NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti Also in 256-bit Version.

Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by TheDeeGee, Jul 29, 2012.

  1. TheDeeGee

    TheDeeGee Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    5,096
    Likes Received:
    3
    GPU:
    MSI GTX 1070 AERO OC
    http://www.guru3d.com/news/geforce-gtx-660-ti-256bit-version-planned/

     
  2. Sash

    Sash Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    6,963
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    video
    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
     
  3. Lane

    Lane Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    6,357
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    2x HD7970 - EK Waterblock
    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: Jul 29, 2012
  4. ---TK---

    ---TK--- Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    22,135
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    2x 980Ti Gaming 1430/7296
    think I`d go for the 256 bit and lower shader count myself if I had to choose
     

  5. Neo Cyrus

    Neo Cyrus Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    8,566
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Gigabyte 970 G1 @ 1.54GHz
    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: Jul 29, 2012
  6. ---TK---

    ---TK--- Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    22,135
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    2x 980Ti Gaming 1430/7296
    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)
     
  7. Neo Cyrus

    Neo Cyrus Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    8,566
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Gigabyte 970 G1 @ 1.54GHz
    ... 2-4%? Benchmarks/examples please?
     
  8. tsunami231

    tsunami231 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,660
    Likes Received:
    15
    GPU:
    EVGA 660gtx sig2
    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.
     
  9. Icanium

    Icanium Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,333
    Likes Received:
    4
    GPU:
    MSI GTX1080ti GamX
    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.
     
  10. Lane

    Lane Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    6,357
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    2x HD7970 - EK Waterblock
    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..

    [​IMG]

    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: Jul 29, 2012

  11. Zboe

    Zboe Master Guru

    Messages:
    533
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    GALAX GTX 970
    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.
     
  12. Gripen90

    Gripen90 Master Guru

    Messages:
    829
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    2xGTX1080Ti@1616/1468MHz
    will it support 3-way-SLi ? then I'd get 3 gtx 660ti's as replacements for my gtx 580's :)
     
  13. Icanium

    Icanium Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,333
    Likes Received:
    4
    GPU:
    MSI GTX1080ti GamX
    Doubt it. nVidia has never supported 3-way sli on their midrange cards.
     
  14. perosmct

    perosmct Banned

    Messages:
    1,072
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    unknown
    still 680 2-way sli will be faster and much smoother...:banana::bang:
     
  15. ---TK---

    ---TK--- Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    22,135
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    2x 980Ti Gaming 1430/7296

  16. sykozis

    sykozis Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    20,009
    Likes Received:
    29
    GPU:
    XFX RX 470
    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.
     
  17. Neo Cyrus

    Neo Cyrus Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    8,566
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Gigabyte 970 G1 @ 1.54GHz
    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.
     
  18. ---TK---

    ---TK--- Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    22,135
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    2x 980Ti Gaming 1430/7296
  19. Neo Cyrus

    Neo Cyrus Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    8,566
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Gigabyte 970 G1 @ 1.54GHz
    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: Jul 30, 2012
  20. ---TK---

    ---TK--- Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    22,135
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    2x 980Ti Gaming 1430/7296
    huh, find your own benchmarks then bud
     

Share This Page