GTX 660 vs GTX 660 Ti vs GTX 670 vs GTX 760 vs GTX 960 benchmarks

[ratirt]

Guys just got this crazy idea of buying additional same GPu 460 gainward 1 GB and make it an SLI Been trying to research how does the sli go and it's not that bad although couldn't find any comparison to 670 GTX. But the price for second card would be something over 40$ and it would be a boost in FPS. It's just hard to tell how much more boost but still
What do you think about that ??

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

from what im reading it could be a good cheap option for the time being.


My info are based on actual benchmarks numbers done with the newly released Gtx760 and are accurate within 5%. Example, on a Unigine Heaven benchmark with identical settings a Gtx 760 scores 2200 against Gtx 460 SLi with 1715 = 23% Difference.
https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/548500/gtx-760-vs-gtx-460-sli/

 

[EarthDog]

Guys just got this crazy idea of buying additional same GPu 460 gainward 1 GB and make it an SLI Been trying to research how does the sli go and it's not that bad although couldn't find any comparison to 670 GTX. But the price for second card would be something over 40$ and it would be a boost in FPS. It's just hard to tell how much more boost but still
What do you think about that ??

an even worse idea... we're you listening about the ram part? That card has 1gb... in SLI it doesn't 'add up'. Not a good idea. If you have to get 2gb, you will be fine but in some titles IQ sacrifices will need to be made, particularly with AA on modern titles.

Is there any proof to this?

In my experience having tested over 40 different games over the last year, including demanding titles like Crysis 3, Far Cry 4, GTA5, Witcher 3, Arma 3, Metro Last Light Redux, Rainbow Six Siege, Company of Heroes 2, there is no game that struggles with 2 GB video memory on 1920x1080 if MSAA is disabled. Enabling MSAA makes difference in some games, but then again, GTX670 is too weak to have those games running with MSAA anyway..



According to techpowerup video card reviews of 2015 and 2016, HD7970 GHz and R9 280X are now significantly faster than GTX680, which was not the case in 2012 and 2013.

I said with AA. Nobody wants to play at 1080p without AA if they can help it. It looks terrible. Seriously.

There are articles out there which state this. I think tweak town wrote something up in 2015 echoing what I am saying.
http://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedia/90/much-vram-need-1080p-1440p-4k-aa-enabled/index.html

You will notice there only 2 titles are under 2GB use with AA. And at least metro is an old title. Outside of that, you see these modern titles using 2gb+.

 

[ratirt]

Oh yeah. I guess I've missed that though. So no SLI with 2x GTX 460's. guess I will focus on that 670 GTX with 2 gigs

 

[Kanan]

@ratirt

HD 7970/R9 280X is your best bet if you want something for a few months, because it has 3 GB vram and is still a good runner, geting fresh drivers and optimizations still.

Also I'd rather take a curved 34" monitor (Asus / Acer) than those, but depends how much money you want to spend. Those two are good too.

Is there any proof to this?

In my experience having tested over 40 different games over the last year, including demanding titles like Crysis 3, Far Cry 4, GTA5, Witcher 3, Arma 3, Metro Last Light Redux, Rainbow Six Siege, Company of Heroes 2, there is no game that struggles with 2 GB video memory on 1920x1080 if MSAA is disabled. Enabling MSAA makes difference in some games, but then again, GTX670 is too weak to have those games running with MSAA anyway..



According to techpowerup video card reviews of 2015 and 2016, HD7970 GHz and R9 280X are now significantly faster than GTX680, which was not the case in 2012 and 2013.

2 GB vs 3 or 4 GB vram is not or rarely a visible FPS difference in benchmarks, but there are a few games like Mordor's Shadow, Far Cry 4, Assasins Creed, GTA 5 that have crippled frame times so that it feels "choppy" - and that problem is solved with the 4 GB version of the same GPU. But see for yourself: http://www.computerbase.de/2015-12/2gb-4gb-gtx-960-r9-380-vram-test/2/

 

[Vayra86]

@ratirt

HD 7970/R9 280X is your best bet if you want something for a few months, because it has 3 GB vram and is still a good runner, geting fresh drivers and optimizations still.

