# GeForce GTX 660 Ti Specifications and Launch Date Released



## btarunr (Jul 26, 2012)

According to the latest set of specifications scored by SweClockers, NVIDIA's upcoming performance-segment GPU, the GeForce GTX 660 Ti, is not much different from the GTX 670. The GTX 660 Ti is based on the 28 nm GK104 GPU, with 1,344 CUDA cores enabled - the same number as that on the GTX 670. What's more, the clock speeds don't differ between the two, either - 915 MHz core, 980 MHz GPU Boost, and 6.00 GHz GDDR5-effective memory. 

The memory amount stays 2 GB, as well. It's just that the memory bus width is reduced from 256-bit to 192-bit, resulting in 25% lower memory bandwidth. The 2 GB of memory is spread across the 192-bit memory bus, probably with four chips using 32-bit wide paths each, with four other chips sharing two 32-bit wide paths. NVIDIA is known for pulling off such memory configurations, like it did with the GeForce GTX 550 Ti.



The other major component of the SweClockers report is the launch date. According to the source, NVIDIA will launch the GeForce GTX 660 Ti on August 16. We predict that the GamesCom event held in Cologne, Germany, which opens to the public on the same day, could serve as a launch-pad.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## btarunr (Jul 26, 2012)

Many Thanks to NHKS for the tip.


----------



## _JP_ (Jul 26, 2012)

So this will be more like a GTS 670 (or GTX 670 SE)....fine by me.


----------



## LTUGamer (Jul 26, 2012)

Sounds too good  If it is real specs this card will be awesome


----------



## Delta6326 (Jul 26, 2012)

Awesome news I wounder just how much will it be slower than 670 if they only lowered the Bus. 670 uses 225Gb/s


----------



## Benetanegia (Jul 26, 2012)

If those specs are correct, it's 100% settled for me, GK104 has always been the chip meant for the $300 card. Not that I didn't know that before, but now it's crystal clear, no doubt. Nvidia has always been willling to sell it for $300, except it would have been stupid to do so, when selling it for $500 was possible. But now they are going to finally sell it for $300 and far from crippling it as much as posible they are giving this card every opportunity to succeed even against their own GTX670. At least at anything but 1440/1600p.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Jul 26, 2012)

Well it's pretty much what was suspected. At 1080p this will be probably 5-8% slower than a 670 and the same percentage faster than the 7950. People will understand why the 7950 has come down as low as just $320 from a launch price of $450 and the 7870 from $350 to $280 in four months. I can't remember such a slash in prices in less than six months. Still, there's no sign of GK106 and a contender for the 7850.


----------



## DarkOCean (Jul 26, 2012)

Delta6326 said:


> Awesome news I wounder just how much will it be slower than 670 if they only lowered the Bus. 670 uses 225Gb/s



Afaik 670 has 192Gb/s and this will have 144Gb/s, this also must have only 24 rops since its 192bit. At least it will have 2gb.


----------



## Disparia (Jul 26, 2012)

Nice. Except for the name, which makes me gag just saying it.

Anyone make 4Gb GDDR5? Someone could put out a 3GB No-Sharing Edition.


----------



## Benetanegia (Jul 26, 2012)

Crap Daddy said:


> Well it's pretty much what was suspected. At 1080p this will be probably 5-8% slower than a 670 and the same percentage faster than the 7950. People will understand why the 7950 has come down as low as just $320 from a launch price of $450 and the 7870 from $350 to $280 in four months. I can't remember such a slash in prices in less than six months. Still, there's no sign of GK106 and a contender for the 7850.



Well, I was pretty convinced that it would have 1152 SPs and only 1.5GB, and maybe a 25-50 Mhz reduction too. I didn't expect this card to be so close to a 670.

I'm not sure they need a contender for the HD7850 right now. Both 670 and 680 have sold more than the 7850, according to Steam. Which shows that there is market for such prices if the performance/features seem right. The 660 will not have any problem doing the same at its price point. Because, honestly, if all this trns out to be true, look at how much more you will get for $300 compared to a $250 7850. When the 7850 gets the price cut AND if they see their sales are hurt, then they'll release something. Right now it's everything capped at how much TSMC can produce so they are not in a hurry to introduce chips that will eat production time, won't be able to sell much more and would need to be sold for half as much. Bad bussiness in the current situation, they already have all the design wins they want and have nothing to demostrate either, to anyone (partners investors etc must all be extremely happy with 680 and 670 execution) and a $300 card that is within a 5-10% of cards that costed $550 not too long ago it's not going to hurt their mindshare either. The lack of a competing product in the $250 bracket won't hurt them for the time being IMO.

EDIT: BTW, these specs also put the rumors about yields to rest once and for all.


----------



## hhumas (Jul 26, 2012)

so it will be gtx 670 little brother


----------



## Crap Daddy (Jul 26, 2012)

Benetanegia said:


> The 660 will not have any problem doing the same at its price point. Because, honestly, if all this trns out to be true, look at how much more you will get for $300 compared to a $250 7850.



What would you say if the're gonna be a 1152 SP part at 250$ based on the same motto "one chip fits all"? The GTX660?


----------



## cmaxvt (Jul 26, 2012)

Hmm.. As the proud owner of a $400 670, this insults me =P  It makes me wonder if I should sell my 670, get SLI 660's and go nuts on BF3 at full settings for 120 fps constantly.  I planned on SLIing my 670's in a few months but.. this sort of changes the game.  It makes me actually wonder if I should really just wait for GK110 instead.. since, as mentioned before, the GK104 was really meant to be the mid tier card.

Gotta wonder what NVidia is really capable of right now.. even buying a 690 seems silly if they are able to price this GPU at such a low price.


----------



## Benetanegia (Jul 26, 2012)

Crap Daddy said:


> What would you say if the're gonna be a 1152 SP part at 250$ based on the same motto "one chip fits all"? The GTX660?



I could expect that, after a few more months. Like I said it's clearer than ever that GK104 IS the $300 card chip. And that would have been the full chip, cut down chips would have sold in the $200-300 bracket. So that is still possible and wouldn't be too far from what they did with G92 tbh, where a single chip served a rather large price bracket. But that will happen when they can sell lots and lots of them, when the number of units shipped can justify the reduction in price. Until then I don't expect them to do anything, but TSMC has posted some very positive numbers today/yesterday regarding 28nm ramping up and expect even better numbers the next quarter so this 660 you're speaking about might come close to the Ti version. 

