Guru3D.com Forums

Go Back   Guru3D.com Forums > General Chat > Frontpage news
Frontpage news Perhaps you have some news to report or want to check out the latest Guru3D headlines and comment ? Check it in here.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti Also in 256-bit Version.
Old
  (#1)
Svarog
Ancient Guru
 
Svarog's Avatar
 
Videocard: Zotac GTX 680 4GB
Processor: Intel Core 4770K
Mainboard: Gigabyte Z87X-UD5H
Memory: 8GB G.Skill ARES 2133 MHz
Soundcard: SoundBlaster ZxR
PSU: Seasonic Platinum 760
Default NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti Also in 256-bit Version. - 07-29-2012, 10:12 | posts: 3,623 | Location: Nederland

http://www.guru3d.com/news/geforce-g...rsion-planned/

Quote:
Chinese website redquasar has leaked some interesting bit of information regarding a 256-bit version of GeForce GTX 660 Ti.


Apparently, there are two models of GTX 660 Ti, which differ in memory bus width and CUDA cores count. The one, which specifications were leaked few days ago, has 1344 CUDA cores and 192-bit interface. However, this model cannot beat the Radeon HD 7870, so NVIDIA came up with a new version with 256-bit instead, but also a castrated amount of cores Ė 1152.

The leaker says that this is a non-public version of the GTX 660 Ti, which is equipped with two 6-pin power connectors, while the 192-bit version would have only one. Card has a clocks of 980/1123/6000 MHz for base, boost and effective memory respectively. According to the source, card can reach a score of 2700 points in 3DMark11 Extreme Preset. Thatís a score of Radeon HD 7970. What is more, itís only 8% worse than GTX 670. Card can easily be overclocked to 1.2 GHz, just like other GK104 GPUs. Card is a dual-slot, short PCB model with two DVIís, DP and a HDMI output.

NVIDIA is struggling whether to release a 192-bit version which will not beat HD 7870, or 256-bit model which will affect the sales of GTX 670. Author of the post is expected to provide a GPU-Z screen-shot, so we might verify this information.

In my opinion, this is actually the GTX 660 Ti graphics card, while a 192-bit model is a non-Ti. This would make sense, unless NVIDIA slightly decreases the clocks of Ti model, because itís too close to GTX 670. Also, 1344 CUDA cores in non-Ti variant may not be true after all, so I changed the specs a bit, we will see if those are true in a short while.

You can read the source page, itís partially in English.
   
Reply With Quote
 
Old
  (#2)
Sash
Ancient Guru
 
Videocard: video
Processor: cpu
Mainboard:
Memory:
Soundcard:
PSU: psu
Default 07-29-2012, 10:19 | posts: 7,068

you rather get the 192 bit version and OC the vram to what ever you need to match the bandwidth of gtx 670, (i say you needed 6 ghz but i was wrong, you need more, i dont know how to calculate). Cutting down cuda cores requires heavier OC to reach the 670 gtx
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#3)
Lane
Ancient Guru
 
Videocard: 2x HD7970 - EK Waterblock
Processor: I7 4930K H2o EK Supremacy
Mainboard: Asus X79 Deluxe
Memory: G-Skill C9 2133mhz 16GB
Soundcard: X-FI Titanium HD + SP2500
PSU: CM 1000W
Default 07-29-2012, 18:02 | posts: 5,382 | Location: Switzerland

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sash View Post
you rather get the 192 bit version and OC the vram to what ever you need to match the bandwidth of gtx 670, (i say you needed 6 ghz but i was wrong, you need more, i dont know how to calculate). Cutting down cuda cores requires heavier OC to reach the 670 gtx
Clock to clock, the SMX disabled on the 670 just bring 2% maximum of difference in performance, hence why the 670 Oc retails models ( Asus DirectCUII ) are faster of the 680 by a good margin ( and even faster of some OC 680 ) ...

It is not a problem for a 660TI with One SMX disabled and the exact same amount of Vram, the same memory controller to go beat the 670.. Ofc its needed to see how TMU, etc will act with 2SMX disabled.

The 670 was normally set with a Turbo clock reference of 980mhz, but in reality the card work mostly higher of 1084-1100+mhz... if this card is allready set at 1123mhz Turbo ( at least on the model they describe ), just put ~1180mhz and the card is allready faster of the 670.

