Gtx 660 ti power: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti Specs

The GeForce GTX 660 Ti ReviewThat Darn Memory BusMeet The EVGA GeForce GTX 660 Ti SuperclockedMeet The Zotac GeForce GTX 660 Ti AMP! EditionMeet The Gigabyte GeForce GTX 660 Ti OCThe First TXAA Game & The TestCrysis: WarheadMetro: 2033DiRT 3Total War: Shogun 2Batman: Arkham CityPortal 2Battlefield 3The Elder Scrolls V: SkyrimCivilization VCompute PerformanceSyntheticsPower, Temperature, & NoiseOC: Power, Temperature, & NoiseOC: Gaming PerformanceFinal Words

Power, Temperature, & Noise

As always, we’re wrapping up our look at a video card’s stock performance with a look at power, temperature, and noise. Like we discussed in the introduction, while the official TDP of the GTX 660 Ti is 150W – 20W lower than the GTX 670 – the power target difference is only 7W. So let’s see which is more accurate, and how that compares to AMD’s cards.

Stopping to take a quick look at voltages, there aren’t any big surprises here. NVIDIA would need to maintain the same voltages as the GTX 670 because of the identical clocks and SMX count, and that’s exactly what has happened. In fact all single-GPU GK104 cards are topping out at 1.175v, NVIDIA’s defined limit for these cards. Even custom cards like the Gigabyte still only get to push 1.175v.

Up next, before we jump into our graphs let’s take a look at the average core clockspeed during our benchmarks. Because of GPU boost the boost clock alone doesn’t give us the whole picture – particularly when also taking a look at factory overclocked cards – we’ve recorded the clockspeed of our video cards during each of our benchmarks when running them at 2560×1600 and computed the average clockspeed over the duration of the benchmark. Unfortunately we then deleted the results for the factory overclocked cards, so we only have the “reference” card. Sorry about that guys.

The average clockspeeds on our “reference” GTX 660 Ti don’t end up fluctuating all that much. With a max boost of 1058 the card actually gets to run at its top bin in a few of our tests, and it isn’t too far off in the rest.  The lowest is 1035 for Shogun 2, and that’s only an average difference of 22MHz. The GTX 670 on the other hand had a wider range; a boon in some games and a bane in others. If nothing else, it means that despite the identical base and boost clocks, our cards aren’t purely identical at all times thanks to the impact of GPU boost pulling back whenever we reach our power target.

There are no great surprises with idle power consumption. Given the immense similarity between the GTX 670 and GTX 660 Ti, they end up drawing the same amount of power both during idle and long idle. This does leave AMD with an 8W-10W lead at the wall in this test though.

Moving on to our load power tests we start with Metro: 2033. As we mentioned previously the GTX 660 Ti and GTX 670 have very similar power targets, and this benchmark confirms that. Power consumption for the GTX 660 Ti is virtually identical to the Radeon HD 7870, an interesting matchup given the fact that this is the first time NVIDIA has had to compete with Pitcairn. Pitcairn’s weaker compute performance means it starts off in a better position, but it looks like even with a salvaged GK104 NVIDIA can still compete with it. NVIDIA drove efficiency hard this generation; to compete with a smaller chip like that is certainly a testament to that efficiency.

As for the inevitable 7950 comparison, it’s no contest. The GTX 670 was already doing well here and the GTX 660 Ti doesn’t change that. Tahiti just can’t match GK104’s gaming efficiency, which is why AMD has had to push performance over power with the new 7950B.

Meanwhile it’s fascinating to see that the GTX 660 Ti has lower power consumption than the GTX 560 Ti, even though the latter has the advantage of lower CPU power consumption due to its much lower performance in Metro. Or better yet, just compare the GTX 660 Ti to the outgoing GTX 570.

For AMD/NVIDIA comparisons we have a bit less faith in our OCCT results than we do our Metro results right now, as NVIDIA and AMD seem to clamp their power consumption differently. NVIDIA’s power consumption clamp through GPU Boost is far softer than AMD’s PowerTune. As a result the 7870 consumes 25W less than the GTX 660 Ti here, which even with AMD’s very conservative PowerTune rating seems like quite the gap. Metro seems to be much more applicable here, at least when you’re dealing with cards that have similar framerates.

In any case, compared to NVIDIA’s lineup this is another good showing for the GTX 660 Ti. Power consumption at the wall is 45W below the GTX 560 Ti, a large difference thanks to the latter’s lack of power throttling technology.

As for our factory overclocked cards, these results are consistent with our expectations. Among the Zotac and EVGA cards there’s a few watts of flutter at best, seeing as how they have the same power target of 134W. Meanwhile the Sapphire card with its higher power target is 20W greater at the wall, which indicates that our estimated power target of 141W for that card is a bit too low. However this also means that those times where the Gigabyte card was winning, it was also drawing around 20W more than its competition, which is a tradeoff in and of itself.

Moving on to temperatures, at 31C the GTX 660 Ti is once more where we’d expect it to be given the similarities to the GTX 670. Open air coolers tend to do a bit better here than blowers though, so the fact that it’s only 1C cooler than the blower-type GTX 670 is likely a reflection on Zotac’s cooler.

Speaking of factory overclocked video cards, one card stands out above the rest: the Gigabyte GTX 660 Ti. That oversized cooler does its job and does it well, keeping the GPU down to barely above room temperature.

Considering that most of our high-end cards are blowers while our “reference” GTX 660 Ti is an open air cooler, temperature benchmarks are the GTX 660 Ti’s to win, and that’s precisely what’s going on. 67C is nice and cool too, which means that the open air coolers should fare well even in poorly ventilated cases.

As usual we see a rise in temperatures when switching from Metro to OCCT, but at 73C the GTX 660 Ti is still the coolest reference (or semi-reference) card on the board. To be honest we had expected that it would beat the 7870, but as far as blowers go the 7870’s is quite good.

Moving on to our factory overclocked cards, we’re seeing the usual divisions between open air coolers and blowers. The blower-based EVGA card performs almost identically to the GTX 670, which makes sense given the similarities between the cards. Meanwhile the open air Zotac and Gigabyte cards are neck-and-neck here, indicating that both cards are shooting for roughly the same temperatures, keeping themselves below 70C. Though it’s somewhat weird to see the factory overclocked Zotac card end up being cooler than its reference-clocked self; this appears to be a product of where the fan curve is being hit.

