# ASUS GeForce GTX 660 Ti Direct CU II 2 GB



## W1zzard (Aug 12, 2012)

The ASUS GTX 660 Ti Direct CU II TOP uses the same wonderful cooler we've seen first on the company's GTX 670, which means it is by far the quietest high-performance card you can find on the market - in both idle and load. The card is also overclocked out of the box, which gives it a 5% performance advantage.

*Show full review*


----------



## Ghost (Aug 16, 2012)

This my next card for sure.


----------



## NHKS (Aug 16, 2012)

might be an insignificant question W1zz, but when both GTX 660Ti &  670 use the GK104 with 1344 cores why is the chip used in 660Ti coded GK104-300-KD-A2 while the chip in 670 is coded GK104-325-A2

btw nice card & great review as always!


----------



## tt_martin (Aug 16, 2012)

NHKS said:


> might be an insignificant question W1zz, but when both GTX 660Ti &  670 use the GK104 with 1344 cores why is the chip used in 660Ti coded GK104-300-KD-A2 while the chip in 670 is coded GK104-325-A2
> 
> btw nice card & great review as always!



24 vs 32 ROPs

@W1zz, Would you add to charts the 7950 witch BIOS update?


----------



## Over_Lord (Aug 16, 2012)

Amazing amazing card


----------



## W1zzard (Aug 16, 2012)

tt_martin said:


> @W1zz, Would you add to charts the 7950 witch BIOS update?



no plans for that, just assume +5% on 7950


----------



## tt_martin (Aug 16, 2012)

W1zzard said:


> no plans for that, just assume +5% on 7950


I know that, but not everyone follows the news. There will be many people interested in comparison between 7950/GTX660ti (from now and in the future). They have no idea 7950@800Mhz is EOL and assume 7950 in review is 7950 after BIOS update, which is wrong.


----------



## W1zzard (Aug 16, 2012)

tt_martin said:


> They have no idea 7950@800Mhz is EOL and assume 7950 in review is 7950 after BIOS update



i'm not sure about that. there are 2 HD 7970 GHz Edition cards available to buy here, and dozens of normal ones


----------



## tt_martin (Aug 16, 2012)

W1zzard said:


> i'm not sure about that. there are 2 HD 7970 GHz Edition cards available to buy here, and dozens of normal ones


Regular 7970 is an official AMD card, 7950@800Mhz not. 7970 is not EOL. 7950@800Mhz will be replaced by 7950, and only avaiable while stocks last.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Aug 16, 2012)

tt_martin said:


> Regular 7970 is an official AMD card, 7950@800Mhz not. 7970 is not EOL. 7950@800Mhz will be replaced by 7950, and only avaiable while stocks last.



What are you talking about. Wizzard never said the 7970 is EOL. The 7950 @ 800 is an official AMD card. The BIOS update they released just overclocked it to have a better chance against this ridiculous card the 660ti.


----------



## mstenholm (Aug 16, 2012)

Nice card and good review but check the maximum power consumption graph. It seems to be wrong or?


----------



## W1zzard (Aug 16, 2012)

mstenholm said:


> Nice card and good review but check the maximum power consumption graph. It seems to be wrong or?



for some reason i'm getting lower power consumption with this card in furmark than the peak reading in crysis 2. the graph is correct


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Aug 16, 2012)

W1zz do you think this is a worthy upgrade to a 570? Or is the 670 a better option for the cash. I'm seeing about 15 better FPS with the 660 and 20 FPS with the 670. However the difference is a 100 bucks.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Aug 16, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> W1zz do you think this is a worthy upgrade to a 570? Or is the 670 a better option for the cash. I'm seeing about 15 better FPS with the 660 and 20 FPS with the 670. However the difference is a 100 bucks.



I would go GTX660ti. This card is looking really good for the price.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Aug 16, 2012)

nvidiaintelftw said:


> I would go GTX660ti. This card is looking really good for the price.



Meh Im already over it. I can wait till the 670 comes down in price.


----------



## W1zzard (Aug 16, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> W1zz do you think this is a worthy upgrade to a 570? Or is the 670 a better option for the cash. I'm seeing about 15 better FPS with the 660 and 20 FPS with the 670. However the difference is a 100 bucks.



look at our performance per dollar graphs for that


----------



## WarpedHorizon (Aug 16, 2012)

*Worth the Wait*

I've been waiting 9 months for this card (first rumors said December 2011), and I'm so glad I waited. Sure 9 months on HD2000 graphics has sucked, but GTX580 beating performance for $300, it's everything I dreamed.