BUT they might also simply cut the prices of the 660 and 670 according to competing prodcuts while needed, while retaining the GTX680 at relatively high prices for the few that remain willing to pay for premium cards, it worked with GTX580 after all, it remained (and continued selling) at close to $500 even though the 570 suffered several price cuts. As for 660 and 670, it would be like going with their plan A, which was selling GK104 parts in the $200-$300 price bracket and sell lots and lots of them, like GF104 and GF114 did before.

So yeah either way, I can definitely see GK104 parts selling for $200 in a few months, depending on what AMD does and 28nm ramping up.


----------



## Delta6326 (Jul 26, 2012)

DarkOCean said:


> Afaik 670 has 192Gb/s and this will have 144Gb/s, this also must have only 24 rops since its 192bit. At least it will have 2gb.



Whoops I was looking at an OC 670 GPU-Z screenshot. This maybe my next GPU.


----------



## NHKS (Jul 26, 2012)

GK104 (1536/8): Tesla K10(x2), GTX 690(x2), GTX 680 
GK104 (1344/7): Quadro K5000M, GTX 670, GTX 660Ti, GTX 680M
_GK104 (1152/6): GTX 660 (my presumption)_
GK104 ( 960/5):  Quadro K4000M

phew! talk abt versatility of the GK104..


----------



## Nihilus (Jul 26, 2012)

So the GTX 660ti vs the 670 will basically be a GTX 560 SE vs. a GTX 560, right?  Couldn't find any benchmarks for the 560 se to compare.


----------



## dj-electric (Jul 26, 2012)

2 Options
1. sweclockers have balls
2. sweclockers are in some kind of agreement.

Now, let us all, who actually have the hardware and can post stuff under "source: sweclockers" post this on our websites so we can spread the word without fearing of being untrustworthy of false information.

"According to the source, NVIDIA will launch the GeForce GTX 660 Ti on August 16"

now, are we forgetting the little brother?


----------



## Crap Daddy (Jul 26, 2012)

Nihilus said:


> So the GTX 660ti vs the 670 will basically be a GTX 560 SE vs. a GTX 560, right? Couldn't find any benchmarks for the 560 se to compare.



No. I have an SE in my second machine (by the way best bang for buck for mid level card where I live) and it's got 288 SP vs. 336 in the GTX560 while ALSO having 192 bit bus vs. 256 bit.


----------



## Xzibit (Jul 26, 2012)

The big winner is GameCon

660 Ti & 7990 expected to be debut there.


----------



## Casecutter (Jul 26, 2012)

cmaxvt said:


> Hmm.. As the proud owner of a $400 670, this insults me =P It makes me wonder if I should sell my 670,


And why do you think Nividia’s been holding-off (longer) on each release of a GK104?  They took whatever limited 680’s they could scavenge and sent them out, those who anted-up felt great.  Six weeks pass and 670 releases, and guy’s go wow it’s like a 680 but $100 less "take my money"!  Here where it gets controversial Nvidia almost needed to hold out another 13 weeks for their next release.  At that point guys who could swing $400 have taken to temptation, while enough time has passed not to feel to jaded.  So now a $300 card that’s 5-8% below that,  If you buy a 670 now your faux pas, while time has passed so most 670 buyer aren't considering they’ve been played.  If you dropped something like $540 back in March some 20 week later, other might be getting 10-12% less performance for 80% less!  That’s seems a little wack, but it’s like saying you paid $12 a week for the enjoyment!

Can’t say it’s any better for AMD early adopters, but hey we’ve all seen that scenario play before. However this one kind’ of new different in way, it pays extreme dividends to those who hold-out.  I know AMD got caught thinking it would battle the same old way with Nvidia, a GK100 vs. Tahiti on down. Though this time Nvidia gets blessed being able to have one wafer span and extremely diverse price range. They harvest the best for  680’s, nip and tuck the GK104 and get a 670, and now neuter the bandwidth (lower cost) and probably drop the boost feature and they have covered all the bases.



NHKS said:


> GK104 (1536/8): Tesla K10(x2), GTX 690(x2), GTX 680
> GK104 (1344/7): Quadro K5000M, GTX 670, GTX 660Ti, GTX 680M
> _GK104 (1152/6): GTX 660 (my presumption)_
> GK104 ( 960/5):  Quadro K4000M
> ...



Good point GK104 wafers are needed like pizza's from a Costco oven. No wonder the slow channel fill.


----------



## Nihilus (Jul 26, 2012)

Crap Daddy said:


> No. I have an SE in my second machine (by the way best bang for buck for mid level card where I live) and it's got 288 SP vs. 336 in the GTX560 while ALSO having 192 bit bus vs. 256 bit.



Ok, Guess the shader loss made the difference and not so much the bandwidth loss.  On the other hand, these card are a bit more powerful, so that 192 bit bus may be more of a bottleneck, but we will see.  Worst case scenario, it will have a 25% performance loss.  Either way, it should make for some great competition to the HD 7870!


----------



## Crap Daddy (Jul 26, 2012)

Nihilus said:


> Ok, Guess the shader loss made the difference and not so much the bandwidth loss.  On the other hand, these card are a bit more powerful, so that 192 bit bus may be more of a bottleneck, but we will see.  Worst case scenario, it will have a 25% performance loss.  Either way, it should make for some great competition to the HD 7870!



If these specs are true then expect better performance than the 7950.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jul 26, 2012)

Crap Daddy said:


> What would you say if the're gonna be a 1152 SP part at 250$ based on the same motto "one chip fits all"? The GTX660?



they will, their will also be a special  with 256 bit mem bus called the 660 GTUltra 

looks good , they have the upper end well sorted , how about sorting the majority out now or is anyone who games going to have to spend new console money for just the graphics card nowadays, i might and you might but most dont my mates dont at all want to pay more then 200 max for gfx and they think thats high end< back in the real world here Beni

so far to me a prior alleged power user  who considerred  himself an enthusiast, all nvidias cards have been bordering on ridiculous re:: price


----------



## refillable (Jul 26, 2012)

$350...?


----------



## Casecutter (Jul 26, 2012)

refillable said:


> $350...?


If they want than to move it needs to be less.  That what been Nvivia's equation for the GK104 and it work they better keep that momentum.


