# GeForce GTX 660 Arrives Mid-August: Report



## btarunr (Jul 16, 2012)

NVIDIA's newest product designed to strike the price-performance "sweetspot," the GeForce GTX 660, is set for a mid-August market launch, according to a SweClockers report. The new chip could roll out some time between August 13 and 19. Given that other Kepler-based SKUs have been launched on Tuesdays or Thursdays, it's likely that the launch date could be either the 14th, or the 16th. The GTX 660 will be based on the 28 nm "GK104" GPU. It will feature 1,344 or 1,152 CUDA cores, and a 192-bit wide GDDR5 memory interface, holding 1.5 GB of memory, according to the report. The new GPU could capture a crucial sub-$300 price-point.





*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## hhumas (Jul 16, 2012)

its my gpu ...........


----------



## Elmo (Jul 16, 2012)

hard to believe when they said it was suppose to be this month -_-


----------



## Prima.Vera (Jul 16, 2012)

This number 660 brings back memories. I still have a working nVidia GeForce 6600 GT back in some dusty box out there...


----------



## nikko (Jul 16, 2012)

even better than 1152 / 960 rumors but still we know that the cut down core of a middle end cards cost 130$. guess that time has not yet come


----------



## Elmo (Jul 16, 2012)

Prima.Vera said:


> This number 660 brings back memories. I still have a working nVidia GeForce 6600 GT back in some dusty box out there...
> 
> http://www.germes-online.com/direct/dbimage/50305900/NVIDIA_VGA_Card_6600_GT_PCIE_MBGA.jpg



Take that 6600 GT out of the box and polish it now !


----------



## Casecutter (Jul 16, 2012)

These are to be "sub-$300 parts? offering, 192-Bit with only 1.5 Gb?  

We wait... the Saga of Kepler!


----------



## djisas (Jul 16, 2012)

In the meanwhile hd78xx sell like cookies, and by September we might be able to get an hd7870 for less than 250$...

But it's not like my hd6950 need replacement anyway, maybe next generation...


----------



## Wastedslayer (Jul 16, 2012)

Prima.Vera said:


> This number 660 brings back memories. I still have a working nVidia GeForce 6600 GT back in some dusty box out there...



I had a 6800GS for the longest time, total BAMF card


----------



## sanadanosa (Jul 16, 2012)

Wastedslayer said:


> I had a 6800GS for the longest time, total BAMF card



I still have 6200 TurboCache running on my old p4 pc


----------



## dj-electric (Jul 16, 2012)

Screw the report, what w1zzard say?


----------



## Elmo (Jul 16, 2012)

i have nvidia riva tnt2  still  along with a fx5200 and a 6200 agp card ah old times  And all of them still work perfectly. except the palit fx 5200 where the caps blew up and i had to replace the caps.


----------



## Avelict (Jul 16, 2012)

If they can't market it around the $250 price point to remain competitive with the 78xx series (which Im sure will get another price), this card will be as good as useless to consumers who are only looking for a mid-grade card that delivers good 1080p performance.


----------



## Phusius (Jul 16, 2012)

Dj-ElectriC said:


> Screw the report, what w1zzard say?



I agree.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Jul 16, 2012)

The 6$$ series strike again. One chip fits all.


----------



## Zubasa (Jul 16, 2012)

Crap Daddy said:


> The 6$$ series strike again. One chip fits all.


Its the new G92 man


----------



## alwayssts (Jul 16, 2012)

nikko said:


> even better than 1152 / 960 rumors but still we know that the cut down core of a middle end cards cost 130$. guess that time has not yet come



Not that everything always meshes, but 1152/192-bit makes the most sense.

6sm = 1152sp + SFU (6x32) = 1344 Radeons cores...or roughly 5% greater than 7870.

1152 (1344) does not require more than 24 ROPs...a big reason 7800 was rumored to have the same configuration as it is not a bottleneck and should be more efficient in that regard.

When you start factoring in bandwidth though, 7870 needs 4500mhz/256-bit (just like how 7770 is clocked).  If you start figuring this is equal to 1344...and that nvidia likes to clock ram at the actual rating...they could do something like 6008mhz (like the other gk104 parts) on a 192-bit bus...which would be equal to 4506mhz on a 256-bit bus...just edging out 7870 ipc if clocked efficiently.  The other option is 256-bit at 5000mhz.

192-bit (6 chips) may offset the price of the more expensive ram vs 7870 which uses 8 chips at 5gbps, and it shouldn't really be a bottleneck for it's market.  Couple that with ROP efficiency and greater yields because of it, I could see them taking that route.

At 192-bit/6008, it would start being bw limited around the exact average clockspeed of 670 (952mhz...670 is 912 base-980 max boost)...not coincidence and pretty much identical over-all to 7870.  OTOH, 5ghz would allow up to 1058ish...the 680 average boost...also not a coincidence.  My guess is we see the former now, and the later when gk104 is respun/repackaged as the 700 series after the gk110 launch.

Either is an option, but 192-bit probably makes the most sense, as in the long-run it would be very cheap to produce because they could use more chips...which makes sense given the state of 28nm...and they need any cost/power-trimming tactic they can versus 7870 because it uses such a small native die and low-cost ram.  Vicariously, if next year they release the other option, yields/production should not only be higher, but they will be able to use the new 1.35v 5ghz RAM which is coming at the same time as 1.5v 7gbps bins (which I infer will go on the updated '680+').  Lower voltage ram could then off-set some power consumption by the higher core clock/wider bus/more ram/rops.

