intel/nvidia or amd/radeon

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Yes, the fact that the 7870 is very spikey indicates that it probably isn't boost mode also, I guess it must be a driver issue.

660 Ti also looks good on Far Cry 3:
http://www.techspot.com/review/615-f...nce/page3.html
Despite all those concerns ppl had about it having the 192bit bus.

Sounds bad on paper, but does remarkably well in real life (with a few exceptions).

Which again like many of us have been saying in the long term will be its problem especially with the reduction in ROPs. It is already evident against the GTX670 or in games with higher bandwidth or intensive AA forms. Are you 100% certain in 18 months time it will be the case?? The card has been out 5 months.

Moreover,Nvidia is only really pushing less bandwidth intensive AA NOW. I updated the GK104 threads on both here and OcUK for ages. The only reason that the big GPU card never was released is since the GK100 failed and the GK110 probably has limited quantities even now(targetted to HPC first). What do you think will happen when the GK110 is released as a top end card??

Nvidia will start pushing more intensive quality based AA methods and you will find the 256 bit bus returning to the cheaper cards. Then see the advertising showing how the new generation has X% better AA performance than the previous generation,etc.

At least with lower end cores,the GPU is likely to run out of steam first,but not with the cores found in £200+ cards.

Remember this is not the first time this has been done,and people made the same arguments with ROP limited,RAM limited and bandwidth limited "special edition" cards.

The problem after a year to two years the limitation start to be shown. I have seen this enough times over the last decade.

By then most review sites would have just gone onto the new generation emphasising how brilliant they are.

[kalniel]

It's not worth worrying about theoretical limitations two years in the future if you've got a card that performs significantly better today. For whatever reason, the 660ti seems to be a very well balanced card, something AMD are usually good at doing as well, but for whatever reason, those tech report test conditions show AMD architecture having major failings in consistency. IF that effect is limited to a brand new OS like win 8 then fine, I'd be willing to give it a bit more time for software to catch up or hunt down win 7 tests.

I do not buy anything about TR being green-tinted - just look at some of their other reviews and news.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

It's not worth worrying about theoretical limitations two years in the future if you've got a card that performs significantly better today. For whatever reason, the 660ti seems to be a very well balanced card, something AMD are usually good at doing as well, but for whatever reason, those test conditions show AMD architecture having major failings in consistency. IF that effect is limited to a brand new OS like win 8 then fine, I'd be willing to give it a bit more time for software to catch up or hunt down win 7 tests.

What about the 8800GT 256MB or the GTX460 768MB then? They were very good for the first year and we saw where they went eventually. Look at how the GTX660TI performance compares against a GTX670,and you also forget what Nvidia has done this generation. Look at the issues with boost now,which I said at time were possible. It seems I was someone correct about this(you basically said I was wrong).

Buying a £200+ card that just appears good now is poor advice since,two to three years is not a unacceptable lifespan for such a card. The same goes with CPUs. All the people who told others to buy a E8400 over a Q6600 for example.

[kalniel]

What about the 8800GT 256MB or the GTX460 768MB then??

What about them? Both were good cards for the money, the 8800GT 256mb especially so - we had one and only changed it because it died of hardware failure many years later.

You can't possibly know how future games are going to perform on graphics cards. The only benchmarks you have are today's games, so pick the best card for the games you play today, otherwise you're wasting money on crystall ball gazing.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

What about the 8800GT 256MB or the GTX460 768MB then? They were very good for the first year and we saw where they went eventually. Look at how the GTX660TI performance compares against a GTX670,and you also forget what Nvidia has done this generation. Look at the issues with boost now,which I said at time were possible. It seems I was someone correct about this(you basically said I was wrong).

Buying a £200+ card that just appears good now is poor advice since,two to three years is not a unacceptable lifespan for such a card. The same goes with CPUs. All the people who told others to buy a E8400 over a Q6600 for example.