----------



## Am* (Aug 16, 2012)

Holy crap, is this thing overpriced or what? Was expecting it to sell for £180-£200 tops, not £260...is this thing only badly priced here, or in Europe as well? $300 dollars sounds way more attractive vs £260 pounds, sounds like it's just us getting shafted on the release price...

Also DX9 performance is looking terrible, probably due to the dynamic clockspeeds of the Keplers.















































Can't see how this card gets such a good rating...unless all you play is BF3 which seems to be the only game they optimized the drivers for (besides Max Payne 3)... At least hope AMD starts a price war now.

Still waiting for GK110...


----------



## Animalpak (Aug 16, 2012)

mines little brother ! Amazing card and review


----------



## xenocide (Aug 16, 2012)

Am* said:


> Holy crap, is this thing overpriced or what? Was expecting it to sell for £180-£200 tops, not £260...is this thing only badly priced here, or in Europe as well? $300 dollars sounds way more attractive vs £260 pounds, sounds like it's just us getting shafted on the release price...



European countries always pay a premium on Computer Hardware.  No idea why it is, a combination of VAT and some other things, but I've heard a lot of people on here complain about hardware costs over there.  I think it's partially because they don't convert correctly for currency, I've seen a lot of goods at European versions of etailers where they literally just replace the $ with a £.



Am* said:


> Also DX9 performance is looking terrible, probably due to the dynamic clockspeeds of the Keplers.
> 
> Can't see how this card gets such a good rating...unless all you play is BF3 which seems to be the only game they optimized the drivers for (besides Max Payne 3)... At least hope AMD starts a price war now.



See a trend?  Nvidia is moving away from Optimizing specifically for DX9 because DX9 performance is already there.  With DX11 titles they make significant gains.  Kepler is designed to excel in DX10+ environments, aka current generation technology.  Considering Microsoft and Sony are alleged to be announcing new Consoles within the next year and all signs point to DX10/11 support on them, we can assume that even console ports will start optimizing for DX11.  So the question then becomes do you want to pay $300 for a card that does amazing in DX11 but takes a hit on DX9 (like 5-10% but still playable), or $400+ for a card that has a slight edge in older DX9 games and falls behind pretty noticeably in DX11 games?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Aug 16, 2012)

Am* said:


> Holy crap, is this thing overpriced or what? Was expecting it to sell for £180-£200 tops, not £260...is this thing only badly priced here, or in Europe as well? $300 dollars sounds way more attractive vs £260 pounds, sounds like it's just us getting shafted on the release price...
> 
> Also DX9 performance is looking terrible, probably due to the dynamic clockspeeds of the Keplers.
> 
> ...



 If you buy a 660 to play at 2560 x 1600 or 5760 x 1080 you are an idiot.


----------



## Delta6326 (Aug 16, 2012)

Awesome card! And it looks like So far my prices are right for stock cards. I really want to get one of these.




Delta6326 said:


> I expect 660Ti to price around $300 and GTX 660 around $250



Also if you buy an 660Ti and Up you get Borderlands 2!

87 BAZILLION GUNS. ONE KILLER WEAPON


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Aug 16, 2012)

Think I'll pass £250 is what I paid for my 570 new and this is the same price, 20% better performance for the same cost 2 years down the line is BS and no chance of the 670's coming down now I would think.


----------



## Am* (Aug 16, 2012)

xenocide said:


> See a trend?  Nvidia is moving away from Optimizing specifically for DX9 because DX9 performance is already there.  With DX11 titles they make significant gains.  Kepler is designed to excel in DX10+ environments, aka current generation technology.  Considering Microsoft and Sony are alleged to be announcing new Consoles within the next year and all signs point to DX10/11 support on them, we can assume that even console ports will start optimizing for DX11.  So the question then becomes do you want to pay $300 for a card that does amazing in DX11 but takes a hit on DX9 (like 5-10% but still playable), or $400+ for a card that has a slight edge in older DX9 games and falls behind pretty noticeably in DX11 games?



47FPS average is not what I would call playable. 

And to answer your question, I want a card that is an upgrade in everything, be it DX9 or 11. Current gen Keplers are already a massive downgrade from Fermi in compute performance, if gaming is their bag, I expect it to excel in every game. Right now, I have around 20x to 30x more games for DX9 than DX11, and there are plenty more console ports on the way...so yeah, it'll take priority over DX11 for me, because DX11 performance still has a long way to go. If Nvidia really decides to call it quits on DX9 performance, I'll switch to AMD, as the LAST thing I want is to have to build yet another separate rig for an older API.