Decent theory?


----------



## Protagonist (Jul 16, 2012)

1.5GB at this time:shadedshu 192bit:shadedshu shame on you Nvidia, why do you let people down? Nvidia Geforce 6xx series got their asses handed to them by AMD Radeon this time round.

And the winner to current gen graphics card is AMD Radeon
@Nvidia Geforce better luck next time


----------



## Xzibit (Jul 16, 2012)

Crap Daddy said:


> The 6$$ series strike again. One chip fits all.



Not really there 2 already GK107 & GK104

If the reports hold true, There is gonna be a Third GK106

650 & 660 will be based on the new smaller chip GK106 and the 660 Ti will be on GK104 with similar specs to 670 with a 192bit bus, lower ROPs and 1.5gb mem.  Much like the 560 Ti 448 was to the 500 line up.

The GK106 from what i've been reading is just above 200mm2 so they probably figured disabling the GK104 that much is not feasable and could put more of the new chip GK106 chips on wafer hence the delay.


----------



## alwayssts (Jul 16, 2012)

Xzibit said:


> The GK106 from what i've been reading is just above 200mm2 so they probably figured disabling the GK104 that much is not feasable and could put more of the new chip GK106 chips on wafer hence the delay.



I think it is more-so that there is absolutely no way gk106 can beat 7870 and that is why all chips are going to gk104.  If it has 4 sm it is 7850 competition with less ipc but greater clock potential to make up the difference.  If it is 5, it is STILL less ipc than 7870 which has the capability to max the 28nm core clock out and has sufficient bw to make that feasible.

Said it on Fudzilla days ago for the hundredth time...and I think people are starting to get it:

AMD can sell 7870 for peanuts because of native die size and ram.  It is placed in the perfect spot for 1080p.  It has two setup engines which puts it in the higher-echelon for tesselation purposes.  It can overclock amazingly and is set up so the max clockspeed of the shaders on the 28nm process mesh with avg overclocks of the memory.  It was ingenious.  IT SCREWED NVIDIA BIG TIME.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Jul 16, 2012)

st.bone said:


> 1.5GB at this time:shadedshu 192bit:shadedshu shame on you Nvidia, why do you let people down? Nvidia Geforce 6xx series got their asses handed to them by AMD Radeon this time round.
> 
> And the winner to current gen graphics card is AMD Radeon
> @Nvidia Geforce better luck next time



LOL   

This is the funniest thing ive seen all day.

If you haven't noticed Nvidia GTX670 which is meant to be competitive with the 7950 at launch priced at $399, and what do we see in reviews. It goes out and actually beats AMD's $499 card(HD7970) left and right and comes just about 3-5% slower then Nvidias flagship(GTX680). So no, Nvidia's GTX6xx hasn't gotten their ass handed to them yet.


----------



## lukcic (Jul 16, 2012)

alwayssts said:


> I think it is more-so that there is absolutely no way gk106 can beat 7870 and that is why all chips are going to gk104.  If it has 4 sm it is 7850 competition with less ipc but greater clock potential to make up the difference.  If it is 5, it is STILL less ipc than 7870 which has the capability to max the 28nm core clock out and has sufficient bw to make that feasible.
> 
> Said it on Fudzilla days ago for the hundredth time...and I think people are starting to get it:
> 
> AMD can sell 7870 for peanuts because of native die size and ram.  It is placed in the perfect spot for 1080p.  It has two setup engines which puts it in the higher-echelon for tesselation purposes.  It can overclock amazingly and is set up so the max clockspeed of the shaders on the 28nm process mesh with avg overclocks of the memory.  It was ingenious.  IT SCREWED NVIDIA BIG TIME.



Even if it can beat 7870, AMD will launch their new 8000 series in October or maybe later. So Nvidia doesn't get much more than 2~4 months of "good selling" peak until comes 8000 series. Nvidia should compete launch their products as soon as AMD does, or short after that...


----------



## Crap Daddy (Jul 16, 2012)

alwayssts said:


> I think it is more-so that there is absolutely no way gk106 can beat 7870 and that is why all chips are going to gk104.  If it has 4 sm it is 7850 competition with less ipc but greater clock potential to make up the difference.  If it is 5, it is STILL less ipc than 7870 which has the capability to max the 28nm core clock out and has sufficient bw to make that feasible.
> 
> Said it on Fudzilla days ago for the hundredth time...and I think people are starting to get it:
> 
> AMD can sell 7870 for peanuts because of native die size and ram.  It is placed in the perfect spot for 1080p.  It has two setup engines which puts it in the higher-echelon for tesselation purposes.  It can overclock amazingly and is set up so the max clockspeed of the shaders on the 28nm process mesh with avg overclocks of the memory.  It was ingenious.  IT SCREWED NVIDIA BIG TIME.



Yes, the GK106 (if we will ever see it) cannot beat Pitcairn. It was never meant to do it but rather to compete with the 7770/50. GK104 was designed as a performance part, the chip that can destroy AMD's mid-level 7870/50... which it actually does. Now the thing is that this performance chip turns out to be better than Tahiti, AMDs high-end. So what do they do? They sell the $250-$300 parts with $400-$500. Are they screwed?

And now they will sell a $300 GPU (based on that very same performance chip gimped down) which will beat the more expensive 7950 and the same priced 7870. Are they screwed ? I personally don't think so.


