Overclock.net › Forums › Graphics Cards › NVIDIA › 660 Ti Not much better than 470 GTX.....even worse
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

660 Ti Not much better than 470 GTX.....even worse - Page 6

post #51 of 127
OP, I ran the settings you gave and got similar results with my 660 ti using its stock clocks, which has a slight OC over the factory clock. Seems that you've discovered a dirty, dark secret: If all you care about is base DX9 performance, the 600 series isn't any better than the 400 series, at least when it comes to using the Heaven benchmark. I recently upgraded as well, from a 560 ti, though my primary motive was the 560 ti's 1GB. For the stuff I use my computer for the upgrade was a decent improvement; no remorse here.
post #52 of 127
Thread Starter 
This it. I do see a bigger difference with DX11 tests. Specifiaclly the 470 gtx stuggles more with DX11. Will post DX11 tests and new DX9 tests when i get home. I just blows me away more people are not talking about how little performance bumps have been in the last few years. I remember buying a new card and seeing 100% or more in gains.
post #53 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by *AcidBath* View Post

OP, I ran the settings you gave and got similar results with my 660 ti using its stock clocks, which has a slight OC over the factory clock. Seems that you've discovered a dirty, dark secret: If all you care about is base DX9 performance, the 600 series isn't any better than the 400 series, at least when it comes to using the Heaven benchmark. I recently upgraded as well, from a 560 ti, though my primary motive was the 560 ti's 1GB. For the stuff I use my computer for the upgrade was a decent improvement; no remorse here.

The same settings including the resolution? Try again with 1920 x 1080 full screen and let us know what you get.
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
e8400 / e2120 / i3 2120 / 2500k dfi p45-T2RS / Asus z68 lx / Asrock z77 extreme 4 8800 ultra / 560 ti / 570 / 670 / 6870 8gb corsair 1600mhz / 8gb corsair 1333mhz 
Hard DriveMonitorPowerCase
WD Raptor X 150 / corsair force gt 120gb / ocz ... Samsung 931bw Corsair vx550 / xfx 750 core edition CoolerMaster Cosmos S 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
e8400 / e2120 / i3 2120 / 2500k dfi p45-T2RS / Asus z68 lx / Asrock z77 extreme 4 8800 ultra / 560 ti / 570 / 670 / 6870 8gb corsair 1600mhz / 8gb corsair 1333mhz 
Hard DriveMonitorPowerCase
WD Raptor X 150 / corsair force gt 120gb / ocz ... Samsung 931bw Corsair vx550 / xfx 750 core edition CoolerMaster Cosmos S 
  hide details  
Reply
post #54 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leader2light View Post

This it. I do see a bigger difference with DX11 tests. Specifiaclly the 470 gtx stuggles more with DX11. Will post DX11 tests and new DX9 tests when i get home. I just blows me away more people are not talking about how little performance bumps have been in the last few years. I remember buying a new card and seeing 100% or more in gains.
your new card uses significantly less power, and by that is much quieter. moving to 28nm is a big step and the next generation of cards will do the same.
how much did your 470 cost you when you bought it? was it around the same as the 660ti ?
More Fans
(9 items)
 
x100e (RIP)
(7 items)
 
 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Athlon Neo MV-40 ATI Radeon HD3200 4GB Patriot DDR2 OCZ Vertex 3 Slim 120GB 
OSMonitorMouse
Crunchbang LG Green Screen Trackpoint 
  hide details  
Reply
More Fans
(9 items)
 
x100e (RIP)
(7 items)
 
 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Athlon Neo MV-40 ATI Radeon HD3200 4GB Patriot DDR2 OCZ Vertex 3 Slim 120GB 
OSMonitorMouse
Crunchbang LG Green Screen Trackpoint 
  hide details  
Reply
post #55 of 127
Thread Starter 
I paid $287.86 for 660 Ti with metro last light, While on 11/13/2010 i paid $254.99 for 470 GTX with mafia 2 included.


Honestly this whole thing just confirms to me that moore's law is dead. Power may go down ect, but performance is not doubling every 18 months. That's for sure. Same thing with cpus
post #56 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leader2light View Post

I paid $287.86 for 660 Ti with metro last light, While on 11/13/2010 i paid $254.99 for 470 GTX with mafia 2 included.