Last edited by Lane; 07-29-2012 at 18:09.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#4)
---TK---
Ancient Guru
 
---TK---'s Avatar
 
Videocard: 780Ti SLI/Qnix 2710 100Hz
Processor: 2600k 4.5Ghz HT On
Mainboard: Asus P8P67 Deluxe
Memory: RipJaws X 2x8GB 2133Mhz
Soundcard: Phoebus + DT880 Pro 250
PSU: Corsair AX 1200
Default 07-29-2012, 18:05 | posts: 17,824 | Location: New Jersey, USA

think I`d go for the 256 bit and lower shader count myself if I had to choose
   
Reply With Quote
 
Old
  (#5)
Neo Cyrus
Ancient Guru
 
Neo Cyrus's Avatar
 
Videocard: XFX HD 6970 @ 1015/6400
Processor: Xeon W3530 @ 4GHz
Mainboard: GA-X58A-UD3R Rev. 2.0
Memory: 6GB DDR3-2000 9-9-9-24-1T
Soundcard: SB ZxR + DT 990 Pro-250
PSU: Antec High Current 900W
Default 07-29-2012, 18:29 | posts: 7,493 | Location: GTA, Canada

Quote:
Originally Posted by ---TK--- View Post
think I`d go for the 256 bit and lower shader count myself if I had to choose
More things in my experience are shader limited rather than memory bandwidth limited. Only in the most extreme cases with low end cards I've ever seen memory bandwidth be the limiting factor.

That's too large of a hit to CUDA cores just to get a memory bus 64 bits larger, I think the benchmarks will show as much.

Not to mention with almost ever card I've had the memory OCs more than the core and shaders.

Last edited by Neo Cyrus; 07-29-2012 at 18:34.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#6)
---TK---
Ancient Guru
 
---TK---'s Avatar
 
Videocard: 780Ti SLI/Qnix 2710 100Hz
Processor: 2600k 4.5Ghz HT On
Mainboard: Asus P8P67 Deluxe
Memory: RipJaws X 2x8GB 2133Mhz
Soundcard: Phoebus + DT880 Pro 250
PSU: Corsair AX 1200
Default 07-29-2012, 18:45 | posts: 17,824 | Location: New Jersey, USA

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo Cyrus View Post
More things in my experience are shader limited rather than memory bandwidth limited. Only in the most extreme cases with low end cards I've ever seen memory bandwidth be the limiting factor.

That's too large of a hit to CUDA cores just to get a memory bus 64 bits larger, I think the benchmarks will show as much.

Not to mention with almost ever card I've had the memory OCs more than the core and shaders.
going from the 680 to 670 in shader count had almost no change in performance like 2-4%. 192 bus imo is going to gimp a card more than the shader count difference. the 256bit bus on a 680/670 has only the same memory bandwidth as a 580 (384 bit, 4ghz clock speed)
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#7)
Neo Cyrus
Ancient Guru
 
Neo Cyrus's Avatar
 
Videocard: XFX HD 6970 @ 1015/6400
Processor: Xeon W3530 @ 4GHz
Mainboard: GA-X58A-UD3R Rev. 2.0
Memory: 6GB DDR3-2000 9-9-9-24-1T
Soundcard: SB ZxR + DT 990 Pro-250
PSU: Antec High Current 900W
Default 07-29-2012, 20:56 | posts: 7,493 | Location: GTA, Canada

... 2-4%? Benchmarks/examples please?
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#8)
tsunami231
Ancient Guru
 
tsunami231's Avatar
 
Videocard: EVGA 660gtx sig2
Processor: i7 920 CNPS10X Quiet
Mainboard: Evga x58 SLI LE
Memory: 3x2gb Dominator@1600 6Gb
Soundcard: Realtek HD Audio
PSU: Antec Truepower 750
Default 07-29-2012, 21:05 | posts: 3,196 | Location: USA

hmm 256 bit bus... If i cant resolve this 670gtx shrieking like banshee under any kind load, by Rma my PSU or the card it self I will just get refund on the 670 and get 660ti with 256bus if i paying 400$ gpu i expect the damn thing not to have caps/chokes that shriek like banshee.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#9)
Icanium
Maha Guru
 