----------



## radrok (Jul 16, 2012)

st.bone said:


> 1.5GB at this time:shadedshu 192bit:shadedshu shame on you Nvidia, why do you let people down? Nvidia Geforce 6xx series got their asses handed to them by AMD Radeon this time round.
> 
> And the winner to current gen graphics card is AMD Radeon
> @Nvidia Geforce better luck next time



Careful man, you are going to get jumped on with your statement


----------



## Protagonist (Jul 16, 2012)

Crap Daddy said:


> Yes, the GK106 (if we will ever see it) cannot beat Pitcairn. It was never meant to do it but rather to compete with the 7770/50. GK104 was designed as a performance part, the chip that can destroy AMD's mid-level 7870/50... which it actually does. Now the thing is that this performance chip turns out to be better than Tahiti, AMDs high-end. So what do they do? They sell the $250-$300 parts with $400-$500. Are they screwed?
> 
> And now they will sell a $300 GPU (based on that very same performance chip gimped down) which will beat the more expensive 7950 and the same priced 7870. *Are they screwed ? I personally don't think so.*




No they are far from being screwed, coz they are screwing you the consumer even harder


----------



## Protagonist (Jul 16, 2012)

radrok said:


> Careful man, you are going to get jumped on with your statement



Well its an opinion/how i see it, if I'm going to get jumped coz of opinion then so be it. lets wait for the GTX660 to launch, then if its good I'll definitely give it props but then if its bad I'll say i told you so.


----------



## sanadanosa (Jul 16, 2012)

st.bone said:


> No they are far from being screwed, coz they are screwing you the consumer even harder



Why? Because they make mid end graphics cards that perform par or better than AMD's high end? better efficiency too and cheaper than AMD at launch? I think it's big plus for me as a consumer.


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Jul 16, 2012)

nvidiaintelftw said:


> If you haven't noticed Nvidia GTX670 which is meant to be competitive with the 7950 at launch priced at $399, and what do we see in reviews. It goes out and actually beats AMD's $499 card(HD7970) left and right and comes just about 3-5% slower then Nvidias flagship(GTX680). So no, Nvidia's GTX6xx hasn't gotten their ass handed to them yet.



Calm down Nvidia, uh, fans...he should have worded his post better but was not referring to the entire 6xx series vs Radeon. Specifically "this round" e.g. 660 vs 78xx such as the 256-bit, 2GB 7850.


----------



## alwayssts (Jul 16, 2012)

nvidiaintelftw said:


> LOL
> 
> This is the funniest thing ive seen all day.
> 
> If you haven't noticed Nvidia GTX670 which is meant to be competitive with the 7950 at launch priced at $399, and what do we see in reviews. It goes out and actually beats AMD's $499 card(HD7970) left and right and comes just about 3-5% slower then Nvidias flagship(GTX680). So no, Nvidia's GTX6xx hasn't gotten their ass handed to them yet.



7950 = 1792sp @ 800mhz
670 = 1568sp at a base of 915...or exactly matching 7950...and an avg boost to 950ish...the percentage difference between 1792->2048 where Tahiti often becomes ROP limited (~1840s'ish?.)

Please do some IPC math...or try clocking 7950 at not 800/5000.  I try to be friendly, but people believing the marketing bullshit versus actual chip capabilities makes me .  I continue to hope 8870 is 1792sp and 256-bit with very close to rated 7000mhz ram stock speeds matched to shaders clocks (~1100mhz).  What marketing trick could nvidia make people believe if they did that?   





lukcic said:


> Even if it can beat 7870, AMD will launch their new 8000 series in October or maybe later. So Nvidia doesn't get much more than 2~4 months of "good selling" peak until comes 8000 series. Nvidia should compete launch their products as soon as AMD does, or short after that...



Yep.  You've prolly seen me pontificate that I expect a < 150w 1536sp 8850 at somewhere around 925/5000.  If that comes to be and launches under $300, WTF does nvidia do then...especially if the chip is smaller?

One thing is for sure...660 will start prices a-tumbling.  Sea Islands will probably set the market straight as far gk104 pricing goes...and all will be as it should be.


----------



## blibba (Jul 16, 2012)

Why would you want >1.5GB on a mainstream card anyway? 512MB is still enough for 95% of new games at >1080p (I know, I try it).



alwayssts said:


> Yep.  You've prolly seen me pontificate that I expect a > 150w 1536sp 8850 at somewhere around 925/500.  If that comes to be and launches under $300, WTF does nvidia do then...especially if the chip is smaller?
> 
> One thing is for sure...660 will start prices a-tumbling.  Sea Islands will probably set the market straight as far gk104 pricing goes...and all will be as it should be.



I imagine GK104 will be refreshed as GK114, and a higher clocked GTX680 released as the GTX760Ti. Leaving GK110 to hold the high-end.


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Jul 16, 2012)

Uh BF3 uses almost 1.5GB at 1200P on my rig. Skyrim over a gig.


----------



## blibba (Jul 16, 2012)

Wrigleyvillain said:


> Uh BF3 uses almost 1.5GB at 1200P on my rig. Skyrim over a gig.



I play Skyrim on a 512MB card at 2048*1152. That's with the texture patch and 2x transparency AA. Maybe you're running 8x AA or something? Perhaps you f*cked your ini file.