TheMailMan78 said:


> If you buy a 660 to play at 2560 x 1600 or 5760 x 1080 you are an idiot.



Huh? How the hell is gaming on a card with 2GB VRAM at 2560x1600 stupid, in DirectX 9 no less, when people are still claiming GTX 580s with 1.5GB are overkill for 1080p (and when most folks bought 1GB 460s to game at 1080p)?


----------



## 1c3d0g (Aug 16, 2012)

Sorry to break it to you buddy, but if you want smooth performance at those kind of resolutions, you gotta pay up!  There's just no way around that. You can only expect so much performance out of a $300 part. That's why the 670-680-690 were invented in the first place, to tackle extreme high resolution displays (which they do wonderfully, IMO). It's like asking a Hyundai i10 to perform a 0-100 km/h acceleration time of less than 5 seconds...now we're talking Corvette/Challenger/Ferrari/Lamborghini/Porsche (insert your favorite manufacturer) performances here, *way* out of the design parameters of the i10.

Or you could do like me and wait for the next generation, which will drop current ones' prices to the bottom and save you a ton of money.


----------



## Casecutter (Aug 16, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> If you buy a 660 to play at 2560 x 1600 or 5760 x 1080 you are an idiot.


Yep, this is a 1920x card that’s it.  And at $330 performance is like I figured it would be *middling*.  And in some ways erratic, while on titles that are 40-60Fps, here on W1zzards B-M it’s not any clear winner even when OC’d.  I’m sorry now what 8 months late and this is what they bring?  I want to see what this is like when we see frame latencies, and 99th percentile frame production.

AMD can set 7950 with Boost at this price, while original reference 7970 can be found routinely for $370 and that can be flashed to GHz versions.  This could have been earth shattering back in March when the GTX680 hit but now today, too tardy... so sorry!  

If you had pick up a 7950 back end Feb– early March and put-out say $450, by now you have enjoyed using it for like 24 weeks at say $5 a week, nothing wrong there!


----------



## Am* (Aug 16, 2012)

1c3d0g said:


> Sorry to break it to you buddy, but if you want smooth performance at those kind of resolutions, you gotta pay up!  There's just no way around that. You can only expect so much performance out of a $300 part. That's why the 670-680-690 were invented in the first place, to tackle extreme high resolution displays (which they do wonderfully, IMO). It's like asking a Hyundai i10 to perform a 0-100 km/h acceleration time of less than 5 seconds...now we're talking Corvette/Challenger/Ferrari/Lamborghini/Porsche (insert your favorite manufacturer) performances here, *way* out of the design parameters of the i10.
> 
> Or you could do like me and wait for the next generation, which will drop current ones' prices to the bottom and save you a ton of money.



Well sorry to break it to you, but that's a terrible analogy. You're trying to suggest the 660 is a Hyundai and the 680 is the Lamborghini... Well for starters a Hyundai doesn't run a slightly crippled Lambo engine, nor any other major components that are in any way comparable (which is all what the 660 is, a slightly crippled 680), secondly the performance difference between them isn't 8%-16%. Thirdly, this card was built with TRIPLE screen gaming in mind, to even suggest that running a DX9 port on a single 2560x1600 monitor on a GPU made for DX11 is taking it "out of design parameters" is ridiculous.









Casecutter said:


> Yep, this is a 1920x card that’s it.  And at $330 performance is like I figured it would be *middling*.  And in some ways erratic, while on titles that are 40-60Fps, here on W1zzards B-M it’s not any clear winner even when OC’d.  I’m sorry now what 8 months late and this is what they bring?  I want to see what this is like when we see frame latencies, and 99th percentile frame production.
> 
> AMD can set 7950 with Boost at this price, while original reference 7970 can be found routinely for $370 and that can be flashed to GHz versions.  This could have been earth shattering back in March when the GTX680 hit but now today, too tardy... so sorry!
> 
> If you had pick up a 7950 back end Feb– early March and put-out say $450, by now you have enjoyed using it for like 24 weeks at say $5 a week, nothing wrong there!



Personally speaking, whatever I'm upgrading to next is going to be a 1080p card anyway...because I prefer running an overkill card on my monitor and get 60+FPS instead of doing what most other people seem to do, which is buy an overkill monitor and keep buying new GPUs until you find one fast enough for the monitor. But I cannot in any way see how people are rejoicing over this series of Nvidia GPUs when they have pretty much killed the enthusiast market by not even bothering to release a new chip (like a GK106), nevermind the fact that their flagship was a mid-range GPU to begin with, which just adds insult to injury. I just hope this is not going to be the future trend with Nvidia and worse yet, AMD (to release mid-range as flagships), otherwise they can count me and pretty much everyone else, out of buying any future high end GPUs.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Aug 16, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> W1zz do you think this is a worthy upgrade to a 570? Or is the 670 a better option for the cash. I'm seeing about 15 better FPS with the 660 and 20 FPS with the 670. However the difference is a 100 bucks.