Icanium's Avatar
 
Videocard: GTX 670 Sli / nVidia 3D
Processor: i7 3770K
Mainboard: Asus P8Z77 V-Pro
Memory: 16 gb G.SKILL DDR3 2400
Soundcard: Asus Xonar Xense
PSU: CORSAIR AX1200
Default 07-29-2012, 21:27 | posts: 1,053 | Location: Detroit,MI.USA

Is the 660 192 bit version that much slower than the AMD 7870, that it would not benefit from having the 256 bit clocks and power connectors.
915/980 vs 980/1123 clocks.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#10)
Lane
Ancient Guru
 
Videocard: 2x HD7970 - EK Waterblock
Processor: I7 4930K H2o EK Supremacy
Mainboard: Asus X79 Deluxe
Memory: G-Skill C9 2133mhz 16GB
Soundcard: X-FI Titanium HD + SP2500
PSU: CM 1000W
Default 07-29-2012, 21:58 | posts: 5,382 | Location: Switzerland

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo Cyrus View Post
... 2-4%? Benchmarks/examples please?
670 review date now, so find the good one where they have test it will be a bit hard, but well i just find this..



The Evga is working at 1046mhz turbo (well surely a little bit higher, as we know all turbo is not fixed and the number given is allways the min. i will bet for a 1084-1100mhz ), so maybe a bit slower of the 680 or equal.

I will not even take the time to calculate the % ratio, it is obvious looking the numbers. (outside Dirt3, where they have not apply AA the difference max is around 2fps each time )

I know it is really hard to get the real clockspeed with how Nvidia have set the turbo, and particulary on press samples, but this is just for give an idea.

Last edited by Lane; 07-29-2012 at 22:14.
   
Reply With Quote
 
Old
  (#11)
Zboe
Master Guru
 
Zboe's Avatar
 
Videocard: GTX 570 SLI
Processor: 2600K @ 5Ghz
Mainboard: Asus P8P67 WS Revolution
Memory: 16GB Corsair VengeanceLP
Soundcard: Asus Xonar DX
PSU: PCP&C silencer mk II 950
Default 07-29-2012, 22:28 | posts: 534 | Location: USA

8% less performance than a 670 is what, 10-15% behind a 680? For 200 less dollars? So with OCing were talking 680 performance (or pretty close to it) while paying 40% less? Sounds good to me, now lets hope it's true.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#12)
Gripen90
Master Guru
 
Gripen90's Avatar
 
Videocard: MSI&EVGA GTX 780 3Way-SLI
Processor: Intel Core i7 3930K
Mainboard: Asus P9X79 Pro
Memory: 16GB BallistiX 1600MHz c8
Soundcard: RealtekHD + Logitech X530
PSU: Tt Toughpower 1500w
Default 07-29-2012, 22:35 | posts: 782 | Location: Denmark

will it support 3-way-SLi ? then I'd get 3 gtx 660ti's as replacements for my gtx 580's
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#13)
Icanium
Maha Guru
 
Icanium's Avatar
 
Videocard: GTX 670 Sli / nVidia 3D
Processor: i7 3770K
Mainboard: Asus P8Z77 V-Pro
Memory: 16 gb G.SKILL DDR3 2400
Soundcard: Asus Xonar Xense
PSU: CORSAIR AX1200
Default 07-29-2012, 22:53 | posts: 1,053 | Location: Detroit,MI.USA

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gripen90 View Post
will it support 3-way-SLi ? then I'd get 3 gtx 660ti's as replacements for my gtx 580's
Doubt it. nVidia has never supported 3-way sli on their midrange cards.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#14)
perosmct
Banned
 
Videocard: unknown
Processor: unknown
Mainboard: unknown
Memory: unknown
Soundcard: unknown
PSU: unknown
Default 07-30-2012, 00:24 | posts: 1,072 | Location: unknown

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gripen90 View Post
will it support 3-way-SLi ? then I'd get 3 gtx 660ti's as replacements for my gtx 580's
still 680 2-way sli will be faster and much smoother...
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#15)
---TK---
Ancient Guru
 