BF3, in fairness, is one game I've not tried. SC2, Metro 2033 and Crysis are all fine, though (admittedly not maxed in the latter two cases).


----------



## Protagonist (Jul 16, 2012)

sanadanosa said:


> Why? Because they make mid end graphics cards that perform par or better than AMD's high end? better efficiency too and cheaper than AMD at launch? I think it's big plus for me as a consumer.



No because i know Nvidia is better than what they delivered


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Jul 16, 2012)

alwayssts said:


> 7950 = 1792sp @ 800mhz
> 670 = 1568sp at a base of 915...or exactly matching 7950...and an avg boost to 950ish...the percentage difference between 1792->2048 where Tahiti often becomes ROP limited (~1840s'ish?.)
> 
> Please do some IPC math...or try clocking 7950 at not 800/5000.  I try to be friendly, but people believing the marketing bullshit versus actual chip capabilities makes me .  I continue to hope 8870 is 1792sp and 256-bit with very close to rated 7000mhz ram stock speeds matched to shaders clocks (~1100mhz).  What marketing trick could nvidia make people believe if they did that?
> ...



I hope you realize it is impossible to compare SP counts and clock speed directly between cards right? AMD and nvidia architectures ARE MUCH different then one another.


----------



## Nihilus (Jul 16, 2012)

nvidiaintelftw said:


> LOL
> 
> This is the funniest thing ive seen all day.
> 
> If you haven't noticed Nvidia GTX670 which is meant to be competitive with the 7950 at launch priced at $399, and what do we see in reviews. It goes out and actually beats AMD's $499 card(HD7970) left and right and comes just about 3-5% slower then Nvidias flagship(GTX680). So no, Nvidia's GTX6xx hasn't gotten their ass handed to them yet.



Performance wise, yes Nvidia is rocking.  From a business aspect, they are getting there asses handed to them.  They lost about 5% market share Q1 2012 alone and the STILL haven't release a midrange card.  
    Not the best source in the world, but just look at the best selling cards on Newegg.  It is dominated by the GTX 560ti and the HD 6800 series.  All priced around $150-$250. 
    Bought about $3k in nvidia stock a couple months back.  BIG mistake.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Jul 16, 2012)

Nihilus said:


> Performance wise, yes Nvidia is rocking.  From a business aspect, they are getting there asses handed to them.  They lost about 5% market share Q1 2012 alone and the STILL haven't release a midrange card.
> Not the best source in the world, but just look at the best selling cards on Newegg.  It is dominated by the GTX 560ti and the HD 6800 series.  All priced around $150-$250.
> Bought about $3k in nvidia stock a couple months back.  BIG mistake.



Have you seen AMD's recent fiscal qtr results? They are not doing well either.



Wrigleyvillain said:


> Calm down Nvidia, uh, fans...he should have worded his post better but was not referring to the entire 6xx series vs Radeon. Specifically "this round" e.g. 660 vs 78xx such as the 256-bit, 2GB 7850.



Its hard to compare whats on paper between Nvidia and AMD gpus. Just by looking at the specs you can get an idea, but you will not know which is truely the better performing card till you see them in benchmarks.


----------



## OneCool (Jul 16, 2012)

Better late then never I guess.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Jul 16, 2012)

OneCool said:


> Better late then never I guess.



Nvidia is late with their mid range teir of cards. AMD is late with their dual GPU behemoth.


----------



## phanbuey (Jul 16, 2012)

Nihilus said:


> Performance wise, yes Nvidia is rocking.  From a business aspect, they are getting there asses handed to them.  They lost about 5% market share Q1 2012 alone and the STILL haven't release a midrange card.
> Not the best source in the world, but just look at the best selling cards on Newegg.  It is dominated by the GTX 560ti and the HD 6800 series.  All priced around $150-$250.
> Bought about $3k in nvidia stock a couple months back.  BIG mistake.



I think that comes from being late to market... they have been a bit late with their releases when compared to AMD, and were basically left to make statements like 
"we were expecting more from the competition,"  When in fact they had nothing available to counter at that moment.

and they definitely screwed themselves by not making a mid range part right away...

Then again PC sales are lower across the board this quarter, and they are probably not losing all of that market share to AMD.


----------



## tacosRcool (Jul 16, 2012)

192 bit? I find this a little strange


----------



## Benetanegia (Jul 16, 2012)

Yeah, there's 50% more GTX680 than HD7970's on Steam already, in half the time, meaning the are selling 3x times as much in the few months that it has been in the market. In fact there's just as many 680's as both HD7950 and 7970 conbined. And more than both 78xx's conbined too. Oh yep, they are soooooo getting their asses handed to them so badly. Poor Nvidia, selling their $500 card at a 2x-3x rate compared to competition's $250-450 range of cards. They will surely be in red numbers.

BTW Nvidia still hold a 62% of AIB market share, which is what these cards are all about. The only reason their general market share is down is because nearly every CPU that Intel sells and that AMD can actually sell in some volume have a GPU integrated. Nvidia currently dominates the discrete GPU market, especially on the high-end, high-margin segment. That is a fact and it will probably just grow in the near future.


----------



## phanbuey (Jul 16, 2012)

tacosRcool said:


> 192 bit? I find this a little strange



I think that has to do with the nerfing of the Kepler and the lack of need/want to design a memory controller/separate chip.

I could be wrong tho.  EDIT: nope i'm just read another post stating that it is an all new chip.... hmm.