Last but not least we have our look at noise, where we’ll hopefully be able to fully shake out our factory overclocked cards.

Right off the bat we see the blower-based EVGA struggle, which was unexpected. It’s basically the same cooler as the GTX 670, so it should do better. Then again the EVGA GTX 670 SC had the same exact problem.

As for Metro, the GTX 660 Ti once again looks good. 48.2 isn’t the best for an open air cooler, but it’s a hair quieter than the 7870 and notably quieter than the GTX 670. The only unfortunate part about these results is that it just can’t beat the GTX 560 Ti; in fact nothing can. For its power consumption the GTX 560 Ti was an almost unreal card, but it’s still a shame the GTX 660 Ti can’t be equally unreal.

Moving on to our factory overclocked cards however, the Gigabyte GTX 660 Ti OC gets very close thanks to its very large cooler. 43.7dB technically isn’t silent, but it just as well should be. To offer the performance of a GTX 660 Ti (and then some) in such a package is quite the accomplishment.

As for Zotac and EVGA, there’s nothing bad about either of them but there’s also nothing great. EVGA’s card is about average for a blower, while Zotac’s card seems to be suffering from its size. It’s a relatively tiny card with a relatively tiny cooler, and this has it working harder to hit its temperature targets.

Finally we have noise testing with OCCT. Our “reference” GTX 660 Ti actually fares a bit worse than the GTX 670, which is unfortunate. So much of this test comes down to the cooler though that it’s almost impossible to predict how other cards will perform. At least it’s no worse than the 7870.

Meanwhile the Gigabyte GTX 660 Ti OC continues to impress. 43.7dB not only means that it didn’t get any louder switching from Metro to OCCT, but it has now bested the GTX 560 Ti thanks to the 560’s lack of power throttling technology. Make no mistake, 43. 7dB for this kind of performance is very, very impressive.

As for EVGA and Zotac, it’s also a rehash of Metro. EVGA’s blower is actually over 1dB quieter than Zotac’s cooler, which is an unfortunate outcome for an open air cooler.

Wrapping things up, even without a true reference sample from NVIDIA it’s clear that the GTX 660 Ti has a lot of potential when it comes to power/temp/noise. Compared to other cards it’s roughly equivalent in power consumption and noise to the 7870, which for NVIDIA is an important distinction since it’s also notably faster than the 7870, so NVIDIA is on a better place on the power/performance curve. This goes for not only the 7870, but especially the 7950, where the GTX 660 Ti continues the tradition the GTX 670 already set, which will see the GTX 660 Ti being cooler, quieter, and less power hungry than AMD’s entry-level Tahiti part.

But it must be pointed out that the lack of a reference design for the GTX 660 Ti means buyers are also facing a lot of variability. Power consumption should be consistent between cards – which is to say a hair less than the GTX 670 – but temperature and especially noise will vary on a card by card basis. Potential buyers would best be served by checking out reviews ahead of time to separate the duds from the gems.

Synthetics
OC: Power, Temperature, & Noise
The GeForce GTX 660 Ti ReviewThat Darn Memory BusMeet The EVGA GeForce GTX 660 Ti SuperclockedMeet The Zotac GeForce GTX 660 Ti AMP! EditionMeet The Gigabyte GeForce GTX 660 Ti OCThe First TXAA Game & The TestCrysis: WarheadMetro: 2033DiRT 3Total War: Shogun 2Batman: Arkham CityPortal 2Battlefield 3The Elder Scrolls V: SkyrimCivilization VCompute PerformanceSyntheticsPower, Temperature, & NoiseOC: Power, Temperature, & NoiseOC: Gaming PerformanceFinal Words

Tweet

PRINT THIS ARTICLE

GeForce GTX 660 Ti [in 12 benchmarks]

NVIDIA
GeForce GTX 660 Ti

Buy

• Interface PCIe 3. 0 x16
• Core clock speed 915
• Max video memory 2048 MB
• Memory type GDDR5
• Memory clock speed 6.0 Gbps
• Maximum resolution

Summary

NVIDIA started GeForce GTX 660 Ti sales 16 August 2012 at a recommended price of $299. This is Kepler architecture desktop card based on 28 nm manufacturing process and primarily aimed at gamers. 2 GB of GDDR5 memory clocked at 6.0 GB/s are supplied, and together with 192-bit GDDR5 memory interface this creates a bandwidth of 144.2 GB/s.

Compatibility-wise, this is dual-slot card attached via PCIe 3.0 x16 interface. Its manufacturer default version has a length of 9.5″ (24.1 cm). Two 6-pin power connector is required, and power consumption is at 150 Watt.

It provides poor gaming and benchmark performance at

14.83%

of a leader’s which is NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 Ti.

GeForce GTX
660 Ti

vs

GeForce RTX
3090 Ti

General info

Of GeForce GTX 660 Ti’s architecture, market segment and release date.

Value for money

To get the index we compare the characteristics of video cards and their relative prices.

• 0
• 50
• 100

Technical specs

GeForce GTX 660 Ti’s general performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU base clock, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of GeForce GTX 660 Ti’s performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider its benchmark and gaming test results.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	1344	of 18432 (AD102)
CUDA cores	1344
Core clock speed	915 MHz	of 2610 (Radeon RX 6500 XT)
Boost clock speed	980 MHz	of 2903 (Radeon Pro W6600)
Number of transistors	3,540 million	of 14400 (GeForce GTX 1080 SLI Mobile)
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	of 4 (GeForce RTX 4080 Ti)
Thermal design power (TDP)	150 Watt	of 900 (Tesla S2050)
Texture fill rate	102. 5 billion/sec	of 939.8 (h200 SXM5)
Floating-point performance	2,459.5 gflops	of 16384 (Radeon Pro Duo)

Compatibility, dimensions and requirements

Information on GeForce GTX 660 Ti’s compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it’s interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Memory

Parameters of memory installed on GeForce GTX 660 Ti: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Note that GPUs integrated into processors don’t have dedicated memory and use a shared part of system RAM.

Video outputs and ports

Types and number of video connectors present on GeForce GTX 660 Ti. As a rule, this section is relevant only for desktop reference video cards, since for notebook ones the availability of certain video outputs depends on the laptop model.