---TK---'s Avatar
 
Videocard: 780Ti SLI/Qnix 2710 100Hz
Processor: 2600k 4.5Ghz HT On
Mainboard: Asus P8P67 Deluxe
Memory: RipJaws X 2x8GB 2133Mhz
Soundcard: Phoebus + DT880 Pro 250
PSU: Corsair AX 1200
Default 07-30-2012, 00:26 | posts: 17,824 | Location: New Jersey, USA

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo Cyrus View Post
... 2-4%? Benchmarks/examples please?
its widely known a 670 is just a couple % slower here and there than a 680
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/555?vs=598
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#16)
sykozis
Ancient Guru
 
sykozis's Avatar
 
Videocard: eVGA GTX660SC SLI
Processor: Core i7 2600K
Mainboard: ASRock Z77 Extreme4
Memory: 8gb G.Skill DDR3-1866
Soundcard: Creative Recon3D PCIe
PSU: SeaSonic M12II 620 Bronze
Default 07-30-2012, 00:40 | posts: 16,056 | Location: US East Coast

Quote:
Originally Posted by perosmct View Post
still 680 2-way sli will be faster and much smoother...
If Tri-SLI scales perfectly, GTX660Ti Tri-SLI should have similar or better performance compared to GTX680 SLI unless GTX660Ti is 50% slower than GTX680. If it's only 20-25% slower....Tri-SLI GTX660Ti would be faster....but the cost would still make it questionable compared to GTX680 SLI.


   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#17)
Neo Cyrus
Ancient Guru
 
Neo Cyrus's Avatar
 
Videocard: XFX HD 6970 @ 1015/6400
Processor: Xeon W3530 @ 4GHz
Mainboard: GA-X58A-UD3R Rev. 2.0
Memory: 6GB DDR3-2000 9-9-9-24-1T
Soundcard: SB ZxR + DT 990 Pro-250
PSU: Antec High Current 900W
Default 07-30-2012, 00:42 | posts: 7,493 | Location: GTA, Canada

Quote:
Originally Posted by ---TK--- View Post
its widely known a 670 is just a couple % slower here and there than a 680
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/555?vs=598
Yes I took a look at some benchmarks, the average increase in games seemed to be at least ~10%, certainly a lot better than 2-4%. Of course I know the point you're trying to make is that the difference is small. The article also makes it sound like the memory bandwidth was too much of a hit. But I always keep the maximum OC in mind, I wonder how that would have turned out, but we won't find out. I doubt nVidia will release two versions.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#18)
---TK---
Ancient Guru
 
---TK---'s Avatar
 
Videocard: 780Ti SLI/Qnix 2710 100Hz
Processor: 2600k 4.5Ghz HT On
Mainboard: Asus P8P67 Deluxe
Memory: RipJaws X 2x8GB 2133Mhz
Soundcard: Phoebus + DT880 Pro 250
PSU: Corsair AX 1200
Default 07-30-2012, 00:47 | posts: 17,824 | Location: New Jersey, USA

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5818/n...ew-feat-evga/5
these benches are all over the net, the difference is very little
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#19)
Neo Cyrus
Ancient Guru
 
Neo Cyrus's Avatar
 
Videocard: XFX HD 6970 @ 1015/6400
Processor: Xeon W3530 @ 4GHz
Mainboard: GA-X58A-UD3R Rev. 2.0
Memory: 6GB DDR3-2000 9-9-9-24-1T
Soundcard: SB ZxR + DT 990 Pro-250
PSU: Antec High Current 900W
Default 07-30-2012, 01:00 | posts: 7,493 | Location: GTA, Canada

Why are you cherry picking things as if you're AMD or something, that very link shows some with a 20% difference. No one is disagreeing that the average difference is very little, just the 2-4% number is far from an average.

Edited mistake.