----------



## Benetanegia (Jul 16, 2012)

192 bit is most probably because they've learned from the GTX670. It's pretty obvious that GK104 could do just as well with 1344 SPs as it does with 1536 SP. Clock for clock 670 and 680 are a couple of % from each other, only difference is clock. So it's obvious 1536 was too much, 1344 is too much too and could do nearly as well with 1152? That's the question, but it's probably much better for them and also simpler not to answer that question. Not even let that question to be made. A 192 bit card IS sufficiently slower as not to steal 670 or 680 sales. Period.


----------



## phanbuey (Jul 16, 2012)

Benetanegia said:


> 192 bit is most probably because they've learned from the GTX670. It's pretty obvious that GK104 could do just as well with 1344 SPs as it does with 1536 SP. Clock for clock 670 and 680 are a couple of % from each other, only difference is clock. So it's obvious 1536 was too much, 1344 is too much too and could do nearly as well with 1152? That's the question, but it's probably much better for them and also simpler not to answer that question. Not even let that question to be made. A 192 bit card IS sufficiently slower as not to steal 670 or 680 sales. Period.



That sounds about right.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Jul 16, 2012)

Nihilus said:


> Performance wise, yes Nvidia is rocking.  From a business aspect, they are getting there asses handed to them.  They lost about 5% market share Q1 2012 alone and the STILL haven't release a midrange card.
> Not the best source in the world, but just look at the best selling cards on Newegg.  It is dominated by the GTX 560ti and the HD 6800 series.  All priced around $150-$250.
> Bought about $3k in nvidia stock a couple months back.  BIG mistake.



It wasn't such a big mistake as buying AMD stock. Just checked and if you bought middle of May the value is more or less the same while AMD fell from 7.50 to under 5. But I'm sure there are lots of things that influence this apart from launching mid-range cards. I really don't think NV are getting their asses handed to them business wise. Tegra 3 pops-up everywhere lately from smartphones to Google Nexus 7 tablet (which sells like hotcakes by the way) and the upcoming Microsoft Surface. Apple has Kepler in MacBook Pro, HPC is a growing market an Nvidia has a strong foot there and I'm seeing lots of crappy GT610M/620M in laptops. Yes, they don't sell 28nm midrange Kepler GPUs for 150-200. They sell them for 400-500, less units but with a considerable profit. It's enough to look at the 670 reference PCB and you'll get the picture. Now they'll have a 300$ part. For everything below there's the 7850 and last generations 6870/GTX560.


----------



## Xzibit (Jul 16, 2012)

Benetanegia said:


> Yeah, there's 50% more GTX680 than HD7970's on Steam already, in half the time, meaning the are selling 3x times as much in the few months that it has been in the market. In fact there's just as many 680's as both HD7950 and 7970 conbined. And more than both 78xx's conbined too. Oh yep, they are soooooo getting their asses handed to them so badly. Poor Nvidia, selling their $500 card at a 2x-3x rate compared to competition's $250-450 range of cards. They will surely be in red numbers.



Are we looking at the same thing ? Steam Hardware & Software Survey: June 2012

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 (680 & 670) Unless everyone on steam owns a 680 and no 670s 
APR = 0.31%
MAY = 0.56%
JUN = 0.74%
Change = +0.18%

ATI Radeon HD 7970 (7970 & 7950) Unless no-one on steam owns a 7950
FEB = 0.31%
MAR = 0.38%
APR = 0.41%
MAY = 0.50%
JUN = 0.50%
Change = 0.00%

ATI Radeon HD 7800 Series (7870 & 7850)
MAY = 0.42%
JUN = 0.67%
Change = +0.25%

Kind of selectively sensationalizing it arent we.


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Jul 16, 2012)

blibba said:


> I play Skyrim on a 512MB card at 2048*1152. That's with the texture patch and 2x transparency AA. Maybe you're running 8x AA or something? Perhaps you f*cked your ini file.
> 
> BF3, in fairness, is one game I've not tried. SC2, Metro 2033 and Crysis are all fine, though (admittedly not maxed in the latter two cases).



And how are you monitoring this? It does not work right for AMD cards, in GPU-Z anyway. At any rate, there's no way your numbers are correct. 

I was using well over a gig 5 years ago running Oblivion mods.

Fucked up my .ini file? Cute. Besides, that is not the only game. Crysis is over a gig too with 4x AA plus ZPOMAF.

I would have loved to stick with my 6850 Crossfire longer but I needed more VRAM. Period.


----------



## Nihilus (Jul 16, 2012)

Good point on Tegra, it's been a huge success.  It used to be that the average joe bought desktops with discrete cards to get more power with much less money.  Now more then ever discrete cards will only be bought by the enthusiasts and that is very unlikely to reverse back.


----------



## Casecutter (Jul 16, 2012)

We know GK-104 cards are good and essentially now there’s parity between the "Ghz Tahiti’s" when both 7950 and 7970 arrive.  Though at some point soon all "non-Ghz" versions will probably be priced to move, while "Ghz" units will see more price advantage as the originals exit.  Also, given traditionally Nvidia won’t get super aggressive with high-end "GTX 680" parts anytime quick they will contest no differently than in previous times.  Appears AMD has the Nvidia’s higher-end well corralled, especially with the price drops; a GTX 670 has like 3 AMD cards that are all inline $/perf; the original 7950 is a 15% less; the 1Ghz 7950 will be 5-10% cheaper; while after rebates the non-Ghz 7970 is par with what GTX670's go for after offers.