What about them? Both were good cards for the money, the 8800GT 256mb especially so - we had one and only changed it because it died of hardware failure many years later.

Yet,the people who had 9600GT 512MB,HD3870 512MB and 8800GT 512MB still can run games well. The 256MB card collapsed in comparative performance,especially with higher resolution monitors being more common now. The GTX460 768MB also started to show problems even when compared to the 1GB version.

You can't possibly know how future games are going to perform on graphics cards. The only benchmarks you have are today's games, so pick the best card for the games you play today, otherwise you're wasting money on crystall ball gazing.

Meh. Again more a case of inability to look at trends which is more your problem than mine. Just like the people who said get a E8400 over a Q6600 and ended hitting problems much quicker. I still remember thread regarding BFBC2 on forums on OcUK. Same arguments.

Considering that,so far,my crystal ball gazing on Hexus, and my advice to loads of people outside of forums(at work too) seems to have worked longtime,I think I will stick with doing it!

If you think looking at the short term is the best way,then good for you.

[kalniel]

Yet,the people who had 9600GT 512MB,HD3870 512MB and 8800GT 512MB still can run games well.

You're joking right? The 3870 was aweful, the 9600GT is only really good for a physX card, and the 8800GT 512mb isn't fast enough to take advantage of the increased framebuffer unless you're in the odd position of pairing low end cards with high end monitors. In which case you're building an unbalanced build. It makes far more financial sense to change your GPU more often than your monitor if you're a gamer, and if you can save money by buying for known requirements then that can be put towards an upgrade in a few years time as and when (if) the requirements then change.

Considering that,so far,my crystal ball gazing on Hexus, and my advice to loads of people outside of forums(at work too) seems to have worked longtime

No more than anyone else's

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

You're joking right? The 3870 was aweful, the 9600GT is only really good for a physX card, and the 8800GT 512mb isn't fast enough to take advantage of the increased framebuffer unless you're in the odd position of pairing low end cards with high end monitors. In which case you're building an unbalanced build. It makes far more financial sense to change your GPU more often than your monitor if you're a gamer, and if you can save money by buying for known requirements then that can be put towards an upgrade in a few years time as and when (if) the requirements then change.

You are joking right?? You see I had the HD3870 512MB,9800GT 512MB and 8800GTS 512MB. I have had 24 graphics cards in the last 8 years. I have had friends who had the cards in many rigs including the 8800GT 256MB and the 8800GS 384MB.

The HD3870 512MB and 9800GT 512MB did not show the collapse in performance the 8800GT 256MB had. Loads of games started to use more 256MB even with moderate levels of AA or even without AA with higher resolutions. Even the HD3870 512MB showed the same advantage over time when compared to the 256MB HD3850(even with normalised core clockspeeds),and it was not that long either. The 8800GT 256MB even showed lower performance than the 512MB version even at launch and that gap only started to increase as time progressed.

So,really now??

Moreover,I do tend to frequent some other forums too,so I also do follow all the little benchmarks done by enthusiasts!

No more than anyone else's

I have a good memory of what I post,so I can remember back when people call me out. Then it always make me smile a year or so afterwards.

Anyway,you won't agree with me and neither me with you(probably not the first time either),so I agree to disagree.

[watercooled]

The 600 series struggles even now if you crank up AA or resolution i.e. eat into memory bandwidth/usage. Despite the 680 being priced firmly above the 7970 and being considered the faster card (at least before latest drivers) frame rates collapsed when you go above 1920x1080 or so, or use high levels of 'true' AA like MSAA or SSAA. A lot of reviews seemed to exclude/discredit higher resolutions, and ran a lot with like likes of FXAA which has a negligible impact on either card, but plays to the advantage of the smaller memory bandwidth of 600 series.

Going forward, and given the current pricing of the cards, I know which I'd be more comfortable with.

[Willzzz]

The 660 Ti is showing excellent performance on brand new up to the minute games, AC3, MOH:WF, FC3. It might be that future games become more memory dependent, but no-one can say that for sure, it might be that shader performance becomes more important in which case the 660 Ti will thrive.