Also I'd rather take a curved 34" monitor (Asus / Acer) than those, but depends how much money you want to spend. Those two are good too.




2 GB vs 3 or 4 GB vram is not or rarely a visible FPS difference in benchmarks, but there are a few games like Mordor's Shadow, Far Cry 4, Assasins Creed, GTA 5 that have crippled frame times so that it feels "choppy" - and that problem is solved with the 4 GB version of the same GPU. But see for yourself: http://www.computerbase.de/2015-12/2gb-4gb-gtx-960-r9-380-vram-test/2/

Yes, the VRAM story has significantly changed with the release of the PS4 and X1, because they use a lot of texture/asset streaming, and more VRAM will allow more to be streamed ahead of time - when the data resides in VRAM, the GPU can use it - the newer engines are built towards larger VRAM buffer sizes than 2GB, which is why we see games that can use over 6GB these days. The consoles have actually introduced a certain amount of inefficiency for engine ports to the PC environment with *much* faster GPU's. In the old days, the engine was built not around streaming, but around swapping assets efficiently. When the streaming can't happen at some point (because VRAM full), the stutter happens. Quite similar to a Youtube video that needs the buffer, and when it runs out, it stops.

 

[Frick]

I said with AA. Nobody wants to play at 1080p without AA if they can help it. It looks terrible. Seriously.

I do that and it works fine IMO. It depends on where you're coming from I suppose. Just being able to play at 1080p/at higher settings will make a big difference.

 

[ratirt]

@ratirt

HD 7970/R9 280X is your best bet if you want something for a few months, because it has 3 GB vram and is still a good runner, geting fresh drivers and optimizations still.

Also I'd rather take a curved 34" monitor (Asus / Acer) than those, but depends how much money you want to spend. Those two are good too.

What's the difference between the curved screen and regular? is it sharpness or picture quality? And of course is it worth additional money spent to buy curved screen ?[/

 

[Kanan]

What's the difference between the curved screen and regular? is it sharpness or picture quality? And of course is it worth additional money spent to buy curved screen ?[/

Well first of all it's a lot bigger, also the ratio is 21:9 compared to 16:9, it's ultra wide, like cinema. The curve helps the immersion, realism - PR says it's "formed" like the eye, but for me it's just a bonus, I very much like ultra wide + really big screens. Also they have IPS + Gsync/Freesync + 100 Hz.

 

[ratirt]

Well first of all it's a lot bigger, also the ratio is 21:9 compared to 16:9, it's ultra wide, like cinema. The curve helps the immersion, realism - PR says it's "formed" like the eye, but for me it's just a bonus, I very much like ultra wide + really big screens. Also they have IPS + Gsync/Freesync + 100 Hz.

Yeah that's correct but the IPS screens are not as good for fast gaming where the picture changes rapidly. It's just what i read for descriptions for IPS screens online.

 

[EarthDog]

It still works fine. I don't see ghosting...

 

[Vayra86]

Yeah that's correct but the IPS screens are not as good for fast gaming where the picture changes rapidly. It's just what i read for descriptions for IPS screens online.

IPS can be fast, but I have trouble taking IPS for a true 144hz panel/144hz gaming, because the G2G can't keep up with the refresh across the whole spectrum. 4ms is about as good as IPS can get, and that is a best-case G2G response. Fast/gaming IPS panels sit between 4-8ms and need overdrive to get there, so if you have 120-144 real FPS/hz there is a degree of ghosting.

Bottom line, unless you play competitive FPS, not a big issue (the issue does exist for competitive FPS because precisely in the 'high danger' area in game, which is any darker shade/space in the environment, the pixel response is slower than in brighter shades). Unless you are a special person with special eyes . You know, those people that can see blue light, 10khz strobe, 240 fps and generally tend to crawl inside the monitor.

 

[Caring1]

Unless you are a special person with special eyes . You know, those people that can see blue light....

Hey, I get migraines from blue light, and have to turn the brightness right down on screens that have too much.

 

[Vayra86]

Hey, I get migraines from blue light, and have to turn the brightness right down on screens that have too much.