I'll move to Nvidia’s GK-107 (GT430) at this point I’m not sure what’s up, because even with DDR5 it might come close to 7750.  Although can Nvidia work better pricing while still provide DDR5, they’d have to or it’s no competition with AMD’s Cape Verde parts...  And why is that?  I mean Nvidia has known what was needed months ago, and they come up so short?  Is Kepler not scaling well, was the GK-104 just a mainstream push really hard, and finally can the GK-106 extract the same marvels?  

Can this GK-106 extract three levels, a "Ti part" that’s 25-30% than the old GTX560Ti, bettering the 7890 and at $300 but there’s the original 7950 vie close to there also.  A GTX660 that’s $200 and wipes the 7850 (I think that’s where the real contest will be). Finally a GTX650 on say 128-Bit 1Gb DDR5 at $150-130 that takes it to the 7770, I think Nvidia will miss that mark?

It would appear Nvidia can make do with just  two chip achieving 5 Sku’s between $150-500, AMD using three chips, yielding 6 Sku’s (plus the two extra for the time being) that covers $100-500.


----------



## Benetanegia (Jul 16, 2012)

Xzibit said:


> Are we looking at the same thing ? Steam Hardware & Software Survey: June 2012
> 
> NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 (680 & 670) Unless everyone on steam owns a 680 and no 670s
> APR = 0.31%
> ...



The GTX670 is not yet on the list, the numbers are only for GTX680. Same for the HD7950 it's not in that list you posted. It's in this one tho. 680 0.66%, 7970 0.44%, 7950 0.22. Simple math: 44 + 22 = 66, meaning "*In fact there's just as many 680's as both HD7950 and 7970 conbined.*" In your list 0.74% amounts for roughly 50% more than 7970's 0.50%. No?

On the same list HD78xx (both cards appear combined) 0.60 % IS less than 680's 0.66%, at least in my universe (and Walternate's). Even in your link 0.74% is more than 0.67%, and so: "And more than both 78xx's conbined too".

Point is, most evidence suggests that Nvidia is selling more 680's than either 79xx's or 78xx's for a higher price and much better margins than AMD sells 7900's. If there's a company subjectively having their asses handed to them, that would be AMD, except none of them is in anything close to a bad situation. Both are selling the cards for much more than it costs them, especially if we compare to previous generations. And especially GK104, is smaller than GF104/114, so it makes up somehow for the 20% higher wafer price, it's 256 bit too, meaning same amount of memory chips, with a similarly simple PCB and components (I don't even know if 670's PCB could be argued as even simpler than GF104). GF104/GF114 cards were never sold for more than 250 euros (in fact I bought my 460 1 month and a half after it was released for just 160). 680 is selling at 500 a pop. So yeah... poor Nvidia. There's one simple reason we don't get the 660 until so late and that's it. Why the hell would they say goodbye to all those super-high margins, when they are selling all the GK104's that TSMC can make? It' sucks for us and I guess someone could be angry at them for, basically, being a company, but that's what it is atm. If it weren't for "bad" initial (new process) yields, and didn't need to harvest, they wouldn't even had released the 670 yet and the fact it was released late, anyway, already tells half the story. The other half is, pretty much, what happens when Nvidia is about to announce the 660? Price cut from AMD, exactly, and what does that do to 670/680? Hint: prices/margins are not going to go up.


----------



## bim27142 (Jul 17, 2012)

*"and a 192-bit wide GDDR5 memory interface, holding 1.5 GB of memory, according to the report. The new GPU could capture a crucial sub-$300 price-point"*

Ahuh.... So theoretically how will this fare with a 256-bit 7870 (more or less of the same price) or even with a 256-bit 7850 (which is of course cheaper)?


----------



## phanbuey (Jul 17, 2012)

bim27142 said:


> *"and a 192-bit wide GDDR5 memory interface, holding 1.5 GB of memory, according to the report. The new GPU could capture a crucial sub-$300 price-point"*
> 
> Ahuh.... So theoretically how will this fare with a 256-bit 7870 (more or less of the same price) or even with a 256-bit 7850 (which is of course cheaper)?



It might spank them, or it might be the same speed.  But I can guarantee that the series is aimed at the 7870 and 7850 so it definitely won't be slower.


----------



## Benetanegia (Jul 17, 2012)

I agree it can be nearly anything. But unless they use some absurdingly low clocks, I can't think of it being more than 25% slower than the 680 since it'll have exactly 25% of the chip disabled and it never scales linearly with this kind of architecture, I mean the 670 shows exactly the opposite. How much of that non-linearity is shared by the 660 is impossible to determine right now, but common sense says an architecture doesn't go from a situation where linearity is completely lacking to absolute linearity in just one more disabled cluster. So if I had to say something, I'd say it will offer 80% the performance of the 680.


----------



## Nihilus (Jul 17, 2012)

Speculating about "profit margins" based on die size is pointless to say the least.  Fact is the market demands mid-range competition to see higher sales for both companies.  PERIOD!!


----------



## Nihilus (Jul 17, 2012)

sanadanosa said:


> Why? Because they make mid end graphics cards that perform par or better than AMD's high end? better efficiency too and cheaper than AMD at launch? I think it's big plus for me as a consumer.