----------



## Benetanegia (Jul 26, 2012)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> they will, their will also be a special  with 256 bit mem bus called the 660 GTUltra
> 
> looks good , they have the upper end well sorted , how about sorting the majority out now or is anyone who games going to have to spend new console money for just the graphics card nowadays, i might and you might but most dont my mates dont at all want to pay more then 200 max for gfx and they think thats high end< *back in the real world here Beni*
> 
> so far to me a prior alleged power user  who considerred  himself an enthusiast, all nvidias cards have been bordering on ridiculous re:: price



I only buy <$200 cards now too, and know what? That doesn't change even the slightest what is the best thing to do for Nvidia, as a company, in the current situation and it's the situation that drives their decisions and release dates. It's not really all that hard to understand really. The number of 28nm cards that can be sold is limited, very limited. GK106 was rumored to be around 200 mm^2, so they'd be able to sell 3 cards based on it for every 2 GK104 cards that they sell now. Exactly the same applies to HD7850 because it's the same size 218mm^2, so assuming same wafer allocation, an allocation that is completely limited by TSMC output, you'll have only 50% more HD7850's than GTX680's no matter what. Since it costs half as much, you need to sell 100% more, to get the same revenue but you can't, because you can only manufacture 50% more. This would apply to GK106 cards too. And the fact is that there's much more GTX680's sold than HD7850, and much much more 670's in this past month.

So Nvidia is just doing what it's best for them. Believing that Nvidia didn't release a mid-range because of any problem is naive, believeing that not releasing the mid-range is hurting them the slightest is naive. They don't releas it, because they don't need to and because for the time being 7850, HD7700, etc. don't pose a problem to them at all. They'll start worrying when HD7850's starts selling 50% more than they sell GTX680, or when HD77xx starts selling 300% more, until then, they are in the best position they can.

Personally, what I'd like to is to get some awesome $200 card (i.e a $200 GTX680 why not, asking is free), but I live in the real world and in the real world companies sell or try to sell their products at whichever price they want, and we as consumers the best we can do is pay with our wallets and inform other people so they vote with their wallets too. But the point at hand was not about us, it was about why Nvidia didn't release mid-range cards earlier, and it's because that's what it's best for them.

EDIT: The mayority buys what it's best for them in their price range, and don't care about it being a series 6 or 7 or 29. Both AMD and Nvidia have some pretty good cards in the $200 range and none of them really belongs to this gen. GTX560 and 570 and HD68xx and HD69xx cards are much better deals than the new gen almost everywhere, even to this day and Nvidia still has plenty of them, which is reason number 2 (or 1 depending on how you look at it) for not releasing the mid-range earlier.


----------



## Xzibit (Jul 26, 2012)

Benetanegia said:


> And the fact is that there's much more GTX680's sold than HD7850, and much much more 670's in this past month.



Can you provide a link to your facts please ?


----------



## Rauelius (Jul 26, 2012)

I think AMD's initial pricing for the 7xxx series really hurt them in my eyes. I don't know about all of you, but I was ready for a videocard upgrade when the 7970 came out. $500 was WAY too much, for the little performance increase I would have gotten over my current GTX460-SLI and Radeon 5850-CFX set ups (I've switched between the two depending what game ran best on what GPU). The 7950 was too much of a performance drop for the slight drop in price (the 7950 released at $450). The 7870 made the 7950 pointless, and right now when I was looking to do a GPU upgrade, they cancelled each other out, and I decided to wait longer. If AMD wasn't so greedy with the initial prices, I, and probably a few others out there, would have jumped on them a while ago. Glad I waited for the GTX670 as it's freaking amazing! Can't wait for the GTX660 and replace the GTS450-SLI set up I have in my media PC. Been considering a 7850, but until those get a price-correction to $175, I'll wait for the GTX660 Ti.


----------



## Benetanegia (Jul 26, 2012)

Xzibit said:


> Can you provide a link to your facts please ?



http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/

Directx 11 GPUs

GTX680 0.73% 

GTX670 0.58%

HD7850 0.44%

Notice that the 670 has been in the market for a much shorter period of time, meaning its share gain has been much bigger than the other 2 cards.


----------



## Xzibit (Jul 26, 2012)

Rauelius said:


> I think AMD's initial pricing for the 7xxx series really hurt them in my eyes. I don't know about all of you, but I was ready for a videocard upgrade when the 7970 came out. $500 was WAY too much, for the little performance increase I would have gotten over my current GTX460-SLI and Radeon 5850-CFX set ups (I've switched between the two depending what game ran best on what GPU). The 7950 was too much of a performance drop for the slight drop in price (the 7950 released at $450). The 7870 made the 7950 pointless, and right now when I was looking to do a GPU upgrade, they cancelled each other out, and I decided to wait longer. If AMD wasn't so greedy with the initial prices, I, and probably a few others out there, would have jumped on them a while ago. Glad I waited for the GTX670 as it's freaking amazing! Can't wait for the GTX660 and replace the GTS450-SLI set up I have in my media PC. Been considering a 7850, but until those get a price-correction to $175, I'll wait for the GTX660 Ti.



I've been waiting for the 660 TI but chances are its gonna be $100 over-priced. 460 and 560 eqivalent were released at $250. 

Best guess is
650 @ 250
660 @ 300
660 Ti @ 350

Initial price for AMD was priced on performance vs Nvidias current offering.  The current prices would have been much more sutable but why would they under-sell there product when nothing in the market was out to compete against it.  There was a 3 month delay in competition.


----------



## Nihilus (Jul 26, 2012)

Benetanegia said:


> I only buy <$200 cards now too, and know what? That doesn't change even the slightest what is the best thing to do for Nvidia, as a company, in the current situation and it's the situation that drives their decisions and release dates. And the fact is that there's much more GTX680's sold than HD7850, and much much more 670's in this past month.
> 
> Personally, what I'd like to is to get some awesome $200 card (i.e a $200 GTX680 why not, asking is free),
> EDIT: The mayority buys what it's best for them in their price range, and don't care about it being a series 6 or 7 or 29. Both AMD and Nvidia have some pretty good cards in the $200 range and none of them really belongs to this gen. GTX560 and 570 and HD68xx and HD69xx cards are much better deals than the new gen almost everywhere, even to this day and Nvidia still has plenty of them, which is reason number 2 (or 1 depending on how you look at it) for not releasing the mid-range earlier.



Here you go, with $5 to spare.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Club_3D/HD_7850_RoyalQueen/



Benetanegia said:


> http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/
> 
> Directx 11 GPUs
> 
> ...



I would argue that is evidence, but not proof.  Not everyone has a boner for Steam.



Xzibit said:


> I've been waiting for the 660 TI but chances are its gonna be $100 over-priced. 460 and 560 eqivalent were released at $250.
> 
> Best guess is
> 650 @ 250
> ...