Technologies

Technological solutions and APIs supported by GeForce GTX 660 Ti. You’ll probably need this information if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

API support

APIs supported by GeForce GTX 660 Ti, sometimes including their particular versions.

Benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance of GeForce GTX 660 Ti. Note that overall benchmark performance is measured in points in 0-100 range.

Overall score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GTX 660 Ti
14.83

• Passmark
• 3DMark 11 Performance GPU
• 3DMark Vantage Performance
• 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
• 3DMark Fire Strike Score
• 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
• GeekBench 5 OpenCL
• GeekBench 5 Vulkan
• GeekBench 5 CUDA
• Unigine Heaven 3.0
• Octane Render OctaneBench
• Unigine Heaven 4.0

Passmark

This is probably the most ubiquitous benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

Benchmark coverage: 26%

GTX 660 Ti
4369

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280×720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

GTX 660 Ti
8415

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280×1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

GTX 660 Ti
23726

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280×720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

GTX 660 Ti
37758

3DMark Fire Strike Score

Benchmark coverage: 14%

GTX 660 Ti
4734

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature seemingly made of lava. Using 1920×1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic enough graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

GTX 660 Ti
5432

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU’s processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

Benchmark coverage: 9%

GTX 660 Ti
13082

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU’s processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.

Benchmark coverage: 5%

GTX 660 Ti
14179

GeekBench 5 CUDA

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU’s processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses CUDA API by NVIDIA.

Benchmark coverage: 5%

GTX 660 Ti
11274

Unigine Heaven 3.0

This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark using Unigine, a 3D game engine by eponymous Russian company. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. Version 3.0 was released in 2012, and in 2013 it was superseded by Heaven 4.0, which introduced several slight improvements, including a newer version of Unigine.

Benchmark coverage: 5%

GTX 660 Ti
79

Octane Render OctaneBench

This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc. , available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.

Benchmark coverage: 4%

GTX 660 Ti
43

Unigine Heaven 4.0

This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark, a newer version of Unigine 3.0 with relatively small differences. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. The benchmark is still sometimes used, despite its significant age, as it was released back in 2013.

Benchmark coverage: 1%

GTX 660 Ti
774

Mining hashrates

Cryptocurrency mining performance of GeForce GTX 660 Ti. Usually measured in megahashes per second.

Game benchmarks

Let’s see how good GeForce GTX 660 Ti is for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in frames per second. Comparisons with game system requirements are included, but remember that sometimes official requirements may reflect reality inaccurately.

Average FPS

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular modern games across different resolutions:

Popular games

• Full HD
  Low Preset
• Full HD
  Medium Preset
• Full HD
  High Preset
• Full HD
  Ultra Preset
• 1440p
  High Preset
• 1440p
  Ultra Preset
• 4K
  High Preset
• 4K
  Ultra Preset

Relative perfomance

Overall GeForce GTX 660 Ti performance compared to nearest competitors among desktop video cards.

AMD Radeon R7 370
102.9

AMD Radeon HD 7870 XT
102.29

NVIDIA P104-100
101.82

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti
100

AMD Radeon R9 270
98.58

AMD Radeon RX 460
94.34

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480
94.07

AMD equivalent

We believe that the nearest equivalent to GeForce GTX 660 Ti from AMD is Radeon R9 270, which is slower by 1% and lower by 6 positions in our rating.

Radeon R9
270

Compare

Here are some closest AMD rivals to GeForce GTX 660 Ti:

AMD Radeon HD 7870
106. 81

AMD Radeon R7 370
102.9

AMD Radeon HD 7870 XT
102.29

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti
100

AMD Radeon R9 270
98.58

AMD Radeon RX 460
94.34

AMD Radeon HD 7850
87.66

Similar GPUs

Here is our recommendation of several graphics cards that are more or less close in performance to the one reviewed.

Radeon R7
370

Compare

GeForce GTX
580

Compare

GeForce GTX
480

Compare

Radeon HD
7870

Compare

GeForce GTX
760

Compare

GeForce GTX
750 Ti

Compare

Recommended processors

These processors are most commonly used with GeForce GTX 660 Ti according to our statistics.

Core i5
3470

4.5%

Core i7
3770

3%

Core i5
3570

2.4%

Core i5
2400

2.4%

FX
6300

2.2%

Core i5
3570K

1.8%

Core i3
3220

1.4%

Core i5
3330

1. 3%

Core i3
10100F

1.3%

Core i7
3770K

1.2%

User rating

Here you can see the user rating of the graphics card, as well as rate it yourself.

Questions and comments

Here you can ask a question about GeForce GTX 660 Ti, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

Nvidia’s GeForce GTX 660 Ti graphics card reviewed

Nvidia’s GK104 graphics chip has been all over the place since its initial release back in March. The chip made its debut aboard the GeForce GTX 680, a decidedly high-end card priced at $499. About six weeks later, the GeForce GTX 670 arrived, with a slightly scaled down version of the GK104 for $399. Today, onboard the GeForce GTX 660 Ti, this same graphics chip steps down to the much more accessible price point of $299—while again giving up a relatively small amount of performance. If you’ve been holding out on upgrading to the latest generation of graphics cards, the GTX 660 Ti may finally overcome your resolve.

Here’s one way to think about it. In de-tuning the GK104 in order to make this more affordable version, Nvidia has taken the GeForce GTX 680 and shaved off two Xbox 360 consoles worth of graphics processing power. Not to worry, though: the GTX 660 Ti still has 14 or so Xboxes left.

The nitty gritty

To be more specific, for the GTX 670, one of the GK104’s eight SMX units was disabled, reducing the shader ALU count from 1536 to 1344 and cutting texture filtering power from 128 to 110 texels per clock cycle. Clock speeds were dialed back a bit, too. Trimming those resources had its impact on overall performance, but it was relatively minimal. Our experience with the GTX 670 caused us to declare that we “fail to see the point of spending more on a GeForce GTX 680. ”

The GTX 660 Ti retains the SMX lobotomy and adds a couple more tricks to cut costs and rein in performance. First, the GK104’s path to memory has been reduced in width from 256 bits to 192. Strangely, though, the card still has 2GB of GDDR5 memory, not the odd number one might expect. To make such a configuration possible, four of the GK104’s memory controllers have been configured to run in 16-bit mode, while the other four remain in their native 32-bit mode. Thus, memory bandwidth has been trimmed by 25%, but total memory capacity is still a nice, round number. Second, one of the GK104’s four ROP partitions has been disabled, reducing the chip’s pixel fill rate and antialiasing power by a quarter.