People on this forum seem to be disconnected from reality.  A $400 GTX 670 is NOT a mid-range card.  Neither is a $400 GTS 630 or $400 GT 610.  It's still a $400 rose by any other name.  Releasing a $1000 EXTREME!! card months before there midrange is the real show of competence.  :shadedshu


----------



## bim27142 (Jul 17, 2012)

phanbuey said:


> It might spank them, or it might be the same speed.  But I can guarantee that the series is aimed at the 7870 and 7850 so it definitely won't be slower.



Hope it beats the 7870 or at least be at par with it but more power efficient then this will be winner... Otherwise, it's going to be a matter of brand loyalty I guess...


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Jul 17, 2012)

bim27142 said:


> Otherwise, it's going to be a matter of brand loyalty I guess...



Oh that never sells any GPUs...


----------



## sanadanosa (Jul 17, 2012)

Nihilus said:


> People on this forum seem to be disconnected from reality.  A $400 GTX 670 is NOT a mid-range card.  Neither is a $400 GTS 630 or $400 GT 610.  It's still a $400 rose by any other name.  Releasing a $1000 EXTREME!! card months before there midrange is the real show of competence.  :shadedshu



GTX 670 is not a mid-range card considering its performance, but it uses mid-range kepler GPU since 104 means nvidia's mid-range chip. About my post that saying mid end graphics card, I'm sorry, it's my bad. What I mean is mid-end gpu.


----------



## Zubasa (Jul 17, 2012)

sanadanosa said:


> GTX 670 is not a mid-range card considering it's performance, but it uses mid-range kepler GPU since 104 means nvidia's mid-range chip.


That is all just speculation 
The fact that there is no GK100 but a GK110 suggests that it is meant for the GTX700 series from the beginning 
That or it is simply a matter of fact that the 28nm process is simply not ready for a GK100 so they scraped it.

Regardless the GK104 is the highest end Kepler nVidia has right now and that is a fact.


----------



## sanadanosa (Jul 17, 2012)

Zubasa said:


> That is all just speculation
> The fact that there is no GK100 but a GK110 suggests that it is meant for the GTX700 series from the beginning
> That or it is simply a matter of fact that the 28nm process is simply not ready for a GK100 so they scraped it.
> 
> Regardless the GK104 is the highest end Kepler nVidia has right now and that is a fact.



yes you're right, it's just my speculation based on anandtech's review that comparing GK104 with the GF104, which I think they try to compare it with same level chip from previous generation.


----------



## Benetanegia (Jul 17, 2012)

Nihilus said:


> Speculating about "profit margins" based on die size is pointless to say the least.  Fact is the market demands mid-range competition to see higher sales for both companies.  PERIOD!!



The market might demand whatever it wants, it cannot get it regardless. Mid-range and low-end are demanded by the largest amount of people and as such are usually the largest markets by revenue, especially mid-range, because nice ASP meets high volumes of sales. Flash news, *there's a wafer start shortage!!* They cannot sell 1 million cards of any type even if there is a market demand for them. They are going to sell a limited amount of cards whether these cost $500 or $100 and because of that they only offered the $500 card first. Bussiness wise Nvidia made the best thing for Nvidia. 

And I hope your comment about die size was not related to my post, because I didn't say such a thing. I said quite the opposite in fact. The thing is GK104 cards are way cheaper to produce based on everything, simpler PCB, less memory modules, simpler PWM, components... especially the 670. And of course die size. Whoever thinks that a sub-300 mm^2 chip (15% smaller than GF104!!!), in a cheap 256 bit card, was Nvidia's biggest contender this round, is completely deluded.


----------



## micropage7 (Jul 17, 2012)

why dont they make the GPU like this





im afraid crushing the die if i use aftermarket cooler


----------



## Elmo (Jul 17, 2012)

st.bone said:


> No they are far from being screwed, coz they are screwing you the consumer even harder


Everyone has to make money.


----------



## Naito (Jul 17, 2012)

Casecutter said:


> These are to be "sub-$300 parts? offering, 192-Bit with only 1.5 Gb?





st.bone said:


> 1.5GB at this time 192bit shame on you Nvidia, why do you let people down?



Dunno why people are so concerned about _only_ 1.5GB VRAM on a 192-bit bus. My GTX 470 has a 320-bit bus, and only achieves 136GB/s @ 850MHz. If nVidia were to clock the GTX 660's memory at, at least 1250MHz on 192-bit (maybe approaching 125-130GB/s with 1500MHz), I'm sure it will have more than enough bandwidth.

What I am trying to get at, is that, even with a higher memory clock providing more bandwidth, my frame rate didn't show much of an improvement - as I'm sure bandwidth ain't everything (well, at least it isn't for me, at 1920x1080). And as for the VRAM capacity, 1.5GB should satisfy the card just fine. My 1280MB does just fine, and I can run pretty much every game maxed out.


----------



## Hilux SSRG (Jul 17, 2012)

I think the GTX 660 is arriving late due to overabundance of unsold 560 series variants and nvidia's hope to clear the channels as much as possible.  

I am eager to learn how it shapes up against the 7800 series.


----------



## Benetanegia (Jul 18, 2012)

http://videocardz.com/33874/geforce-gts-650-is-3-faster-than-gts-550-ti

I'm starting to believe that the 660 might be based on GK106 after all, but it's not what everyone thought it was. That or GK106 was scrapped altogether which makes very little sense to me.