670 when it comes down a little in price. That is if don't want to go back to the red side of the street. They sell some hot juicy burgers, nice overclockers for around $330 (or even less sooner than later).


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Aug 16, 2012)

Crap Daddy said:


> 670 when it comes down a little in price. That is if don't want to go back to the red side of the street. They sell some hot juicy burgers, nice overclockers for around $330.



Nope. Not until they get better driver support.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Aug 16, 2012)

Am* said:


> Well sorry to break it to you, but that's a terrible analogy. You're trying to suggest the 660 is a Hyundai and the 680 is the Lamborghini... Well for starters a Hyundai doesn't run a slightly crippled Lambo engine, nor any other major components that are in any way comparable (which is all what the 660 is, a slightly crippled 680), secondly the performance difference between them isn't 8%-16%. Thirdly, this card was built with TRIPLE screen gaming in mind, to even suggest that running a DX9 port on a single 2560x1600 monitor on a GPU made for DX11 is taking it "out of design parameters" is ridiculous..............



Spot on with the analogy, though comparing GPU's to cars is like comparing apples to chimpanzees anyway (see what I did there?) I hate analogies  

Have to disagree saying this card was built for triple monitor gaming, no single GPU is built for triple monitor gaming regardless of what marketing says, since triple monitor gaming came along with the HD 5*** series you have always needed a multi GPU setup to get any kind of acceptable gaming performance.


----------



## Frick (Aug 16, 2012)

Am* said:


> Thirdly, this card was built with TRIPLE screen gaming in mind, to even suggest that running a DX9 port on a single 2560x1600 monitor on a GPU made for DX11 is taking it "out of design parameters" is ridiculous.



No it's not. Where did you find that out? As someone above me said, single cards are not enough for it (depending on what you play of course). Seems decent enough for me in price too, sandwiched between the 7870 and the 7950 in both price and performance.


----------



## Xzibit (Aug 16, 2012)

1c3d0g said:


> It's like asking a Hyundai i10 to perform a 0-100 km/h acceleration time of less than 5 seconds...now we're talking Corvette/Challenger/Ferrari/Lamborghini/Porsche (insert your favorite manufacturer) performances here, *way* out of the design parameters of the i10.



Those south koreans are getting close tho.. 5.2sec 

2013 Hyundai Genesis Coupe 3.8 Track Spec


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Aug 16, 2012)

Xzibit said:


> Those south koreans are getting close tho.. 5.2sec
> 
> 2013 Hyundai Genesis Coupe 3.8 Track Spec



Still a girls car.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Aug 17, 2012)

I'd like to see the galaxy one reviewed. Couldn't go back to under 3 GB but I really need 4 GBs, which interestingly enough galaxy has the cheapest 4 GB 670 as well.


----------



## Jeffredo (Aug 17, 2012)

Damn I wish I had waited six more weeks and saved a $100 (instead of buying a GTX 670).  This would have been a better match for my hoary old Phenom II X4 980 BE.


----------



## 1c3d0g (Aug 17, 2012)

Looks like I touched a nerve with Am*. 

Whatever, man. If you have an ax to grind with NVIDIA, go ahead, I'm sure they won't miss your business, as they'll be selling millions of these cards anyway. Meanwhile for those who are educated about GPU's, they will know what to expect from a $300 part and, if you have enough cash for a triple monitor solution, you damn well know you need a $500+ GPU to power your rig smoothly. End of story.


----------



## Delta6326 (Aug 17, 2012)

Xzibit said:


> Those south koreans are getting close tho.. 5.2sec
> 
> 2013 Hyundai Genesis Coupe 3.8 Track Spec




My Jeep does 5.7 



LAN_deRf_HA said:


> I'd like to see the galaxy one reviewed. Couldn't go back to under 3 GB but I really need 4 GBs, which interestingly enough galaxy has the cheapest 4 GB 670 as well.



3GB won't affect performance with this 192Bit bus it needs more lanes.