Those calibrations were apparently sufficient in Nvidia’s view to keep this card separate from its elder siblings. The GTX 660 Ti runs at the exact same 915MHz base and 980MHz boost clocks as the GTX 670. Crunch all the numbers, and here’s how the cards’ key specs end up looking.

	Base clock (MHz)	Boost clock (MHz)	Peak ROP rate  (Gpix/s)	Texture filtering int8/fp16 (Gtex/s)	Peak shader tflops	Memory transfer rate	Memory bandwidth (GB/s)	Price
GeForce GTX 660 Ti	915	980	24	110/110	2. 6	6.0 GT/s	144	$299
GeForce GTX 670	915	980	31	110/110	2.6	6.0 GT/s	192	$399
GeForce GTX 680	1006	1058	34	135/135	3.3	6.0 GT/s	192	$499

The GTX 660 Ti gives up a little bit of ROP throughput and some memory bandwidth versus the GTX 670, but it still offers a whole lotta Kepler GPU power for a hundred bucks less. We suspect that for a great many folks, this class of graphics card will be more than sufficient.

Nvidia is hoping to entice those who currently own older cards in roughly the same class, such as the GeForce GTX 260 or 470, to upgrade to the new hotness. To sweeten the pot, GeForce GTX 660 Ti cards will come with a really, really attractive incentive: a coupon good for a free copy of Borderlands 2. Of course, you’ll have to wait for the game’s mid-September release date in order to play, but Borderlands 2 is easily the most anticipated title of 2012 within the dank confines of Damage Labs. I will probably disappear for a week or so in September, going vault hunting. Since this game is slated to cost 60 bucks, I’d consider the bundled copy a very nice bonus, to say the least.

Several options

The GTX 660 Ti is slated to be available at online retailers starting today, and indications point to a pretty wide release. We already have three different examples of retail cards on hand for testing.

We’ll start with PNY’s offering, since it kind of sets the bar. This card is based on Nvidia’s reference design (the same one used for the GTX 670), runs at the GTX 660 Ti’s stock speeds, and lists for $299.99. No real wrinkles there.

If you’re contemplating installing one in your PC, here are the basics. Like the GTX 670 before it, this card is 9.5″ in length, but the board itself is only 6.8″. The extra length is just… male enhancement. The board’s max power rating is 150W, and it requires a pair of six-pin aux power inputs. The display output array is visible above; it mirrors that of other GK104-based cards.

PNY’s pitch for this product is straightforward enough. Although higher-clocked variants of the GTX 660 Ti will be a bit faster, this card ought to be adequate for most gamers, and the price is right. Also, Nvidia’s reference coolers are often quite decent. While all of those things are true, we’re a little dubious about this particular reference cooler; it didn’t impress us aboard the GTX 670. We’ll have to see how it fares here.

Next up is MSI’s GeForce GTX 660 Ti Power Edition. This card has tweaked base and boost clocks of 1019 and 1097MHz, although its memory operates at a stock 6 GT/s.

You might have guessed that little else about this puppy is stock. MSI has customized the PCB design, adding an additional power phase, to yield a 5+2 config (versus 4+2 in the reference cards). Then there’s the slick custom cooler, with twin fans and quad heatpipes, whose aluminum fins stretch the 9.5″ length of the board. MSI rates this card for 190W max power, and its design should facilitate overclocking. If you like to live dangerously, the firm claims the Power Edition can achieve “triple overvoltage” via its excellent Afterburner overclocking utility.

MSI plans to charge a premium of just 10 bucks for these extras. You should see the Power Edition at online retailers for $309.99.

Finally, Zotac’s hopped-up variant of the GTX 660 Ti is pictured above next to its GTX 670 big brother.

I’m sorry, but it is so cute.

The circuit board is under 7″ long, and the card measures 7.5″ to the pointed tip of its cooling shroud. Unlike its similarly styled siblings, the Zotac GTX 660 Ti AMP! Edition occupies only two expansion slots—and it is totally primed to slip into a compact Mini-ITX enclosure of some sort.

Believe it or not, this little dynamo is also the fastest of these three GTX 660 Ti cards. The 1033MHz base and 1111MHz boost clocks and 190W TDP are similar to the MSI’s, but Zotac adds much faster GDDR5 memory, with a 6.6 GT/s transfer rate. Not surprisingly, then, the price tag is a little steeper at $329.99.

	Base clock (MHz)	Boost clock (MHz)	Peak ROP rate  (Gpix/s)	Texture filtering int8/fp16 (Gtex/s)	Peak shader tflops	Memory transfer rate	Memory bandwidth (GB/s)	Price
PNY  GTX 660 Ti	915	980	24	110/110	2. 6	6.0 GT/s	144	$299
MSI GTX 660 Ti OC	1020	1098	26	123/123	3.0	6.0 GT/s	144	$309
Zotac GTX 660 Ti AMP!	1033	1111	27	124/124	3.0	6.6 GT/s	159	$329

All told, the differences between these three products aren’t earth-shattering, but it’s worth noting that the two hot-clocked models actually eclipse the stock GTX 670 in terms of peak theoretical texture filtering and shader FLOPS rates.

The competition gets a boost

We’ve been comparing the new GeForce against its siblings in Nvidia’s lineup, but of course its natural competition is in the Radeon camp. Apparently the prospect of the Radeon HD 7950 competing against all of these hot-clocked GTX 660 Ti cards was making AMD at little bit uneasy.

Last week, AMD sent us a new BIOS to flash to our Radeon HD 7950 reference cards. This BIOS introduces a new feature, first seen in the Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition, known simply as “boost.” Boost is a fairly straightforward modification to AMD’s PowerTune dynamic voltage and frequency scaling algorithm. Before, PowerTune could only reduce clock speeds in response to cases of unusually high GPU demand and power use. With boost, PowerTune can now raise clock speeds (in 4MHz increments) when the thermal headroom allows. Boost also promises more accurate power estimates that enable higher clock frequencies and fuller residency at those speeds.

