a $300 GTX660Ti will be built like a $300 GPU should be.

I'm in a more precarious situation with trying to enable AA at 2560x1440 with a 2gbcard than someone would be at 1920x1080 with a 1.5gb card. I would run out of vram at the same settings at my resolution with AA enabled before someone with a 1.5gb card @ 1080p would. Which brings me back to my original point - 1.5gb is perfectly fine for 1080p. It takes some pretty high levels of AA, or some really graphic intensive mods, to push beyond the 1.5gb barrier at 1080p. And when talking about FSAA or really high levels of MSAA, beyond 4xAA the visual improvements are extremely diminished, ESPECIALLY when actually playing the game. As I have now lamented several times, AA is a nice feature, it was way, way, way more luxurious when standard resolutions were 1440x900 and lower. But with many games, during play, it's sometimes difficult to tell whether AA is on or not. AND EVEN MORE SO, it would be extremely, extremely difficult during play to notice a discernible difference between 4x and 8x msaa. So whether or not a ~$250-275 card has enough vram to jump from 4x MSAA to 8x is completely moot. Just saying.

But yeah, on your point about an hd7950 being a better buy I already made a round-about comment earlier in this thread that if the 7950's cotinue to go for as low as they are (after rebate), it would put the gtx660 in a difficult spot from the start. I also noted that I think current hd7950's aren't going to be restocked, but rather replaced by more expensive hd7950GE's. But because of the cut off vram and current market conditions, the gtx660 is going to have to price it around $270-280 before any rebates to be competitive (in my opinion). If Nvidia comes out with a 256-bit gtx660, that could be appropriately priced at $300, probably.

The one good thing about AMD's underestimation of Kepler is that right now prices for really good cards (the hd7970 and hd7950) are really good looking to buy a video card right now.

 

[tviceman]

196bit bus, 1.5gb vram. not worth it NOW even for 1080p, forget about it by next year with new games pushing towards 2gb usage.

but if its priced low and crippled enough, i guess one don't buy it with the expectation of maxing out games, so thus 1.5gb vram will be FINE. All depends on the pricing.

I disagreed with the first half of your post. Your second half kind of made your entire post schizophrenic. You said it's not enough now, but then maybe it is.

It's not 2001, its soon 2013, some form of AA is essential.

I disagreed with this. Entirely. If a brand new, ultra demanding game comes out with lots of graphical options, and I need to shore up more performance, the very first thing I do is disable AA. So to me AA is not at all essential. And as I have said in virtually every other post in this thread today, it's not as big of an impact feature as it used to be, at least not at 1080p or higher resolutions.

And this comes back to my OP which u had an issue with. I noted that depending on its price, 1.5gb may be fine.. or it may be something to avoid.

If its priced in the high-end segment, 1.5gb is not fine at all as there's already no "proofing" now, nevermind in the future. It's a simple concept, high-end prices comes with the expecation of performance, ie. maxing out games @ 1080p. But if its going to be mid-range prices<$250, 1.5gb will be fine. We have no disagreement.

I had, and still have issues with some of the comments you made. But I agree entirely with the final chunk of what you're saying.

 

[SirPauly]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But in my opinion AA at high resolution gaming does not make or break graphical quality while a game is in play. Screen shots can produce noticeably better images, sure, but that's when we have time to stare at a single frame and look for differences. How often does that happen in a game? Oh right, never.

Again, it's a nice feature but these days it's blown way, way out of proportion EXCEPT in the instances where it noticeably degrades image quality (something I have seen for myself).

Imho,

It enhances the experience -- how much? Depends on the individual and display. If you need to stare at a single frame to determine AA quality -- talking to the wrong person -- it is with-in moving environments where quality AA shines.

My view has always been offer quality AA patterns and flexibility based on how different subjective tastes and tolerances are -------- then combine this with the sheer amount of different displays and platforms. There is no view that fits for all.