Is gtx660 worth it? - Page 2

Keeping in mind he wanted longevity I don't see how I can recommend a 660, either go Ti or maybe buy used to get a more powerful 670. The difference farther down the road between the non Ti and the Ti will really be more noticeable and will be the difference between being able to run something semi decent with min @ 30 fps vs 20-25 . That might not sound huge by depending on engine it could be a big difference. My vote says Ti or go used and a stronger card like a 670/7950 .

Honestly, no 600 series card should be considered for longevity. Period. I wouldn't be surprised to see the 580 become "faster" than the 670 in a few years, but I couldn't really recommend one of those either at their current price / performance.

If you want longevity, 7850 or higher. No excuse.

I'm not sure how you can say that, both the 670 and 680 will be pretty safe bets to be able to run games at 1080 for years to come as long you adjust settings accordingly. I don't see a 7870 overtaking a 670 @1080 on a single screen anytime soon even after the famed 12.11 with the exception of the AMD favored titles and even those I see the performance should be on par in the worst case. I know you're high on AMD after these last few weeks but don't talk nonsense a 670 will still wreck a 7870 and a 580 won't outperform a 670,oh and your red is showing.

Now as far as a 7870 vs the 660 ti the match up is closer but unless a pretty huge OC on the 7870 the ti is still the faster card, now based on price the 7870 is the better buy but if the TC wants NV then the choice is clear.

I still say go used 670 over a 660ti new.

660ti or 660 seems like a good spot to be in ATM. I have a 670, and it's also a wonderful card. Everything maxed in BF3, I get between 60-90 FPS in 64 player multiplayer maps. The 660(ti) is very close to the 670 in performance, so a 660ti should serve you well for some time.

I have a msi geforce tf660 2gd5/OC

I'm happy with it.

When people complain about the power limit... well... I get 1176 to 1202 boost (it bounces around)

I won't complain about that

OP,

Unless you absolutely require proprietary NVIDIA technologies like PhysX, CUDA, 3D get the AMD 7870 GHz (if you're on a strict budget). It is faster than the 660, and includes Far Cry 3 for free.

However, I would recommend getting a used 7950 or 670 to be more 'future-proof', especially if you plan on getting a 1440p monitor in the future. You can also save up for a 660 Ti.

Basically, there are much better alternatives than the 660.
Cheers from the orthopedic capital of the world.

I would go for a GTX 660 Ti, performance gain makes up for the price difference and it will last you longer.

I'm going to assume you can't read, since I already explained my reasoning, for which you have no counter other than trying to spin me off as an Nvidia hater (ironic considering all it would take is a quick glance at my sig rigs to see I actually have more currently operating Nvidia cards than intel and ati combined, and that's not even counting the two I've yet to list).

I'm no AMD fanboy, their current cards are simply better, with more longevity, for a lower price. Deal with it.

People hate on their own purchases and feel such remorse for making them that they can easily become "haters" as you put it. Others become frustrated with a companies business practices and hate regardless of what a company can do. Then there are those who wish to take the underdog's side just because they are the underdog.


Your bias clearly shows on your previous post and nothing you can say can change that. A 580 won't magically overtake a 670 and to dismiss and entire line of cards doesn't do wonders for disapproving said bias.

You can say the 6XX is not as good ad AMD's line up price for performance.

You can say that AMD's drivers have improved.

You can says NV's pricing schemes and business practices (voltage lock, No EVBOT, no custom mods, everything has to be semi vanilla) aren't good for a consumer.

But is absolutely a biased red comment.


There is a huge difference between bad bang for buck and no longevity, just because your ignorance can't distinguish between both doesn't make them the same thing.

Oh and obviously 3D vision, CUDA, and folding mean nothing to longevity, oh wait those are things AMD can't do so we'll discount them never mind.


If you want to post something at least put it in context and don't post nonsense that people will accept as truth.

Yes AMD seems to have won this round of bang for buck and overall performance but NV isn't all of a sudden useless, and you can't make blanket statements.

NV still makes great cards and their driver ARE better, anyone who disputes that is wrong. Is it a million times better like NV shareholders try to point out? NO, but they are better and that isn't up for debate after one set of amazing drivers. But AMD has done a pretty great job over the years and they're gotten much much closer.

Oh and for the record the red comment was meant as a poke and not a actual insult but the didn't convey it properly I'm assuming.
Edited by Junkboy - 11/10/12 at 7:40pm

It's s shame you can't even use this as an excuse. Once again, my reasons are already stated. Come back when you've taken the time to read them crawled out from under your bridge.