The flash process was quick and painless. With the boost BIOS, our original Radeon HD 7950 review cards gained a chunk of new performance. The base clock is now 850MHz, up from 800MHz before, and the new boost peak clock is 925MHz. (Memory frequencies are unchanged.)

AMD tells us these clock speeds with boost constitute a new baseline specification for the Radeon HD 7950. The card’s list price will remain steady at $349, and board makers should start offering boost-enabled cards at online retailers starting today. Sapphire, HIS, and PowerColor are expected to be first to market.

Current owners of Radeon HD 7950 cards will want to pay attention to this next bit. AMD says all of the Radeon HD 7950 chips shipped to date should be able to run at the clock speeds enabled by the new BIOS. That means a simple BIOS flash offers the prospect of a nice little bump in performance for free. In fact, AMD told us it doesn’t mind folks distributing the new, boost-enhanced 7950 BIOS, although we understand this BIOS may not work on cards that vary from the reference design. Eventually, the firm expects boards makers to offer their own custom BIOSes, and those may find their way online, as well.

This fact is more notable because the 7950 reference card includes dual BIOSes, with a second, write-protected copy accessible via a switch just behind the CrossFire connectors. In other words, 7950 owners are pretty much free to attempt an upgrade to the boost BIOS without fear of bricking their cards. If the flash fails, just flip to the backup BIOS and recover.

Even more Radeons

We shouldn’t let this focus on the 7950’s enhancements distract from the GTX 660 Ti’s closest competitor, the Radeon HD 7870 GHz Edition.

No, this isn’t the same card pictured on the prior page. This is MSI’s Radeon HD 7870 Hawk, with a very similar custom cooler (though with five heatpipes.) The 7870 Hawk is clocked at 1100MHz, 100MHz above the 7870’s stock frequency. MSI asks $319.99 for this card.

Before AMD threw us the boost curve ball, we’d already selected a hot-clocked Radeon HD 7950 to use in this review, MSI’s R7950 OC Edition. This card lacks a boost BIOS but ratchets up the base clock to 880MHz. The upshot, as you’ll see, is performance very similar to the 7950 reference card with the boost BIOS. The R7950 OC Edition has been selling online for a while now at $349.99.

	Base clock (MHz)	Boost clock (MHz)	Peak ROP rate  (Gpix/s)	Texture filtering int8/fp16 (Gtex/s)	Peak shader tflops	Memory transfer rate	Memory bandwidth (GB/s)	Price
Radeon HD 7870 GHz	1000	–	32	80/40	2. 6	4.8 GT/s	154	$299
MSI R7870 Hawk	1100	–	35	88/44	2.8	4.8 GT/s	154	$319
Radeon HD 7950	800	–	26	90/45	2.9	5.0 GT/s	240	$349
MSI R7950 OC	880	–	28	99/49	3. 2	5.0 GT/s	240	$349
Radeon HD 7950 w/Boost	850	925	30	104/52	3.3	5.0 GT/s	240	$349

Both the GeForce and Radeon camps now have the space between $300 and $350 firmly covered with options. Fortunately, so do we. We’ve tested a range of current and older graphics cards in this class. Let’s have a look at how they all compare.

Our testing methods

As ever, we did our best to deliver clean benchmark numbers. Tests were run at least three times, and we’ve reported the median result.

Our test systems were configured like so:

Processor	Core i7-3820
Motherboard	Gigabyte X79-UD3
Chipset	Intel X79 Express
Memory size	16GB (4 DIMMs)
Memory type	Corsair Vengeance CMZ16GX3M4X1600C9 DDR3 SDRAM at 1600MHz
Memory timings	9-9-11-24 1T
Chipset drivers	INF update 9. 3.0.1019 Rapid Storage Technology Enterprise 3.0.0.3020
Audio	Integrated X79/ALC898 with Realtek 6.0.1.6526 drivers
Hard drive	Corsair F240 240GB SATA
Power supply	Corsair AX850
OS	Windows 7 Ultimate x64 Edition Service Pack 1 DirectX 11 June 2010 Update

	Driver revision	GPU base clock  (MHz)	Memory clock (MHz)	Memory size (MB)
Galaxy GeForce GTX 470 GC	GeForce 305. 37 beta	625	837	1280
Asus GeForce GTX 560 Ti TOP	GeForce 305.37 beta	900	1050	1024
PNY GeForce GTX 660 Ti	GeForce 305.37 beta	915	1502	2048
Zotac GTX 660 Ti AMP!	GeForce 305.37 beta	1033	1652	2048
Zotac GTX 670 AMP!	GeForce 305. 37 beta	1098	1652	2048
MSI R7870 Hawk	Catalyst 12.7 beta	1100	1200	2048
MSI R7950 OC	Catalyst 12.7 beta	880	1250	3072
Radeon HD 7950 w/Boost	Catalyst 12.7 beta	850	1250	3072

Thanks to Intel, Corsair, and Gigabyte for helping to outfit our test rigs with some of the finest hardware available. AMD, Nvidia, and the makers of the various products supplied the graphics cards for testing, as well.

Unless otherwise specified, image quality settings for the graphics cards were left at the control panel defaults. Vertical refresh sync (vsync) was disabled for all tests.

We used the following test applications:

• Batman: Arkham City
• Battlefield 3
• Crysis 2
• The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
• May Payne 3
• DiRT Showdown
• Fraps 3.5.6
• GPU-Z 0.6.4

Some further notes on our methods:

• We used the Fraps utility to record frame rates while playing either a 60- or 90-second sequence from the game. Although capturing frame rates while playing isn’t precisely repeatable, we tried to make each run as similar as possible to all of the others. We tested each Fraps sequence five times per video card in order to counteract any variability. We’ve included frame-by-frame results from Fraps for each game, and in those plots, you’re seeing the results from a single, representative pass through the test sequence.
• We measured total system power consumption at the wall socket using a Yokogawa WT210 digital power meter. The monitor was plugged into a separate outlet, so its power draw was not part of our measurement. The cards were plugged into a motherboard on an open test bench.

  The idle measurements were taken at the Windows desktop with the Aero theme enabled. The cards were tested under load running Skyrim at 2560×1440 with the Ultra quality presets, 4X MSAA, and FXAA enabled.