Honestly this whole thing just confirms to me that moore's law is dead. Power may go down ect, but performance is not doubling every 18 months. That's for sure. Same thing with cpus
I believe moore's law deals with transistor count and not necessarily performance, right?
Desktop
(8 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsCooling
I7 2600k Asus P8Z77A-V Pro Gtx 670 Hyper 212+ 
AudioAudioAudioAudio
Asus xonar essence st Bottlehead Crack+Speedball Headphone Amp Sennheiser Hd650 M-Audio Bx8-D2 
  hide details  
Reply
Desktop
(8 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsCooling
I7 2600k Asus P8Z77A-V Pro Gtx 670 Hyper 212+ 
AudioAudioAudioAudio
Asus xonar essence st Bottlehead Crack+Speedball Headphone Amp Sennheiser Hd650 M-Audio Bx8-D2 
  hide details  
Reply
post #57 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by IBooNI View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leader2light View Post

I paid $287.86 for 660 Ti with metro last light, While on 11/13/2010 i paid $254.99 for 470 GTX with mafia 2 included.


Honestly this whole thing just confirms to me that moore's law is dead. Power may go down ect, but performance is not doubling every 18 months. That's for sure. Same thing with cpus
I believe moore's law deals with transistor count and not necessarily performance, right?

Exactly what I was going to say...
To clarify:

The exponential processor transistor growth predicted by Moore does not always translate into exponentially greater practical CPU performance. Let us consider the case of a single-threaded system. According to Moore's law, transistor dimensions are scaled by 30% (0.7x) every technology generation, thus reducing their area by 50%. This reduces the delay (0.7x) and therefore increases operating frequency by about 40% (1.4x). Finally, to keep electric field constant, voltage is reduced by 30%, reducing energy by 65% and power (at 1.4x frequency) by 50%, since active power = CV2f. Therefore, in every technology generation transistor density doubles, circuit becomes 40% faster, while power consumption (with twice the number of transistors) stays the same.

(from Wikipedia)
Behemoth
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 5960x Rampage V Extreme Titan X Pascal Corsair Vengeance LPX [16GB DDR4 @ 2666MHz] 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 950 Pro M.2 512GB Synology NAS [10 drives] Custom loop [mostly EKWB] Windows 10 Pro 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
ASUS PG279Q Dell UltraSharp UP2716D Das Keyboard Professional 4 Corsair HX1200i 
CaseMouseOtherOther
Phanteks Enthoo Primo Logitech G900 Beyerdynamic Custom One Pro Rode NT-USB 
  hide details  
Reply
Behemoth
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 5960x Rampage V Extreme Titan X Pascal Corsair Vengeance LPX [16GB DDR4 @ 2666MHz] 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 950 Pro M.2 512GB Synology NAS [10 drives] Custom loop [mostly EKWB] Windows 10 Pro 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
ASUS PG279Q Dell UltraSharp UP2716D Das Keyboard Professional 4 Corsair HX1200i 
CaseMouseOtherOther
Phanteks Enthoo Primo Logitech G900 Beyerdynamic Custom One Pro Rode NT-USB 
  hide details  
Reply
post #58 of 127
I ran the DX9 Heaven at full screen HD on my 660 ti and got the same results as with the non-HD windowed res, which is consistent with the OP's performance.

I too agree that CPU, and to a lesser extent GPU, performance has hit a wall. The only significant gains nowadays come from increasing core count. Unless my next build has an intel 8 core, I'll see only a 40% to 50% improvement with upgrading my 860 to a quad haswell. Gone are the days of 100% to 200% improvements.
Edited by *AcidBath* - 4/20/13 at 4:41pm
post #59 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leader2light View Post

I paid $287.86 for 660 Ti with metro last light, While on 11/13/2010 i paid $254.99 for 470 GTX with mafia 2 included.


Honestly this whole thing just confirms to me that moore's law is dead. Power may go down ect, but performance is not doubling every 18 months. That's for sure. Same thing with cpus

We have been running DX9 games for 10 years. New titles are still coming out as DX9 there is really no reason for Nvidia or AMD to invest in anything besides minor improvements and efficiency. For those of us who remember games prior to DX9 there was some pretty big improvements. Now we have had DX10 which was a joke DX11 meh who knows where it will take us. We're sitting around waiting for the next gen consoles. But whats really scary is if AMD is the one who is powering these consoles well its not like we're going to be seeing a massive improvement in console graphics cause if we were why isn't AMD dominating the current graphics market with a product pushing DX11 graphics to their limits. AMD and Nvidia have it pretty good, the only competition they have is each other and all they need to do is keep up with each other. But it's a double edged sword because if one goes well here comes $600 mid range cards again.