I like to take all that with a grain of salt, I am much more convinced that it's the result of too much screen time. That being said, blue light does have its effects and it is well documented, so maybe bad example.

But you know what I mean right, once some new marketing term hits a product/market, all of a sudden there's whole communities with all sorts of problems that are magically helped by said product Same with audiophiles who can hear frequency beyond human hearing and need 24 bit audio even though the ear can't register it at all

 

[rtwjunkie]

Yeah that's correct but the IPS screens are not as good for fast gaming where the picture changes rapidly. It's just what i read for descriptions for IPS screens online.

This is not true. I have not seen this on several IPS screens I have. One has 8ms delay (GTG) and still no ghosting.

 

[xorbe]

Have you tried ahva/ips XB270HU screen? Crazy faster than my old ips NEC2490WUXi screen. I guess the best TN gaming screens are still a hair faster, but it's not worth the trade off for just 3-4 ms less for myself.

 

[ratirt]

Guys.
Thanks for all the posts. I will think about the screen. Which one to buy but I'm more interested in the TN screens instead IPS but it is still time for me to buy new screen. That will happen within half a year when new AMD cards show up on the market
Wanna tell y'all that I just bought video card That's the ASus GTX 670 Direct CU II. That being said what do you guys think of the card? I have researched some internet sites and reviews and i think that one is very decent card. Hope you can share your thoughts about that and support my choice

Thanks

 

[EarthDog]

Same thing I said earlier... a bit low on vRAM and some IQ settings will have to be lowered in some titles to prevent hitching when paging out from vram.

 

[Vayra86]

Guys.
Thanks for all the posts. I will think about the screen. Which one to buy but I'm more interested in the TN screens instead IPS but it is still time for me to buy new screen. That will happen within half a year when new AMD cards show up on the market
Wanna tell y'all that I just bought video card That's the ASus GTX 670 Direct CU II. That being said what do you guys think of the card? I have researched some internet sites and reviews and i think that one is very decent card. Hope you can share your thoughts about that and support my choice

Thanks

TN? I would strongly urge to reconsider. The 1ms panels are only worthwhile if you play CS:GO or something, and are very serious about it. With that also comes a huge mousemat and ditto 'toss-around' mouse and a whole bunch of other bits to get the best competitive advantage. Don't buy the 'new TN is just fine' bullshit, because viewing angles and contrast shift is inherent to the technology and still exists on every single one of them. TN only improved in terms of contrast and color accuracy. But don't take my word for it; put some high end screens TN/IPS/VA side by side in a dim lit room and you will see for yourself

Anyone *not* doing that, I would strongly advise to look at IPS or VA. Better in all aspects and very close in terms of response time. Input lag is a non issue on either panel and G2G response differs by a mere 4-6ms. Not worth all the tradeoffs you have with TN. VA is a bit more rare to find than IPS but it is coming up strong the past year and it offers much, much greater static contrast and suffers far less from ghosting - instead, it can 'smear' a bit in darker shades when the panel is still cold, when it warms up, that will fade away. VA can be as fast, or faster than IPS too, but loses on color accuracy (which is not a huge point for gaming, and a simple calibration will make it invisible to the eye), making it a hidden gem for gaming, especially if your games are dark and gloomy (the contrast is a big thing).

On the 670, tis a fine card, hold back a bit on the AA or post processing and it can push a mighty bunch of frames and the CUII is a good cooler.

 

[ratirt]

TN? I would strongly urge to reconsider. The 1ms panels are only worthwhile if you play CS:GO or something, and are very serious about it. With that also comes a huge mousemat and ditto 'toss-around' mouse and a whole bunch of other bits to get the best competitive advantage. Don't buy the 'new TN is just fine' bullshit, because viewing angles and contrast shift is inherent to the technology and still exists on every single one of them. TN only improved in terms of contrast and color accuracy. But don't take my word for it; put some high end screens TN/IPS/VA side by side in a dim lit room and you will see for yourself

Anyone *not* doing that, I would strongly advise to look at IPS or VA. Better in all aspects and very close in terms of response time. Input lag is a non issue on either panel and G2G response differs by a mere 4-6ms. Not worth all the tradeoffs you have with TN. VA is a bit more rare to find than IPS but it is coming up strong the past year and it offers much, much greater static contrast and suffers far less from ghosting - instead, it can 'smear' a bit in darker shades when the panel is still cold, when it warms up, that will fade away. VA can be as fast, or faster than IPS too, but loses on color accuracy (which is not a huge point for gaming, and a simple calibration will make it invisible to the eye), making it a hidden gem for gaming, especially if your games are dark and gloomy (the contrast is a big thing).