• We measured noise levels on our test system, sitting on an open test bench, using an Extech 407738 digital sound level meter. The meter was mounted on a tripod approximately 10″ from the test system at a height even with the top of the video card.

  You can think of these noise level measurements much like our system power consumption tests, because the entire systems’ noise levels were measured. Of course, noise levels will vary greatly in the real world along with the acoustic properties of the PC enclosure used, whether the enclosure provides adequate cooling to avoid a card’s highest fan speeds, placement of the enclosure in the room, and a whole range of other variables. These results should give a reasonably good picture of comparative fan noise, though.

• We used GPU-Z to log GPU temperatures during our load testing.

The tests and methods we employ are generally publicly available and reproducible. If you have questions about our methods, hit our forums to talk with us about them.

Battlefield 3

We tested Battlefield 3 with all of its DX11 goodness cranked up, including the “Ultra” quality settings with both 4X MSAA and the high-quality version of the post-process FXAA. Our test was conducted in the “Kaffarov” level, for 60 seconds starting at the first checkpoint.

Frame time in milliseconds	FPS rate
8. 3	120
16.7	60
20	50
25	40
33.3	30
50	20

We’ve gathered a tremendous amount of data during our testing. To make it more manageable, we’re trying these new switchable plots. You can click on the buttons to see the GTX 660 Ti compared to various types of cards.

These are plots of the time required to render every frame in a single, representative test run. Lower frame times are preferable, and in some cases, you can see the undesirable spikes representing long-latency frames quite clearly in the plots above—particularly on the older GeForce cards.

If you’re confused by our use of frame times, let me direct you to my article, Inside the second: A new look at game benchmarking, for an introduction to our latency-focused approach to graphics testing. Traditional frame rate averages don’t offer enough resolution to capture the occasional stops and stutters that happen when your PC is just a bit too slow to run a game smoothly. We’ve found that concentrating on frame latencies allows us to evaluate performance more accurately. For reference, the table on the right offers some translations from notable frame time thresholds to FPS rates.

We won’t leave out the FPS average, of course, since it’s very familiar.

However, switching to the 99th percentile frame time—probably our best single-number performance summary—illustrates just how poorly the older GeForce cards fare in this test scenario. The time required to render that last ~1% of frames on the GTX 560 Ti and GTX 470 is pretty unfortunate.

A look at the broader latency curve further illuminates the problem. Frame times on the older GeForces stay happily below 40 milliseconds most of the time, but roughly three percent of the frames involve a much longer wait, spiking to 60 milliseconds or more, where you’d really notice the slowdown.

We’ve seen this problem in certain levels of BF3 a number of times before on Fermi-class GeForces. Fortunately, the newer Kepler cards appear to have overcome it. In fact, Zotac’s GTX 660 Ti AMP! hangs with the boost-enhanced Radeon HD 7950.

Our final metric may be my favorite, because it’s about avoiding those long-latency frames that disrupt gameplay. The question is: how much time does each card spend working on really long-latency frames? To answer that, we add up all of the time the cards spend rendering beyond a per-frame threshold.

We start by setting that threshold at 50 ms, which corresponds to 20 FPS, because we think the illusion of motion begins to break down for most folks somewhere around that point. (Movies run at 24 FPS, for instance.) We can then ratchet the threshold down if we want to be even pickier about performance.

As you can see, the two older GeForces are the only cards that produce really worrisome slowdowns. In fact, even at the 33-ms threshold, all of the newer cards are golden. That means they all maintain a near-constant frame rate of 30 FPS. The 16.7-ms threshold is the toughest test—equivalent to 60 FPS—and there, the GTX 660 Ti cards outperform all of the Radeons we tested, though the PNY card’s margin of victory over the 7950 is slim.

Max Payne 3

Max Payne 3 is a new addition to our test suite, and we should note a couple of things about it. As you’ll notice in the settings image above, we tested with FXAA enabled and multisampling disabled. That’s not the most intensive possible setting for this game, and as you’ll soon see, Max 3 runs quite quickly on all of the cards we’ve tested. We wanted to test with MSAA, but it turns out multisampling simply doesn’t work well in this game. Quite a few edges are left jagged. Even the trick of combining MSAA with FXAA isn’t effective here. Enabling both disables FXAA, somehow. We couldn’t see the point of stressing the GPUs arbitrarily while lowering image quality, so we simply tested with the highest quality setting, which in this case was FXAA.

Also, please note that this test session wasn’t as exactly repeatable as most of our others. We had to shoot and dodge differently each time through, so there was some natural variation from one run to the next, although we kept to the same basic area and path.

Although Max Payne 3 is a very good looking game with huge textures and some nice tessellated objects, it runs quite well on a range of graphics cards with only FXAA-style antialiasing enabled. We cranked things up to Korean 27″ IPS monitor resolution, and performance remained strong even on the older GeForce cards. The FPS averages and 99th percentile frame time results come close to mirroring one another, which suggests we don’t have any major issues with slowdowns.

A look at the broader latency curve confirms it. Even the GTX 470 churns out every single frame in less than 30 ms.

As you might expect, then, there’s not much to see in our measure of “badness.” The 16.7-ms threshold results are somewhat helpful, though. They tell us that all of the new cards will maintain a near-constant 60 FPS.

DiRT Showdown

We’ve added the latest entry in the DiRT series to our test suite at the suggestion of AMD, who has been working with Codemasters for years on optimizations for Eyefinity and DirectX 11. Although Showdown is based on the same game engine as its predecessors, it adds an advanced lighting path that uses DirectCompute to allow fully dynamic lighting. In addition, the game has an optional global illumination feature that approximates the diffusion of light off of surfaces in the scene. We enabled the new lighting path, but global illumination is a little too intensive for at least some of these cards.

This is a fantastic game, by the way. My pulse was pounding at the end of each 90-second test run.

Uh oh. Just a look at the raw frame time plots bodes poorly for the GeForces, all of ’em.

The frequent spikes to ~40 milliseconds on the GeForce GPUs take their toll on the FPS average, but their impact is more readily apparent in the 99th percentile frame times, which are nearly double those of the Radeons.

Frame latencies are higher across the board on the GeForces versus the Radeons, but you can see how the “tail” spikes upward on the GeForce cards somewhere in the last 3-8% of frames. Those frames, we know from the plots, are distributed throughout each test run, not confined to a single spot on the track.