Last edited by Neo Cyrus; 07-30-2012 at 01:22.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#20)
---TK---
Ancient Guru
 
---TK---'s Avatar
 
Videocard: 780Ti SLI/Qnix 2710 100Hz
Processor: 2600k 4.5Ghz HT On
Mainboard: Asus P8P67 Deluxe
Memory: RipJaws X 2x8GB 2133Mhz
Soundcard: Phoebus + DT880 Pro 250
PSU: Corsair AX 1200
Default 07-30-2012, 01:14 | posts: 17,824 | Location: New Jersey, USA

huh, find your own benchmarks then bud
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#21)
Neo Cyrus
Ancient Guru
 
Neo Cyrus's Avatar
 
Videocard: XFX HD 6970 @ 1015/6400
Processor: Xeon W3530 @ 4GHz
Mainboard: GA-X58A-UD3R Rev. 2.0
Memory: 6GB DDR3-2000 9-9-9-24-1T
Soundcard: SB ZxR + DT 990 Pro-250
PSU: Antec High Current 900W
Default 07-30-2012, 01:19 | posts: 7,493 | Location: GTA, Canada

I misread the first one, my mistake.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#22)
MAD-OGRE
Ancient Guru
 
MAD-OGRE's Avatar
 
Videocard: SLI EVGA 780 Classifieds
Processor: Intel i7 3770k @4.6Ghz
Mainboard: MSI z68A-GD80 G3
Memory: 16GB Corsair Vengance
Soundcard:
PSU: CoolerMaster SP1000
Default 07-30-2012, 01:35 | posts: 2,895 | Location: Alabama

Quote:
Originally Posted by Icanium View Post
Doubt it. nVidia has never supported 3-way sli on their midrange cards.

The GTX 260 had 3 was SLI.

Last edited by MAD-OGRE; 07-30-2012 at 02:03.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#23)
Year
Ancient Guru
 
Year's Avatar
 
Videocard: EVGA GTX 690
Processor: Intelģ i7 2600
Mainboard: Asus P67 Evo
Memory: G.Skill Sniper DDR3 16GB
Soundcard: Auzentech Bravura 7.1
PSU: Enermax Galaxy 850W
Default 07-30-2012, 02:11 | posts: 11,715 | Location: ♫

Quote:
Originally Posted by tsunami231 View Post
hmm 256 bit bus... If i cant resolve this 670gtx shrieking like banshee under any kind load, by Rma my PSU or the card it self I will just get refund on the 670 and get 660ti with 256bus if i paying 400$ gpu i expect the damn thing not to have caps/chokes that shriek like banshee.
i used to have this problem with a gigabyte GTX280, simply "forcing" vsync ON in cp fixed the whining which used to happend at anything above 100+fps, the higher the fps the higher the frequency of the shriek (ear piercing at times).
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#24)
Lane
Ancient Guru
 
Videocard: 2x HD7970 - EK Waterblock
Processor: I7 4930K H2o EK Supremacy
Mainboard: Asus X79 Deluxe
Memory: G-Skill C9 2133mhz 16GB
Soundcard: X-FI Titanium HD + SP2500
PSU: CM 1000W
Default 07-30-2012, 03:02 | posts: 5,382 | Location: Switzerland

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo Cyrus View Post
Why are you cherry picking things as if you're AMD or something, that very link shows some with a 20% difference. No one is disagreeing that the average difference is very little, just the 2-4% number is far from an average.

Edited mistake.
clock to clock it is .... the point was not to say a slower 670 will be 2-4% under the 680, it is more in the 7-10% ... hence why i have take the article of TH who use an EVGA 670 who is at least with close clock speed of the 680.

Now this is what have been seen with 1SMX lost, maybe 2 and less TMU, ROP will bring a different impact.

Last edited by Lane; 07-30-2012 at 03:19.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#25)
Icanium
Maha Guru
 
Icanium's Avatar
 
Videocard: GTX 670 Sli / nVidia 3D
Processor: i7 3770K
Mainboard: Asus P8Z77 V-Pro
Memory: 16 gb G.SKILL DDR3 2400
Soundcard: Asus Xonar Xense
PSU: CORSAIR AX1200
Default 07-30-2012, 05:18 | posts: 1,053 | Location: Detroit,MI.USA

Quote:
Originally Posted by MAD-OGRE View Post
The GTX 260 had 3 was SLI.
When the GTX 260 was released, a $400.00 cards was not considered a midrange card. Even today a $400.00 card is not considered midrange.
   
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com
Copyright (c) 1995-2014, All Rights Reserved. The Guru of 3D, the Hardware Guru, and 3D Guru are trademarks owned by Hilbert Hagedoorn.