Am* said:


> Well sorry to break it to you, but that's a terrible analogy. You're trying to suggest the 660 is a Hyundai and the 680 is the Lamborghini... Well for starters a Hyundai doesn't run a slightly crippled Lambo engine, nor any other major components that are in any way comparable (which is all what the 660 is, a slightly crippled 680), secondly the performance difference between them isn't 8%-16%. Thirdly, this card was built with TRIPLE screen gaming in mind, to even suggest that running a DX9 port on a single 2560x1600 monitor on a GPU made for DX11 is taking it "out of design parameters" is ridiculous.
> 
> SNIP*
> 
> ...



660 Ti is perfect for 1200p and less

I liked the analogy, anyway this is not meant for 3monitors you maybe able to do 3, but fps will be hit, probably around 25-45fps in games at 5760x1080.

I would never use a 660 Ti for 1600p, honestly I wouldn't even use a 670 only 680 for 1600p.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Aug 17, 2012)

Delta6326 said:


> 3GB won't affect performance with this 192Bit bus it needs more lanes.



That's not how it works. Bandwidth is what matters.


----------



## Rei86 (Aug 17, 2012)

Am* said:


> Well sorry to break it to you, but that's a terrible analogy. You're trying to suggest the 660 is a Hyundai and the 680 is the Lamborghini... Well for starters a Hyundai doesn't run a slightly crippled Lambo engine, nor any other major components that are in any way comparable (which is all what the 660 is, a slightly crippled 680), secondly the performance difference between them isn't 8%-16%. Thirdly, this card was built with TRIPLE screen gaming in mind, to even suggest that running a DX9 port on a single 2560x1600 monitor on a GPU made for DX11 is taking it "out of design parameters" is ridiculous.



Since I love cars so much I can't let this comment go from both of you.

The GTX690 can be considered the Lambo Aventador, The GTX680 a Gallardo LP-570-4, the GTX670 a Audi R8 5.2 FSi...and the GTX660ti the Audi S6.

If you're not a car guy the Aventador is Lambo flagship V12, the Gallardo runs a V10, the R8 5.2 runs a detuned Gallardo V10, and the S6 is even further detuned Gallardo V10..

BTW don't know if this is considered unwanted advertising but this Asus 660 can be had for $299.99 USD atm on newegg.


----------



## Benetanegia (Aug 17, 2012)

Rei86 said:


> BTW don't know if this is considered unwanted advertising but this Asus 660 can be had for $299.99 USD atm on newegg.



Not the TOP model.

But yeah I'd take that one instead. $30 cheaper and with same excelent cooler, you can overclock it yourself. Maybe the TOP model can achieve higher clocks because of better binning and maybe somewhat better power delivery, but I doubt it and the clock increase wouldn't be enough to make up the 10% price difference.

Such an amazing custom design for reference price is amazing. And there's an MSI PE with TwinFrozr too, again not the OC model tested by W1zz, but close enough.


----------



## Rei86 (Aug 17, 2012)

Benetanegia said:


> Not the TOP model.
> 
> But yeah I'd take that one instead. $30 cheaper and with same excelent cooler, you can overclock it yourself. Maybe the TOP model can achieve higher clocks because of better binning and maybe somewhat better power delivery, but I doubt it and the clock increase wouldn't be enough to make up the 10% price difference.
> 
> Such an amazing custom design for reference price is amazing. And there's an MSI too.



Ah you're right its only 915/980 but hell its still good value.  Probably can OC it too the TOP models 1059core without any hiccups and save 30bucks.


----------



## W1zzard (Aug 17, 2012)

Benetanegia said:


> But yeah I'd take that one instead. $30 cheaper and with same excelent cooler, you can overclock it yourself. Maybe the TOP model can achieve higher clocks because of better binning and maybe somewhat better power delivery, but I doubt it and the clock increase wouldn't be enough to make up the 10% price difference.



that's what i would recommend to all users, who are willing to do some manual oc.

if you are lazy/unknowledgable and just want something that works out of the box without messing around, spend the extra money


----------



## Rastafari (Mar 17, 2014)

Hello everyone,

first of all - I apologize for bumping this old thread, but I would really appreciate some help.

Friend brought me his bricked (bad bios flash) Asus GTX 660 ti DirectCU II, card is not recognized by any software (nvflash, nvflash for windows, not even windows device manager) so reflashing bios is not an option without some hard moding.
I think soldering is my only option, so can somene please help me locate bios chip on this card?
Thank you in advance.

Here are the pictures from this review:

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GeForce_GTX_660_Ti_Direct_Cu_II/images/front_full.jpg

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GeForce_GTX_660_Ti_Direct_Cu_II/images/back_full.jpg


----------



## W1zzard (Mar 17, 2014)

Google works well to identify chips, if you find the EEPROM it'll be quite clear in the chip's description


----------

