nVidia vs AMD/ATI

Windows i7 920 · 01 Oct 2012

I have been debating between which one I want to go with for my next card. Apparently, AMD isn't going to be updating the driver for the 4800 series to Windows 8 (which really ticks me off...). That is why I'm considering nVidia for the first time. Few things I want to do with a new card:

- Gaming at 1920x1080 graphics maxed, or close to at frame rates of at least 60.
- Some bitcoin mining (nothing serious, just curious about it), and possibly some other GPGPU related stuff.

Also, the card needs to work well in both Windows and Linux x64 as I use both. The only nVidia Ive ever worked with was an old Quadro FX 1400, which I put into a Dell Optiplex GX280, and it runs great under Linux and Windows.

Chalky Emultion · 02 Oct 2012

hi,

a GTX 670 should work well for you. It is a good card for both gaming and bitcoin mining.
It may have some difficulties in heavy graphics games if you set all to maximum settings and extreme AA. We are talking of a minor FPS drop (3-5 fps).

If a GTX 670 doesn't sound good for you, a GTX 680 will be a good choice instead. It is the fastest single-GPU in the market and it offers better performance than the GTX 670.

The GTX 670 resolution target is 1920x1080 (4xAA 16xAF)
The GTX 680 resolution target is 2560x1600 (4xAA 16xAF)

There also is the dual-GPU GTX 690 (= 2 GTX 680 in SLI), but it will be a waste since you don't use extreme resolutions.

However, if you like dual-GPUs, you can consider the GTX 590, which is similar to the GTX 680 in terms of performance, but it costs a few more and consume a lot more power than the GTX 680 (2x i think). So I don't really suggest it.

In other words, a GTX 670 would be good for you. A GTX 680 probably will be better. A GTX 690 a waste with a single monitor.

all GeForce GTX 600 series are compatible with both Windows 8 and Linux.

Windows i7 920 · 17 Oct 2012

I really don't need dual-GPU. I just happened to find the one I currently have quite cheap when I got it a while back. Extreme AA does not make enough of a difference visually to me to care much about it. Mainly, I care about high texture resolutions and detailed shaders/effects. I'm looking at the 660 Ti as its cheaper than the 670, but has similar specs.

1344 CUDA Cores
2GB 192-bit GDDR5 - 6008MHz effective clock speed

$299 on newegg...

Chalky Emultion · 17 Oct 2012

The GTX 660 Ti should be 25-30% slower than the GTX 670, but it's a good compromise of performance and price since the GTX 670 costs 100-120$ more.

The main differences between the 2 cards are:
- ROPs: (GTX 660 Ti has 24 instead of 32)
- Memory Bus Width (GTX 660 Ti has 192-bit GDDR5 RAM instead of 256-bit)
- Power consumption (GTX 660 Ti draw 150W instead of 170W)

Stream processors, texture units, core clock, memory clock, boost clock, VRAM quantity, and transistor count are the same in both GTX 660 Ti and GTX 670.

So, if you wouldn't use extreme AA, the GTX 660 Ti would be a good choice.

kbrady1979 · 17 Oct 2012

There are a few GTX 670 cards that are on sale right now for around $350-360. With the 670, you get the 256-bit memory interface, which may or may not be a selling point. The 660 Ti's are very powerful cards and should run games "wide-open". There are some games coming out in the near future that will push graphics cards to the edge, such as Crysis 3. The makers of Crysis say that this game will push PC hardware to the limit. Take that into consideration if that is one of the games you are waiting for.

I personally will be ordering this very soon.....Newegg.com - EVGA SuperClocked+ 03G-P4-3663-KR GeForce GTX 660 Ti 3GB 192-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 x16 HDCP Ready SLI Support Video Card. Only $20-30 more than the 2GB model!