From what the specs say, anything less for the 660 ti would be unlikely.


----------



## Xzibit (Jul 27, 2012)

Benetanegia said:


> http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/
> 
> Directx 11 GPUs
> 
> ...




I was hoping you had inside knowledge from Nvidia or AMD since its hard to get the #.

Just so you know the Steam Survey you like to quote as fact is an "Opt-In".  Not everyone on Steam is being pooled only those who choose to participate.

Steam Hardware & Software Survey
_



			Steam conducts a monthly survey to collect data about what kinds of computer hardware and software our customers are using. *Participation in the survey is optional*, and anonymous. The information gathered is incredibly helpful to us as we make decisions about what kinds of technology investments to make and products to offer.
		
Click to expand...

_
So its a fact that more GTX 680 and GTX 670 user participate/opt-in on the steam survey then Radeon HD 7000 series users.

Its a nice survey to point out but to come to the conclusion of sales from that survey alone is an enormous stretch.

I would like to know the units sold from each camp it would be interesting to see.


----------



## Benetanegia (Jul 27, 2012)

Nihilus said:


> Here you go, with $5 to spare.
> http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Club_3D/HD_7850_RoyalQueen/



I said GTX680. HD7850 is not an upgrade over my card by my standards.



> I would argue that is evidence, but not proof.  Not everyone has a boner for Steam.



Semantics. And I'd like for someone to ever provide actual proof or evidence to show why they think Steam survey is not an accurate source, instead of the typical: Ha! You have to opt in and last time I didn't opt in, so it's flawed." and other similarly stupid claims.

EDIT: ^^ LOL. Posted as I was writing... see? 

@Xzbit: Which chip exactly or which part of the chip in GK104 and Pitcairn, has the purpose of immediately take control of your head and respectively make you op-in or not, in that order?


----------



## Xzibit (Jul 27, 2012)

Benetanegia said:


> I said GTX680. HD7850 is not an upgrade over my card by my standards.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



My guess would be the one that makes me belive a Opt-In survey has a direct corolation to units sold.


Steam survey is an accurate source for what its representing.

The issue is when someone (In this case u) uses it to make a direct comparison to sales figure/units sold.  Thats just plain laughable.


----------



## Benetanegia (Jul 27, 2012)

Xzibit said:


> My guess would be the one that makes me belive a Opt-In survey has a direct corolation to units sold.
> 
> 
> Steam survey is an accurate source for what its representing.
> ...



Again provide evidence that Steam survey is biased toward any particular card or brand or stop the nonsense.

You can say it's not 100% accurate, as in reality would be: 0.70% for the 680 and 0.50% for HD7850. I'd still say the 680 has sold much more and I would still be right. Steam has over 40 million users, the opt in is offered to 1/12th of the users (randomly chosen), so that by the end of the year the sample size is equal to the number of users. Unless you can provide proof that thousands upon thousands of people are biased towards a certain election (opt-in or not) based on their elected hardware, please, stfu and simply accept that Steam survey is about the most perfect survey ever made, based on sample size alone.


----------



## Nihilus (Jul 27, 2012)

Xzibit said:


> I was hoping you had inside knowledge from Nvidia or AMD since its hard to get the #.
> 
> Just so you know the Steam Survey you like to quote as fact is an "Opt-In".  Not everyone on Steam is being pooled only those who choose to participate.



He has used this 'evidence'  before, glad to know I am not alone on this logic.



Benetanegia said:


> Semantics. And I'd like for someone to ever provide actual proof or evidence to show why they think Steam survey is not an accurate source, instead of the typical: Ha! You have to opt in and last time I didn't opt in, so it's flawed." and other similarly stupid claims.
> 
> EDIT: ^^ LOL. Posted as I was writing... see?
> 
> @Xzbit: Which chip exactly or which part of the chip in GK104 and Pitcairn, has the purpose of immediately take control of your head and respectively make you op-in or not, in that order?



Alright big guy let's think about this now... The GTX 670 and GTX 680 are high end cards.  They will have more users than the 7800 series that can afford Steam and games that use Steam.  If you you get a GTX 670 or 680, it's more than likely you are a hard-core gamer.  If you show any kind of correlation between sales of the cards and Steam usage, I will gladly shut my mouth.


----------



## Benetanegia (Jul 27, 2012)

Nihilus said:


> Alright big guy let's think about this now... The GTX 670 and GTX 680 are high end cards.  They will have more users than the 7800 series that can afford Steam and games that use Steam.  If you you get a GTX 670 or 680, it's more than likely you are a hard-core gamer.  If you show any kind of correlation between sales of the cards and Steam usage, I will gladly shut my mouth.



And that's why the first cards on the list are 560, 460 and 5770. All of them high-end cards which are more likely to be on Steam. Right.

And 550, 450, 540M, highest-end of the super enthusiast market.


----------



## Nihilus (Jul 27, 2012)

Yes, agreed they are not high end cards.  But those are also some of the highest selling cards ever.  Even at a lower percentage of users than say a GTX 580, they would still have alot more users on Steam by far.


----------



## Benetanegia (Jul 27, 2012)

Nihilus said:


> Yes, agreed they are not high end cards.  But those are also some of the highest selling cards ever.  Even at a lower percentage of users than say a GTX 580, they would still have alot more users on Steam by far.



Or they simply sell at a similar rate as shown there...

If what you say was true we would see much more 7850.

The most played games are not precisely very demanding games. It's games like Counter Strike (1.6 and Source), TF2, MW 1,2,3, Dota 2, etc. I'd think there's far more evidence pointintg to Steam users in general NOT being enthuiasts. There's definitely NOT 40 million enthusiasts out there.

Or you can post evidence of why Steam is more crowded with enthusiast gamers than others. Why is there a higher percentage of high-end card owners in Steam? There's arguably more "gaming" card owners but both $250 and $500 cards are gaming cards. No one pays $250 for solitaire and web browsing.

We can post "What ifs" all they long, provide a proof of Steam Survey being biased or simply accept is the most accurate source we have access to.

EDIT: And btw you can be piss poor and have an Steam account. Forget about Steam sales which often sell you games for $2 and such. There's like 3 dozen free games right now and 2 of them are on the most played list almost everyday.