Won't be surprised if we see tablets playing new releases soon.
Edited by Peanuts4 - 4/20/13 at 5:28pm
Boomstick
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 4770K Asus Maximus Hero VI EVGA GTX760 SuperClocked  G.Skill Ripjaws X 1866 9-10-9-28 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Intel SSD 530 Samsung 840 Silverstone Argon AR01 Windows 7 Pro 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
HP w2207h Microsoft Comfort Curve 2000 Antec High Current Pro 750W Fractal Design Arc Midi R2 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Mionix 8200 Puretrak Talent Creative Sound Blaster Z 
  hide details  
Reply
Boomstick
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 4770K Asus Maximus Hero VI EVGA GTX760 SuperClocked  G.Skill Ripjaws X 1866 9-10-9-28 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Intel SSD 530 Samsung 840 Silverstone Argon AR01 Windows 7 Pro 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
HP w2207h Microsoft Comfort Curve 2000 Antec High Current Pro 750W Fractal Design Arc Midi R2 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Mionix 8200 Puretrak Talent Creative Sound Blaster Z 
  hide details  
Reply
post #60 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peanuts4 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by adridu59 View Post

I would go for the HD 7870 which has significantly more memory bandwidth and is overall faster:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814202025

Plus you get 3 games with it.

Well I got the fancy gigabyte dual fan OC one just ordered last night $223 shipped with the new Metro game free (I live in Canada now so we get the usual $20+ added to our purchases from American companies because they can) but the cheapest 7870 Ghz edition (non tahiti) I found was $250 shipped.

Considering the benchmarks keep going back and forth with driver releases I figure I would play it safe and go with the company who's drivers have pissed me off less in recent years. I am still leery as all hell about AMD drivers. I think they have awesome hardware but the drivers ruin the deal for me. If I could have found a Tahiti core 7870 for $223 I would have gone that route though, even though the thing uses a lot of power.

Well the drivers for AMD/ATI cards are actually better than Nvidia right now. I have three rigs a FX-8120 with a Crossfire HD 7950 a FX-8350 with a Crossfire HD 7970 and a i5 3570K with a SLI GTX 670. All good systems and performance is really good but with things like Eyefinity/Surround is much better on the AMD/ATI cards than Nvidia. Surround is just broken on the Nvidia setup and really just unusable under Windows 8 at least in desktop mode. Games seem to be OK but maximizing a app to a single monitor just does not work at all taskbar broken and has been that way since Windows 8 came out. Meanwhile AMD/ATI's drivers have worked correctly from the Release Preview drivers on up. I have had a few display drivers have stopped working and recovered problems with the Nvidia cards no problems with the AMD/ATI rigs.

I am not slamming Nvidia or there drivers just pointing out that AMD/ATI has gotten alot better over the years. There was a time I would have never got AMD/ATI GPU's but over the years they have gotten much better. While sadly Nvidia's drivers have went downhill. I am sure they will recover and when they do I have the hardware to handle it. Just disappointing to have spent $900 on triple monitors and not be able to really enjoy them the way I wanted to because Nvidia does not seem to be able to fix there Surround support. But then AMD/ATI has had Eyefinity out for alot longer than Nvidia has had Surround.
 
Dragon Rider
(20 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 3570k Asus Sabertooth Z77 Gigabyte GTX 670 G.SKILL Ripjaws 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
WD  LG Blu Ray Writer Corsair H100i Windows 8 Pro 
OSMonitorMonitorMonitor
Apple OS X 10.8.2 Asus VK278Q Asus VK278Q Asus VK278Q 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech G19 gaming Keyboard Roswill Lighting 800  In Win GRone White Tt esports Level 10m mouse 
Audio
Creative Sound Blaster Z 
  hide details  
Reply
 
Dragon Rider
(20 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 3570k Asus Sabertooth Z77 Gigabyte GTX 670 G.SKILL Ripjaws 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
WD  LG Blu Ray Writer Corsair H100i Windows 8 Pro 
OSMonitorMonitorMonitor
Apple OS X 10.8.2 Asus VK278Q Asus VK278Q Asus VK278Q 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech G19 gaming Keyboard Roswill Lighting 800  In Win GRone White Tt esports Level 10m mouse 
Audio
Creative Sound Blaster Z 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: NVIDIA
Overclock.net › Forums › Graphics Cards › NVIDIA › 660 Ti Not much better than 470 GTX.....even worse