http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_ ... _ti,2.html
"The Nvidia GeForce GTX 660 Ti is no doubt the graphics card many gamers have been waiting for, as it targets a price range that many can afford. Yet more than that, it provides gamers with what is by far the best value solution on the market today.
Whereas we had previously crowned the GeForce GTX 670 the best value high performance graphics card money could buy, the GTX 660 Ti goes a step further in the price vs. performance rating. Based on current estimates we believe by the time you read this the Gigabyte GTX 660 Ti will be hitting shelves for around $300, making it roughly 33% cheaper than the GTX 670. This is amazing news for gamers as the GTX 660 Ti was only 13% slower on average than the GTX 670 in 16 games that we tested.

The performance of the GeForce GTX 660 Ti really was quite staggering given the price. Something we found very interesting about this graphics card was the fact that on average it was 6% faster than the previous generation flagship single-GPU product, the GeForce GTX 580. This is quite incredible given that the GTX 580 was released just under 2 years ago at a sticker price of $500.

When compared to the competition things look rather different for AMD today when compared to 4-5 months ago and by different we mean bleak. Having been stripped of the performance crown by the more efficient GeForce GTX 680, and then having the GTX 670 deliver devastating blows to not only the Radeon HD 7950 but also the 7970, it was time for AMD to make some price cuts. They also released the 7970 GHz Edition in a desperate act to reclaim the performance crown, though that wasn’t exactly a total success.

Now with Nvidia starting to chum the waters with the GeForce GTX 660 Ti, the upcoming feeding frenzy is no doubt going to see the Radeon HD 7870 go off the bite. This is for good reason, as the GTX 660 Ti was on average 13% faster than the 7870, while we believe it will retail for roughly the same value.

Even more devastating for AMD is the fact that the GTX 660 Ti was just 5% slower than the 7950, while costing around 14% less. Since the arrival of the GeForce GTX 670 back in May we have felt AMD needed to reduce the 7950 pricing further than $350 and we feel even stronger about that now with the arrival of the GTX 660 Ti.

The only weakness of the GeForce GTX 660 Ti if you were to nitpick is efficiency. The fact that the core configuration is the same as the GTX 670, with the only real change being made to the memory controller, means that the power consumption requirements are roughly the same as the GTX 670.

This is both an advantage and a disadvantage of the GTX 660 Ti as it makes it very fast but just as power hungry as the higher-end cards. Still when compared to the AMD Radeon HD 7870 the GTX 660 Ti is still a more efficient product, so efficiency is not a key issue here.

It would be interesting to see how a 3-way SLI configuration using GeForce GTX 660 Ti graphics cards would compare to the GTX 690 given it would be cheaper and likely faster. That’s just food for thought, and what we will say for now is that the GeForce GTX 660 Ti is the best value graphics card money can buy right now, period."

I found it was best read with this playing in the background.

lol

looks like a solid card to me

Wow, awesome! Can't believe that GTX 280 is being tested!! You're the best, Apoppin!

(In L4D2, at 8xAA, for GTX 560 Ti, I think there was a typo, and that the "1" should be dropped from 194.7 fps).

You are correct about the "1" typo. It is actually correct in the DX9 chart; i guess a typo crept in. i'll fix it tonight when i do an image link (and re-read it again for the nth time)

You have good eyes!

i'm enjoying the entertainment value of seeing what AMD PR and AMD employees personally think about the GTX 660 Ti and they cannot comprehend why us reviewers were impressed with it.

Things that gave me a smile:









The only one that i am disappointed with is RS who even misquotes AT's review to fake a point about the GTX 660 Ti only having 1.5GB of effective vRAM.



And of course, the leading liar


They are so damn obvious and it is no wonder that few posters come to VC&G seriously asking for any real advice other than to start flamewars.

Well, AMD had many more issues with Crossfire with more games than just Skyrim, and Nvidia's SLI support shines by comparison.

AND there's a 3GB version of GTX 660 Ti, with a "straight" ratio to the 24 ROPs:
http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/graf ... -660-ti/4/

Computerbase.de also shows the 670 to be 16% faster overall than the 660 Ti (at least in 1080p with 4xAA, while it is 19.4% faster overall @ 2560x1600 with 8xAA). Without AA, the 670 is only 11.5% faster, which indirectly suggests how much of a role the ROPs have played in this.

As more and more games use FXAA instead of MSAA (like Max Payne 3 which does not correctly utilize MSAA), the need for more ROPs diminish compared against the need for the front-end GPU muscle.

I've been enjoying the "Next gen games" bit from AMD people since AMD started tacking on an excessive amounts of it.

We've been hearing about "next gen games" since late 2010 when AMD released 2gb reference cards, I'm still waiting for a game I can't max out based on vram with 1.28.

Besides, the last thing I'd ever do is pay this gens price premiums for this gens performance, for next gen games. It's probably the dumbest fundamentally flawed argument on the net, probably why they use it so much.