----------



## Xzibit (Jul 27, 2012)

Benetanegia said:


> Again provide evidence that Steam survey is biased toward any particular card or brand or stop the nonsense.
> 
> You can say it's not 100% accurate, as in reality would be: 0.70% for the 680 and 0.50% for HD7850. I'd still say the 680 has sold much more and I would still be right. Steam has over 40 million users, the opt in is offered to 1/12th of the users (randomly chosen), so that by the end of the year the sample size is equal to the number of users. Unless you can provide proof that thousands upon thousands of people are biased towards a certain election (opt-in or not) based on their elected hardware, please, stfu and simply accept that Steam survey is about the most perfect survey ever made, based on sample size alone.



Wow, you are mentaly screwed up.

Even if you take what your dillusional mind has to offer it still doesnt have any solid facts to units sold as you were try'n to imply.

On the one hand your saying its an accurate survey for Steam users yet state its 1/12th offered to random users. Of those how many *Opt-In* you just recount there votes until years end until it equals Steams user base #.  Obvious people who dont bother to *Opt-In* will never be counted and *Opt-In*s will be counted multiple times that way.

If you can't understand how in-accurate that is.  I cant help you..


You should be a political polester. Dead people vote too. Heck you can count there vote twice or as many times as you need for them to side with your view.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Jul 27, 2012)

Benetanegia said:


> Or they simply sell at a similar rate as shown there...
> If what you say was true we would see much more 7850..


Makes pretty good sense.
Everyone seems to point at a train of false logic; Midrange cards are more accessible than high end (cost) -> Pitcairn is midrange -> Pitcairn #'s must be better than GTX6__/or whatever.

HD 7870/7850 initial sales weren't actually that great as I remember. The HD 7850 offers similar performance to the HD 6950 but MIR's and non-reference OC'ed factory cards made the older series the better buy. A common refain from reviews (and forums) were that the prices were to high and that the buying market was largely nullified by the price hike from the previous series in the product stack (HD 6850/6870), and by competition from inventory clearouts of HD 6950/6970.


Xzibit said:


> On the one hand your saying....


I thought it was fairly obvious. Steams user base has the ability to partake of the survey. UNLESS the owners of a particular card are more inclined to opt-in than any other it would stand to reason that survey sample is representative across all sectors....unless of course there is some undergound organization that gets in touch with (say) HD 7850 owners and instructs them to not partake as some sort of convoluted conspiracy to skew the only month-to-month numbers available.

I'd already posted previously a summary of discrete graphics cards sold by market segment (published by Mercury Research) it would also tend to supoort -roughly- the Steam segmentation in the past:





(Info available on the Investor Village boards amongst others- see their boards for the latest summaries)


----------



## ViperXTR (Jul 27, 2012)

closely eyeing on the 660 series to replace my ol GTX 460 SE D:


----------



## Nihilus (Jul 27, 2012)

HumanSmoke said:


> I'd already posted previously a summary of discrete graphics cards sold by market segment (published by Mercury Research) it would also tend to supoort -roughly- the Steam segmentation in the past:
> http://i.imgur.com/rqrm6.jpg
> (Info available on the Investor Village boards amongst others- see their boards for the latest summaries)



Finally, this is all I asked for!  This is a bit dated, but I will concede with this new EVIDENCE.  Number of Amazon GPU reviews is probably more accurate a measure than Steam.  At least the percent of people who write reviews/card is more consistent between various price ranges.


----------



## Xzibit (Jul 27, 2012)

HumanSmoke said:


> I thought it was fairly obvious. Steams user base has the ability to partake of the survey. UNLESS the owners of a particular card are more inclined to opt-in than any other it would stand to reason that survey sample is representative across all sectors....unless of course there is some undergound organization that gets in touch with (say) HD 7850 owners and instructs them to not partake as some sort of convoluted conspiracy to skew the only month-to-month numbers available.
> 
> I'd already posted previously a summary of discrete graphics cards sold by market segment (published by Mercury Research) it would also tend to supoort -roughly- the Steam segmentation in the past:
> http://i.imgur.com/rqrm6.jpg
> (Info available on the Investor Village boards amongst others- see their boards for the latest summaries)



Share % wasnt the arguement he was making.  He was saying Steam Survey % reflect units sold as fact. Which i'm still pondering and laughing at because Steam doesnt take into account all GPU configurations and it points it out.  It's like he has it in his head that every single person who opt-in one month wont opt-out the next or a new person will want to opt-in or not with the same configuration that someone else opted to balance it out month to month.  Too many variable to consider it as a be all end all Fact.

If we were to translate to share % the numbers are still way off. They just dont match up.

Like i said i'm not disputing what the Steam Survey is representing but the fact that Benetanegia is using it as a fact basis for his theory to mean something totaly different.  




Nihilus said:


> Finally, this is all I asked for!  This is a bit dated, but I will concede with this new EVIDENCE.  Number of Amazon GPU reviews is probably more accurate a measure than Steam.  At least the percent of people who write reviews/card is more consistent between various price ranges.



This is more up-to-date

JPR has more broken down numbers but you have to buy in to receive the charts


----------



## Hilux SSRG (Jul 27, 2012)

Xzibit said:


> Best guess is
> 650 @ 250
> 660 @ 300
> 660 Ti @ 350



That's my thinking as well for the prices when the cards are initially released.  If these leaked specs are true for the 660 Ti, then what would the 660 non-Ti look like?

Instead I think these are specs are for the 660 non-Ti 

and the 660Ti is actually:

6 SMX
1152 shaders
256 bit
2 gb memory


----------



## alwayssts (Jul 27, 2012)

Late to the party commenting on this one, but it really should be 75% of 680 performance.  Kind of a clever way they did it.

1536sp @ 1112mhz needs 6008ghz/256-bit.

75% (192-bit) of 1536sp with 1344 is the median of 670 clocks (~953mhz).

24 ROPs becomes a limiting factor around 1400sp when at the same clock...so a good mix there.  If you figure 8 ROPs is equivalent to 1SM for yields, this obviously makes sense as the shaders do not need the ROPs, nor the memory bandwidth when at a low clock (which again helps yields).

With how GK104's memory controller scales, into the give-or-take 7ghz range, with a clock range on the 670 around the give-or-take 1100mhz range, that fits pretty well.

With >150w it will beat the 7870...and more importantly perhaps...a <150w 8850 if 1536sp (as one would assume that would be limited to 1050-1100mhz).  With <150w it would still beat 7870, but potentially similar to an 8850.  It will interesting to see how it clocks, and where it will typically run (mhz-wise).

I still don't think 7950 is part of the equation when you look at things with a fair eye, as overclocked that is always going to just flat-out be a stronger product and the stock clock is ridiculous to use as a comparison.  That said, either way the mid-range (good-enough 1080p) market is about to get a much-needed kick in the balls.  Odds are 660ti will be priced/perfed between 7870/7950, and amd will adjust prices to reflect that.