My little new theory is that GK106 took longer because it was slightly redesigned when GK100 was scrapped and GK104 took the high-end card position, in order to be able to compete in the performance class*. Early rumors speculated about GK106 being a 768 SP card, basically 2 clusters where GK104 has 4, with 2 SMX each. And it was always rumored to be a 192 bit part. Basically folowing the tradition set with fermi cards, fair enough, it made sense. 

But now I think that GK106 might use the same clusters as GK110, with 3 SMX each for a total of 6, which would turn it into a 1152 SP, 192 bit chip. Exactly what rumors say for GTX660.

Like I said the alternative is that GK106 won't be released and that makes no sense to me. But with GK107 + GDDR5 taking the GTS650 name, it looks very very unlikely for it to exist if GTX660 is based on GK104 too. Yeah non Ti 660 being GK106, but only 1 SKu based on the chip is unlikely too: the non-ti 660 theory has always been supported by harvested GK106 being the 650.

Well at least August will be interesting I guess.

* You just cannot compete if your mid-range/performace GPU is half the size of your high-end. It's been half a decade since the second chip offers at least 2/3 the performance, often time 3/4. Going straight to 1/2 is suicide. Of course GK104 was THAT chip, just like GF104 and G94 senved that purpose, but since GK104 became the one to go in high-end cards a new such chip is required. IMO a 6 SMX GK106 would be it. It's good balanced, it doen't require a lot of reworking because the 3 SMX designed was already tested for GK100/110 and packing them in just 2 clusters saves a lot of space. Only "sacrifice" is geometry/tesselation compared to GK104, but that's irrelevant for mid-range because of this:






It would still beat a GTX580 on pure tesselation.


----------



## NHKS (Jul 19, 2012)

GTX660 launch date confirmed(by Kitguru) – 16th August 



> News into KitGuru from a friendly engineer in sunny California, is that 16th August will see the new cards launched.


----------



## gopal (Jul 20, 2012)

Is it is better then GTX 560ti 448 or hd 7850

EDIT: Wait i thought the GTX 660ti is going to release in the mid-august not the GTX 660+
Well i think the GTX 660 is better then HD 7850 and the GTX 660ti is better then hd 7870 and some where below the hd 7950


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Jul 20, 2012)

micropage7 said:


> why dont they make the GPU like this
> http://benchmarkreviews.com/images/...-GTX-460/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-460-GF104-GPU.jpg
> im afraid crushing the die if i use aftermarket cooler



Why would you want a Heatspreader on a GPU? One of the worst ideas Nvidia has thought of doing. Without a heat spreader you get better heat transfer and direct cooling of the die. And if your afraid of crushing a die, you should definitely look into laying off the roids.


----------



## D007 (Jul 20, 2012)

I bet it's going to be a sweet card.. 1.5 gig is a nice place to be in memory for a "mid range" card..


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Jul 20, 2012)

D007 said:


> I bet it's going to be a sweet card.. 1.5 gig is a nice place to be in memory for a "mid range" card..



GTX680/670 should have 4GB and then the GTX660ti etc should have 2GB. that sounds a bit better i think


----------



## INSTG8R (Jul 20, 2012)

nvidiaintelftw said:


> GTX680/670 should have 4GB and then the GTX660ti etc should have 2GB. that sounds a bit better i think



Agreed. AMD have no problem with plenty of RAM.


----------



## shaglocc (Jul 21, 2012)

*Hmm*

Maybe Nvidia is going to wait till they drop prices of the 680 and 670 before they come out with the 660 so they can lessen the gap in the price range and sell the 660 at a 200-250 price range because a 560ti still cost $200+ they might drop price of 560 ti and replace the 560ti price range with the 660 and that opens a gapp to slap a 660ti in for 50-100 dollars more. Just a theory


----------



## INSTG8R (Jul 21, 2012)

Benetanegia said:


> Snip...








Did you even look at that graph??

How in the hell am I expected to believe a 7870 has better tessellation than a 7970??
Kinda calls the rest of that graphs accuracy into question...


----------



## Benetanegia (Jul 21, 2012)

INSTG8R said:


> http://techreport.com/r.x/geforce-gtx-680/tessmark-x64.gif
> 
> Did you even look at that graph??
> 
> ...



Because the HD7870 has the exact same dual engine as the HD7970 and runs nearly 100 mhz higher. The benchmark is accurate.


----------



## INSTG8R (Jul 21, 2012)

Benetanegia said:


> Because the HD7870 has the exact same dual engine as the HD7970 and runs nearly 100 mhz higher. The benchmark is accurate.



Fair enough its a Ghz 7870 then?


----------



## Benetanegia (Jul 21, 2012)

INSTG8R said:


> Fair enough its a Ghz 7870 then?



I don't really get what you mean there, all 7870's are Ghz edition.


----------



## INSTG8R (Jul 21, 2012)

Benetanegia said:


> I don't really get what you mean there, all 7870's are Ghz edition.



Meaning that it has higher clocks than the stock 7970's 925Mhz so the graph makes sense.


----------



## bryaneasy (Jul 23, 2012)

Since going from ATI to Nvidia all I can say is that I am a Nvidia fanboi now.  Sure nvidia cards might be more expensive than ATI cards, but they run more stable, feel way smoother in games and don't overheat like PoS ati cards (my last 2 cards had overheating issues).  I think ATI is just a tight ass option and this time around I decided to spend the extra and go with the green.  ATI just look good on paper but in reality its like buying the cheap chinese TV vs the Nice Japanese made TV.


----------