On the 670, tis a fine card, hold back a bit on the AA or post processing and it can push a mighty bunch of frames and the CUII is a good cooler.

Well The TN's, IPS's and VA's I don't know much about it but the thing is and most forums and gamers say so TN's have best response time. Some people say it's crucial for gaming explaining that with the IPS being slow and so as VA's but that might have changed over the time? I don't know much about it besides it's not like I can compare all of them side by side and see how it performs. That's why i'm asking. I will surely take a closer look about that later on this year. Cause my monitor will be bought after summer vacation or so. Hopefully till then I will have a better view and knowledge about the difference among the screens TN's IPS's and VA's. Thanks for the posts. Experience of gamers who have those screens is a much help cause they can say how it is for real not just descriptions on the paper or specs for certain monitors.

Yeah the 670 is a great card what I hear and my research proved it. It has only 2Gb of ram but for my games it's more than enough. Besides it's just for now. This year I will buy top notch card from either Nvidia or AMD it depends how AMD's cards will perform and what they will offer and Nvidia's answer for AMD's Polaris and Vega which is coming pretty soon

Thanks for all the posts.

 

[Artas1984]

Guys.
Thanks for all the posts. I will think about the screen. Which one to buy but I'm more interested in the TN screens instead IPS but it is still time for me to buy new screen. That will happen within half a year when new AMD cards show up on the market
Wanna tell y'all that I just bought video card That's the ASus GTX 670 Direct CU II. That being said what do you guys think of the card?

Well you've got yourself a video card, that runs cool and is equally powerfull as GTX960 - what's not to like? Good choice. GTX460 SLI would have been a bad choise - not only slower than GTX670, but the minimal frame rates would have sucked seriously.

Earthdog, thank's for the AA link, but Metro Last Redux is a modern FPS - this is a late 2014 game that has been revamped for the benefit of improved visuals - that is not the 2010 original game...

 

[EarthDog]

You can pick on my snafu on the age of the title, but that takes nothing away from my talking point...

..2gb cards are not a good idea these days with using AA at 1080p.

 

[ratirt]

You can pick on my snafu on the age of the title, but that takes nothing away from my talking point...

..2gb cards are not a good idea these days with using AA at 1080p.

Well I'm about to find out. What games you think wont run on the 670 2Gb with Full HD and AA? I'm willing to test it. Besides I will try to OC it a bit more if possible. We'll see how that goes From my stand point I agree with Artas. It's a good card from what I've read and researched it performs very good. Besides I don't need to use 16xAA. I can stay on lower and it would still look great

 

[ratirt]

Try looking here.
Is that bad performance for GTX 670 ? Seriously doubt EarthDog. please take a look http://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gtx-670/performance
It may not be AAx16 but AAx4 and AFx16 and still is 50+FPS. That's very nice. My old card wouldn't hit 30 with that settings. Not sure if it would hit even 20. I played on my 460 GTX and it was not so bad but high settings were out of the picture and still didn't get 60FPS. Since this card is only to wait for AMD release it will do just great

Thanks

 

[EarthDog]

It's not that they won't run, I never said that. What I did say is that in some titles that use over 2gb of vram, you will see/feel some stuttering/hitching at times when you are 'paging out' when running out of vram. It doesn't always manifest itself as FPS differences... not to mention your link show games that were out when the card was released. Times have changes from 4+ years ago when those games were released.

Overclocking really wouldn't help when you run out of vram.

Nobody said you needed 16xAA either... come on now...read my link about modern titles and vram use...or read up about it on the web and what can happen.

Yes, well aware it's a temporary card. As I said earlier, in some modern titles you will have to turn down the AA, either for horsepower reasons or vram.