I really like the idea of 229/279/329.  That almost sounds...I dunno...REASONABLE (finally)!


----------



## Benetanegia (Jul 27, 2012)

Xzibit said:


> Share % wasnt the arguement he was making.  He was saying Steam Survey % reflect units sold as fact. Which i'm still pondering and laughing at because Steam doesnt take into account all GPU configurations and it points it out.  It's like he has it in his head that every single person who opt-in one month wont opt-out the next or a new person will want to opt-in or not with the same configuration that someone else opted to balance it out month to month.  Too many variable to consider it as a be all end all Fact.
> 
> If we were to translate to share % the numbers are still way off. They just dont match up.
> 
> ...



You have no idea how statistics work. So I laugh at you. And nowhere did I say that the numbers for each month are added up. Whether they are added or not is irrelevant anyway, because each month the opt-in candidates are taken from the same random pool of 40++ million users.* Any card from any segment is as likely to appear twice* and even if only 1% opt-in which is deliriously low, your sample size is more than 33k++ people. A more reasonable cypher of 1 out of ten people opt-in and your sample size is 300k++ people. If you knew anything about statistics or simple math, you should have realized by now that it's impossible to introduce any bias towards any segment. This is something humansmoke already told you and you decided to ignore. You are also willingly ignoring the fact that if Steam Survey were to be innacurate it could also be skewing the results in HD7850's favour and not only the other way around and that in reality the GTX680 might have actually sold more comparatively than Steam says, so your point is wrong no matter what. 

And I laugh at you for believing that JPR, Mercury research and the likes are so much more accurate, when their numbers are produced by taking into account shipping (and not actual retail sales, for all we know retailers could be having to thrw away certain cards several months later...) to certain retailers and distributors and then extrapolated. The sample size is way smaller than Steam and it's only more accurate to compare low-end cards and integrated, which Steam cannot really take into account.


----------



## Desert Eagle (Jul 27, 2012)

A lot of good info in this thread. Thanks to all the contributors. I have suspected from the get-go that the current GTX 680 was originally intended to be the GTX 670 and the GK110 would be the GPU for the GTX 680 but when Nvidia saw the performance of Tahiti they shuffled things a bit so, as has been said here, they could make a bigger profit and the spectre of inadequate yields for the GK110 (due to the much higher transistor count) could be averted until the 28 nm process was better refined.


----------



## Casecutter (Jul 27, 2012)

Not to get into the whole Steam argument, just try to wrap my mind around those numbers. So if such percentages are representative of the 40 million Steam that would mean:
.70% of 40 million = 28,000 while .58% = 23,200 or a total of 51,200 unit (670/680) just to those on Steam. So let's say April, May, June Nvidia has sold 17,066 to just the steam community each of those months?

Nvidia own chart provide about end of April showed shows they delivered about 4,200 units of the GTX580 first couple of weeks of that release.  They show they had delivered 60% more 680's units to their AIB’s than they had 580's. Basically their chart shows that by early May they were close to delivering a total of 7000 units globally to AIB's.  That not onto actual users hand it take 4-6 week to take a chip get on the card box and get them into the channel.

Those numbers are way too far apart?


----------



## Benetanegia (Jul 27, 2012)

Casecutter said:


> Not to get into the whole Steam argument, just try to wrap my mind around those numbers. So if such percentages are representative of the 40 million Steam that would mean:
> .70% of 40 million = 28,000 while .58% = 23,200 or a total of 51,200 unit (670/680) just to those on Steam. So let's say April, May, June Nvidia has sold 17,066 to just the steam community each of those months?
> 
> Nvidia own chart provide about end of April showed shows they delivered about 4,200 units of the GTX580 first couple of weeks of that release.  They show they had delivered 60% more 680's units to their AIB’s than they had 580's. Basically their chart shows that by early May they were close to delivering a total of 7000 units globally to AIB's.  That not onto actual users hand it take 4-6 week to take a chip get on the card box and get them into the channel.
> ...



I have not seen that chart unless... The only chart that compared GTX580 and 680 sales didn't have any numbers on it. Looking at that one, I think it's the same and I suspect you are counting each line as 1000 units, because it fits with what you're saying. Each line could represent dozens or hundreds of thousands of units shipped, we do not know. I'm pretty sure that they sell quite a few more cards than a few thousands globally. Global graphics sales each quarter are counted in dozens of millions. Look at the chart posted by humansmoke 578k $300+ cards were sold by Nvidia in Q2 2011.

And 2 things on Steam survey:

1- Those percentages are for DX11 cards, which themselves represent a 46% of total cards. Cut your numbers in half.

2- Sales rates have grown each weak/month (as shown by the comparison chart too). The first month (April) they sold far less than the last month (June).

EDIT: And HumonSmoke's chart alone pretty much demostrates why they are not releasing $200-$300 cards, and released only high-end and low end instead.


----------



## Casecutter (Jul 27, 2012)

Yes that graph,
http://www.techpowerup.com/166943/GeForce-GTX-680-A-Sellout-Success-NVIDIA.html

Figured you say that, it was fairly well documented the Nvidia released the GTX 680 on March 22 with somewhere between 1,000 and 1,200 reference units with stickers, right where the line starts. So you think that might be 10K units and saying they provided 70K to AIB's in 6 weeks...


----------



## Benetanegia (Jul 27, 2012)

Casecutter said:


> Yes that graph,
> http://www.techpowerup.com/166943/GeForce-GTX-680-A-Sellout-Success-NVIDIA.html
> 
> Figured you say that, it was fairly well documented the Nvidia released the GTX 680 on March 22 with somewhere between 1,000 and 1,200 reference units with stickers, right where the line starts. So you think that might be 10K units and saying they provided 70K to AIB's in 6 weeks...



I'd like to see that documentation, 1000 cards worldwide is ridiculous. On App alone which is only one of the various etailers in Spain, I counted 5 brands and each had 10-20 cards. That makes 50-100 cards in just one etailer in Spain. It's not the biggest. Alternate Spain had many more different brands and models. And there's at least 3 other retailers/etailer which are just as big as the mentioned which had several models. In total I can easily come up with 500 cards, and this is only on launch day and not counting small stores in my city (5th by populaion), let alone other cities, which did get some cards after a few weeks. Unless you are pretending to tell me that Spain got half of the total cards, you better explain how it's posible. Show that documentation you speak about, I suspect it does not exist or comes from Semiaccurate, like all the oter times before. 