The results from our 50-ms threshold offer a bit of a corrective for us. Although the Radeons are clearly faster overall, even the older GeForces don’t waste much time on really long-latency frames. That jibes with my seat-of-the-pants impression that Showdown was quite playable on all of the cards, even if it wasn’t as smooth on the GeForces as on the Radeons.

The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim

Our test run for Skyrim was a lap around the town of Whiterun, starting up high at the castle entrance, descending down the stairs into the main part of town, and then doing a figure-eight around the main drag.

We set the game to its “Ultra” presets with 4X multisampled antialiasing. We then layered on FXAA post-process anti-aliasing, as well. We also had the high-res texture pack installed, of course.

Ok, two things to note in these results. First, although the legacy GeForce cards churn out FPS averages near the 60 FPS mark, they’re not actually great performers here, as their 99th percentile frame times and latency curves suggest. Some frames just take a while, especially on the GTX 560 Ti, which we suspect is bumping up against a memory size limitation. You can feel the slowdowns when playing.

Second, although the FPS averages suggest some separation between the slowest and fastest current-gen cards, the differences aren’t likely to matter, at least on a 60Hz display. The 99th percentile frame times for those cards are all within a millisecond of one another, and none of them spend much time working on frames longer than 16.7 milliseconds. For Skyrim at these settings, these cards are functionally equivalent.

Batman: Arkham City

We did a little Batman-style free running through the rooftops of Gotham for this one.

The plots show intermittent spikes for all of the cards, which is what we’ve come to expect from this test scenario. We cover a lot of ground in this test, and the game engine has to stream in detail for new areas as we go.

Unfortunately, those spikes are more frequent and severe on the Radeon HD 7870. Although it looks competitive with the GTX 660 Ti in terms of its FPS average, the 7870 drops into last place in our latency-focused 99th percentile frame time metric.

Crysis 2

Our cavalcade of punishing but pretty DirectX 11 games continues with Crysis 2, which we patched with both the DX11 and high-res texture updates.

Notice that we left object image quality at “extreme” rather than “ultra,” in order to avoid the insane over-tessellation of flat surfaces that somehow found its way into the DX11 patch. We tested 60 seconds of gameplay in the level pictured above, where we gunned down several bad guys, making our way across a skywalk to another rooftop.

Doh. The Radeons produce some pretty spiky plots, while the GeForces avoid that problem. The R7870, in particular, suffers here from occasional slowdowns.

Those slowdowns again are somewhat masked by the FPS average, but they act as a drag on the 99th percentile frame time, which allows the new GeForces to sneak into contention against the pricier Radeon HD 7950 cards.

Once more, we’re reminded not to make too much of the spikes we saw in the plots. The Radeon HD 7870 barely registers any time wasted beyond 50 milliseconds. It is slower than the GTX 660 Ti in a meaningful way here, but not disastrously so.

Power consumption

AMD’s ZeroCore power feature gives the Radeons an advantage when the display goes into power-save mode, as you can see. The Radeons drop into a low-power state, spin down their fans, and shave 15W or so off of total system power draw. Without this feature, the GeForces can’t match them.

When running a game—Skyrim, in this case—the GTX 660 Ti cards draw quite a bit less power than anything else in the field, including the competing Radeons. The Kepler architecture has proven to be very power efficient, and that goodness extends to its latest derivative.

Noise levels and GPU temperatures

With their fans spun down in ZeroCore mode, the Radeons approach our system and test environment’s noise floor. Then again, the Zotac GTX 660 Ti card is right there with them, though its fans are spinning.

To me, the biggest story of the results above is the effectiveness of MSI’s custom dual-fan coolers, which capture the top three spots for lowest noise levels under load. MSI’s GTX 660 Ti card is the quietest of the bunch, which makes sense given its more modest power draw; it has less heat to dissipate than the 7870 or 7950.

Beyond that, the Zotac GTX 660 Ti AMP! card deserves some praise for combining the lowest noise levels at idle with a mid-pack performance under load and a modest peak temperature of 67° C. I’d have preferred fan tuning that’s biased a little more toward quiet than cool, but that stubby little cooler does look to be pretty effective.

Meanwhile, PNY’s decision to use the stock Nvidia cooler looks unfortunate, since it combines high temperatures with relatively high noise levels, despite the GTX 660 Ti’s modest power draw (and thus modest heat generation). This cooler still isn’t terribly loud, like the reference 7950’s with boost is, but the custom coolers simply outperform it.

Conclusions

So, we’ve combed through a huge amount of info. What does it tell us? We can get a sense of things with one of our famous price-performance scatter plots.

Our overall performance numbers come from five of the six games we tested. (We’ve omitted DiRT Showdown because the vast gulf in brand-based performance there skews the results pretty wildly, even though we’re using a geometric mean. Clearly, that game is an outlier of sorts.) Our primary metric is the 99th percentile frame time, which we’ve converted into FPS for this plot, to make it easy to read. As usual, the better positions on this plot will be closer to the top left corner, where low prices meet high performance.

The two GTX 660 Ti cards we ran through our entire test suite are situated very nicely on our scatter plot, with performance to match the two Radeon HD 7950 cards but at lower prices. (Had we been able to run the MSI GTX 660 Ti Power Edition card through our suite, it likely would have placed right between the other two cards, also in a decent spot.) The Radeons are more competitively positioned in the scatter plot based on FPS averages, but we’ve seen why those numbers tend to be a less reliable gauge of gameplay quality. Since the GTX 660 Ti cards also drew substantially less power under load and had noise levels comparable to the best Radeons, we can probably count this one as a win for the GeForce camp.

MSI GTX 660 Ti Power Edition

Zotac GTX 660 Ti AMP! Edition

August 2012

To be specific, we’re bestowing Editor’s Choice distinction upon two of the GeForce GTX 660 Ti cards, the Zotac GTX 660 Ti AMP! Edition and the MSI GTX 660 Ti Power Edition. The PNY card with Nvidia’s reference cooler doesn’t make the cut. We’d happily pay $10 more for MSI’s superior twin-fan offering. The Zotac AMP! card’s solid cooler, squat profile, and 6.6 GT/s memory clock justify the $30 premium for it, as well, in our view. The Zotac card may be the most powerful video card by cubic volume anywhere, yet it’s a perfectly acceptable option to drop into a big tower case.