Collapse in performance happens when a GPU runs out of memory capacity, this is not the same as bandwidth.

[Willzzz]

The 600 series struggles even now if you crank up AA or resolution i.e. eat into memory bandwidth/usage. Despite the 680 being priced firmly above the 7970 and being considered the faster card (at least before latest drivers) frame rates collapsed when you go above 1920x1080 or so, or use high levels of 'true' AA like MSAA or SSAA. A lot of reviews seemed to exclude/discredit higher resolutions, and ran a lot with like likes of FXAA which has a negligible impact on either card, but plays to the advantage of the smaller memory bandwidth of 600 series.

Going forward, and given the current pricing of the cards, I know which I'd be more comfortable with.

OK, but this depends on the customer. A 660 Ti is a mid market card, where almost every user is going to be using a single 1080p screen.
Where people have multi-monitor setups then I have recommended the 7950 over the 660 Ti.

'True' AA also uses a lot of other resources, memory is not the only constraint, there are examples where Nivida 600 series cards like the 660 Ti beat AMD cards despite the lack of bandwidth. There's no point having all that bandwidth if you don't have the grunt to make the calculations in the first place.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Collapse in performance happens when a GPU runs out of memory capacity, this is not the same as bandwidth.

The memory bandwidth and cut in ROPs,is the reason the GTX670 shows a performance advantage at higher resolutions and more intensive AA over the GTX660TI. Moreover,it is still a decent chunk over £200,so TBH,this should not be happening either.

Thank goodness,the GTX670 has dropped in price,at least things are starting to be more like the GTX500/HD6900 series pricing.

[Willzzz]

The memory bandwidth and cut in ROPs,is the reason the GTX670 shows a performance advantage at higher resolutions and more intensive AA over the GTX660TI.

You wouldn't say that performance collapses though, you run out of memory and FPS will halve, you run out of bandwidth then it will have a much more modest effect. As I said above, for the typical user @ 1080p the Nivida solution is absolutely fine.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

You wouldn't say that performance collapses though, you run out of memory and FPS will halve, you run out of bandwidth then it will have a much more modest effect. As I said above, for the typical user @ 1080p the Nivida solution is absolutely fine.

Not for the price of the card though. It is not really mid-market though in pricing,more high end. Both the GTX660TI and HD7950 started at £250+ which was the price of high end cards. People have forgotten the price inflation with this generation at launch.

It is also why the lower end has effective stagnated,with the main improvement being power consumption.

[Willzzz]

It's still the middle of the current market, which is essentially the definition of mid-market as far as I am concerned.

The vast majority of people buying these cards are on 1080p, the cost is irrelevant, what monitor it is matched to is.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

It's still the middle of the current market, which is essentially the definition of mid-market as far as I am concerned.

The vast majority of people buying these cards are on 1080p, the cost is irrelevant, what monitor it is matched to is.

The cost is relevant and it is not a mid-market card at all. In fact cost is the singular most important metric. Companies can brand stuff whatever way they want to.

In fact out of all the computer enthusiasts I know,none of them consider a £250 card as mid-market and neither do I. The GTX570,HD6970,HD5870 and GTX470 launched at £225+ and were never considered mid-market. Only computer enthusiasts on forums might think of a £225+ card as midrange.

[watercooled]

I pity the OP.

Of course bandwidth != size but it can have a huge impact on performance, I just wanted to avoid essentially copy/pasting what CAT's already covered. The 660 Ti has the same amount of memory as the 680; bandwidth and loss of ROPs has a large impact on performance with increased resolution/AA which demand bandwidth. I recall even Nvidia fans on more weighted forums agreeing on this.

Cards like 660 Ti beat AMD cards? What cards? 4830? 7970? At a given price (market positioning is irrelevant) I don't recall 600 conclusively beating 7000, especially in terms of AA?