And then there's the chart posted by Humansmoke of course. They ship hundreds of thousands of $300+ cards each quarter, 578k in the chart. 28nm supply being limited and the 580 vs 680 only showing evolution for half a quarter it's understandable that only a small number like 70k cards were shipped in that timeframe and will probably ammount to 200k by the end of the quarter, or not. Of course that number will grow to the normal 500-600k number in subsequent quarters.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Jul 27, 2012)

Casecutter said:


> Yes that graph,
> http://www.techpowerup.com/166943/GeForce-GTX-680-A-Sellout-Success-NVIDIA.html
> 
> Figured you say that, it was fairly well documented the Nvidia released the GTX 680 on March 22 with somewhere between 1,000 and 1,200 reference units with stickers, right where the line starts. So you think that might be 10K units and saying they provided 70K to AIB's in 6 weeks...



Not sure what to make of that marketing slide. I see Steam has revoked it's numbers prior to the last couple of months ( the survey reporting bug) - but, for the 6 weeks depicted in the graph would only take you up to the first week of May...and as I seem to recall, there was a general hue and cry regarding zero card availability during that time frame.
Now, according to forum posts ( couldn't find any Steam HW survey results cached) GTX 680 (DX11) share was 0.04% (March), 0.22%*(April), 0.50% (May), 0.66% (June)- which would indicate to me that sales/usage jumped substantially AFTER the timeframe in the graph - assuming that the graph is plotting retail sales and not revenue shipments to AIB's, since widespread availability of (r)etail GTX 680's continuously in stock for all AIB's seemed apparent in early June.

Either way, like RMA numbers, I think we'll be left with an incomplete picture of sales and it's always going to be an estimation. I wouldnt put it past any hardware vendor to add more than a little misinformation to muddy the details.

*See Benetanegia's post here and a post I made at TS (post #24) a few months back for reference


----------



## Casecutter (Jul 27, 2012)

Benetanegia said:


> I'd like to see that documentation, 1000 cards worldwide is ridiculous


No more than the 17K a month in just recorded by the Steam community.

It's good to see someone has such a robust estimation of the worldwide economic picture.  Or to think that in some of the worst economic times (Nov 2010 when the GTX 580 released) that 6 weeks later some 30,000 buyers had discretionary income worldwide to purchase an enthusiast level gaming card for $500.

You and I don’t have any inkling of such numbers.  You seem visibly exuberate, while I might be noticeably pessimistic.  I’m sure the number is somewhere in between.  In good times enthusiast gaming cards are considered adequate if >10K at launch, and in those time I’ve never seen anything like "zilch" inventory occurring.  Even the very well received 5870 at $380 never had anything like the shortages of the GTX680.  I’m not saying sales where energetic and demand strong,  but I’m of the belief Nvidia didn’t have near a customary amount for launch.  You have your opinion.


----------



## Casecutter (Jul 27, 2012)

HumanSmoke said:


> 0.22%*(April),


So of 40 million users, some 88,000 had a GTX680? The slide was said to indicate deliveries to AIB's and we don't know if it included mobile parts


----------



## HumanSmoke (Jul 27, 2012)

If it's deliveries to AIB's/OEM's then it bears no relevance to the retail channel, since most AIB's would hold back a percentage of GPU's based on binning- stockpiling GPU's for voltage/core speed, since factory OC models aren't far behind reference with Nvidia based cards. OEM's would also build inventory before releasing a new model range.

As for the 0.22% - as far as I'm concerned, I'm comparing Steam percentage-to-Steam percentage. Pointless working on an arbitrary 40m Steam users since a lot of people have numerous accounts -esp those who buy A-list titles at top dollar. I have over a dozen current Steam accounts simply so that when I'm finished with the game, I can sell the account while the game is still relatively current and recoup some of my investment- I seldom revisit and replay games once I've clocked them in every way possible.
So as far as I'm concerned- as my posting would indicate- I'm comparing the percentage of one card against percentages of (an)other card(s) using the same Steam figures, collected using the same metric. So if GTX 680 percentages aren't correct by the same reasoning neither are any of the others (The margin of error/ collating method should be identical across GPU's)...in which case you then fall back on market research numbers (as I do) or guesswork from random internet posters.


----------



## Benetanegia (Jul 27, 2012)

Casecutter said:


> No more than the 17K a month in just recorded by the Steam community.
> 
> It's good to see someone has such a robust estimation of the worldwide economic picture.  Or to think that in some of the worst economic times (Nov 2010 when the GTX 580 released) that 6 weeks later some 30,000 buyers had discretionary income worldwide to purchase an enthusiast level gaming card for $500.
> 
> You and I don’t have any inkling of such numbers.  You seem visibly exuberate, while I might be noticeably pessimistic.  I’m sure the number is somewhere in between.  In good times enthusiast gaming cards are considered adequate if >10K at launch, and in those time I’ve never seen anything like "zilch" inventory occurring.  Even the very well received 5870 at $380 never had anything like the shortages of the GTX680.  I’m not saying sales where energetic and demand strong,  but I’m of the belief Nvidia didn’t have near a customary amount for launch.  You have your opinion.



http://www.amd.com/us/press-releases/Pages/dirx-11-graphic-procs-2010jan7.aspx



> Fifteen weeks ago we introduced the ATI Radeon™ HD 5800 series graphics cards to the world, the first to support DirectX® 11 and powerful capabilities like ATI Eyefinity multi-display technology, with support for Direct Compute 11.  Over the course of the last few months, we've shipped *tens of thousands* of DirectX® 11-capable graphics processors *a week* to technology partners who in turn put them into consumers' hands.



AMD talking about tens (plural) of thousands of cards a week. 70k in 6 weeks for GTX680 is a little more than 1 ten thousand, and not tens of thousands. Are you going to be stubborn and/or naive enough to believe that Nvidia can't match or outdo AMD at selling high-end cards? Come on.

And there was shortage of HD5800 cards back then, maybe not as pronounced as with GTX680, but despite selling tens of thousands of them, they were short of them. Same with GTX600 series, they are shipping lots of them but demand is higher than TSMC can produce. GTX680 has been received as well if not better than the HD5870.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/graphi...of_DirectX_11_Graphics_Chips_Shipped_ATI.html

1 Quarter 800k cards shipped, ranging from HD5750 to 5970, meaning that low-end was not taken into account. So by the chart that HumanSmoke posted earlier we ca exclude 60%+ and make a new splitting of cards counting only cards of $100 and above. I case of AMD that is 34.3 + 6.4 + 3.3 = 44, of which 3.3% or 800k/44 x 3.3 == 60k would be HD5800 cards, BUT and it's a really big but, those calculations are simply an experiment and utterly stupid, because HD5700 had not been enough in sale (released in Oct/Nov) so as to reach those percentages (Nvidia side shows much better $300+ percentages too it all adds up). HD5800 definitely sold a much larger share of those 800k cards, 60k is just an estimation for the absolute minimum, if we take Nvidia's split we would end up with over 144k.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Jul 27, 2012)

Back to the thread fresh leak:







 “GK104 325-A2″ 120W, 980MHz/1023MHz Boost
Is it real?


----------



## HumanSmoke (Jul 28, 2012)

@Benetanega

Sorry, but as a new convert to the Circular Logic Club, I have to take issue with the AMD portion of your post

> Steam Hardware Survey has no merit
> People who use Steams figures as a measure of HW/SW usage are basing their PoV on meritless data
> AMD use Steam HW Survey figures

[/sarcasm]


----------



## Hilux SSRG (Jul 28, 2012)

Crap Daddy said:


> Back to the thread fresh leak:
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/content/type/61/id/977095/width/500/height/1000
> 
> ...




Evga make some nice looking cards, I must say!

If it truly is $300.00 then nvidia has won this generation cycle!


----------



## Xzibit (Jul 28, 2012)

Crap Daddy said:


> Back to the thread fresh leak:
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/content/type/61/id/977095/width/500/height/1000
> 
> ...



It looks like it still has the plastic wrapper on the blower but you cant make out a bus or I/O shield

Maybe its just a reprinted blower cover ?

Look in the background and you see a blower fan taken apart upside down



HumanSmoke said:


> @Benetanega
> 
> Sorry, but as a new convert to the Circular Logic Club, I have to take issue with the AMD portion of your post
> 
> ...



I dont think AMD and Ben are using SHWS in the same way.

AMD is using SHWS as a up-date driver and not taking their # or % from SHWS.  I'm pretty sure AMD/Nvidia or any company for that matter keep track of units sold internally. They dont need a Survey to tell them that.  Using it more of a extention/addition to what Microsoft Windows Update does.  Quick lets go look at MWU figures i'm sure they would be more accurate...

Anyways sorry to chime in, Carry on.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Jul 28, 2012)

Another two pictures. It looks like the production line:


----------



## renz496 (Jul 28, 2012)

Crap Daddy said:


> Back to the thread fresh leak:
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/content/type/61/id/977095/width/500/height/1000
> 
> ...



early rumour suggested 150w for the Ti version but if the nvidia can really tweak the card to consume only that much that's even better. most likely people with 400w psu will be able to run the card. even better people who want to SLI the card doesn't need to break the bank to get kilowatt to run those cards 

btw since the card was almost equal to GTX670 i wonder if we can go tri-way SLI with this card


----------



## Nihilus (Jul 28, 2012)

Lots of excitement for this card.  For good reason!  It's about time NVidia gets into the mid-range.  Doubt it will be less than $350 since it is specd' so close to the 670.  Also, the 560ti launched at $350 if I remember correct.  On the other hand, it was pretty suprising how they undercut there 680 with the 670 by $100.  Should the 660 ti launch at $300, ATI would be wise to release a 1.5 GB 7950 to compete.


----------



## Xzibit (Jul 28, 2012)

Nihilus said:


> Lots of excitement for this card.  For good reason!  It's about time NVidia gets into the mid-range.  Doubt it will be less than $350 since it is specd' so close to the 670.  Also, the 560ti launched at $350 if I remember correct.  On the other hand, it was pretty suprising how they undercut there 680 with the 670 by $100.  Should the 660 ti launch at $300, ATI would be wise to release a 1.5 GB 7950 to compete.



Nvidia Launched date MSRP.

*500 series*
545 - $109
550 Ti - $149
560 - $199
560 Ti - $249
560 Ti 448 - $289
570 - $349
580 - $499
590 - $699

*600 series*
640 - $99
670 - $399
680 - $499
690 - $999  $300 differance from last gen. I bet the glowing emblem also laughs 

Nvidia still has atleast 2 cards to release x50 & x60.


----------



## Nihilus (Jul 28, 2012)

Xzibit said:


> Nvidia Launched date MSRP.
> 
> I bet the glowing emblem also laughs at you ?
> 
> Nvidia still has atleast 2 cards to release x50 & x60.



I don't know what this is


----------



## Xzibit (Jul 28, 2012)

Nihilus said:


> I don't know what this is



You said you didnt remember the 560 Ti launch price.  So just posted all the prices for comparison.

It seams Nvidia has a $200 window to launch the cards.  We know at the minimal 2 are coming 650 & 660 plus the 660 Ti which makes 3.  The 660 Ti could be as low as $249 or as high as $349.  It all depends on how many varients they want to release of the x50 & x60 to fill in that $200 window.

*400 series* they had 6
450
460 SE
460 (768)
460 (1GB)
460 v2
465  

*500 series* they had 4
550 Ti
560
560 Ti
560 Ti 448

I would prefer it to be $249 because at $349 it doesnt make much sence now that 7970s are selling at $369 right now.


----------



## renz496 (Jul 28, 2012)

i think even at $300 people will still attracted to it. IMO nvidia will only price the card around 250 if they really want to go into price war with amd


----------



## HossHuge (Jul 28, 2012)

I can buy a Galaxy 670 here in Taiwan for about $330 so it better be under $300 .


----------



## tacosRcool (Jul 28, 2012)

cripple! 

this reminds me of the 8800gs when that came out


----------



## ranviper (Jul 28, 2012)

It's about time! I've been holding off upgrading my 550ti for so long, I almost dropped all the cash on a 670.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Jul 28, 2012)

Xzibit said:


> *500 series* they had 4
> 550 Ti
> 560
> 560 Ti
> ...


You missed the rather obvious one...the GTX 560 *SE* (GTX 555 for OEM's). Obvious since like the 670 / 660 Ti it's a 192-bit bus width to the GTX 560's 256- although in this instance the ROP/TMU count also differs.


----------



## SIGSEGV (Jul 28, 2012)

renz496 said:


> i think even at $300 people will still attracted to it. IMO nvidia will only price the card around 250 if they really want to go into price war with amd



they dont have to go into price war with amd, surely nvidia will win with this specific gaming cards, AMD have their own paradigm with their GCN Architectures.


----------