With that said, we can’t escape the creeping feeling that the performance differences here aren’t terribly meaningful. Most of these cards land within $50 of one another in price and within a few frames per second in overall performance. Even the Radeon HD 7870, which was the slowest of the current cards we tested, didn’t struggle much in our tests—and we were trying to stress these cards using the latest DirectX 11 games. Yes, we could have tested at somewhat more intensive graphical settings, but you would be hard-pressed to notice the visual differences versus the settings we chose. Half the time, we tested at the very high resolution of 2560×1440, too. At 1920×1080, the 7870 would barely have struggled at all.

This current state of GPU potency and parity is very good news indeed for the PC gamer. If you have a 1080p display, take your pick of any of these new cards and enjoy. They are all a worthy upgrade over older cards like the GeForce GTX 470. If you prefer to go the Radeon route, there are some advantages there, including the lower noise and power draw in power-save due to ZeroCore mode and the apparent superiority of the GCN architecture in GPU computing tasks.

If you are looking at a Radeon HD 7950, you may want to watch for an offering with the boost BIOS. We can see now why AMD chose to inject that product with a little more oomph. Without it, the 7950 wouldn’t keep pace with the lower-priced competition. Then again, MSI’s R7950 OC Edition already offers the same basic performance through a mildly tweaked static clock speed.

You can follow my madcap scatter-plotting exploits on Twitter.

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti review: GPU specs, performance benchmarks

Buy on Amazon

GeForce GTX 660 Ti videocard released by NVIDIA; release date: 16 August 2012. At the time of release, the videocard cost $299. The videocard is designed for desktop-computers and based on Kepler microarchitecture codenamed GK104.

Core clock speed — 915 MHz. Boost clock speed — 980 MHz. Texture fill rate — 102.5 billion / sec. Pipelines — 1344. Floating-point performance — 2,459.5 gflops. Manufacturing process technology — 28 nm. Transistors count — 3,540 million. Power consumption (TDP) — 150 Watt.

Memory type: GDDR5. Maximum RAM amount — 2 GB. Memory bus width — 192-bit GDDR5. Memory clock speed — 6.0 GB/s. Memory bandwidth — 144.2 GB / s. Shared memory — 0.

Benchmarks

PassMark G3D Mark	Top 1 GPU This GPU
PassMark G2D Mark	Top 1 GPU This GPU
Geekbench OpenCL	Top 1 GPU This GPU	237214
CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop Face Detection	Top 1 GPU This GPU	735.800 mPixels/s 36.256 mPixels/s
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop Ocean Surface Simulation	Top 1 GPU This GPU	7585.258 Frames/s 1029.267 Frames/s
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop T-Rex	Top 1 GPU This GPU	66. 951 Frames/s 3.001 Frames/s
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop Video Composition	Top 1 GPU This GPU	383.037 Frames/s 45.894 Frames/s
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop Bitcoin Mining	Top 1 GPU This GPU	2600.207 mHash/s 82. 191 mHash/s
GFXBench 4.0 Car Chase Offscreen	Top 1 GPU This GPU	34770 Frames 3285 Frames
GFXBench 4.0 Manhattan	Top 1 GPU This GPU	27823 Frames 3684 Frames
GFXBench 4. 0 T-Rex	Top 1 GPU This GPU	69225 Frames 3337 Frames
GFXBench 4.0 Car Chase Offscreen	Top 1 GPU This GPU	34770.000 Fps 3285.000 Fps
GFXBench 4.0 Manhattan	Top 1 GPU This GPU	27823. 000 Fps 3684.000 Fps
GFXBench 4.0 T-Rex	Top 1 GPU This GPU	69225.000 Fps 3337.000 Fps
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics Score	Top 1 GPU This GPU

Name	Value
PassMark — G3D Mark	4369
PassMark — G2D Mark	451
Geekbench — OpenCL	13082
CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Face Detection	36.256 mPixels/s
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation	1029.267 Frames/s
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex	3.001 Frames/s
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition	45.894 Frames/s
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining	82.191 mHash/s
GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen	3285 Frames
GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan	3684 Frames
GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex	3337 Frames
GFXBench 4. 0 — Car Chase Offscreen	3285.000 Fps
GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan	3684.000 Fps
GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex	3337.000 Fps
3DMark Fire Strike — Graphics Score	1634

Games performance

1. Counter-Strike: GO (2012)

2. Wolfenstein: The New Order (2014)

3. The Elder Scrolls Online (2014)

4. Thief (2014)

5. X-Plane 10.25 (2013)

6. Battlefield 4 (2013)

7. Total War: Rome II (2013)

8. Company of Heroes 2 (2013)

9. Metro: Last Light (2013)

10. BioShock Infinite (2013)

11. StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm (2013)

12. SimCity (2013)

13. Tomb Raider (2013)

14. Crysis 3 (2013)

15. Hitman: Absolution (2012)

16. Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 (2012)

17. World of Tanks v8 (2012)

18. Borderlands 2 (2012)

19. Dirt Showdown (2012)

20. Diablo III (2012)

21. Mass Effect 3 (2012)

22. The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim (2011)

23. Battlefield 3 (2011)

Counter-Strike: GO (2012)

Wolfenstein: The New Order (2014)

The Elder Scrolls Online (2014)

Thief (2014)

X-Plane 10.

25 (2013)

Battlefield 4 (2013)

Total War: Rome II (2013)

Company of Heroes 2 (2013)

Metro: Last Light (2013)

Low, 1024×768	122. 30
Medium, 1366×768	110.00
High, 1366×768	72.10
Ultra, 1920×1080	41.10

BioShock Infinite (2013)

StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm (2013)

SimCity (2013)

Tomb Raider (2013)

Low, 1024×768	304. 40
Medium, 1366×768	222.50
High, 1366×768	135.30
Ultra, 1920×1080	48.10

Crysis 3 (2013)

Hitman: Absolution (2012)

Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 (2012)

World of Tanks v8 (2012)

Low, 1024×768	113. 80
Medium, 1366×768	73.10
High, 1366×768	66.70
Ultra, 1920×1080	60.50

Borderlands 2 (2012)

Dirt Showdown (2012)

Diablo III (2012)

Mass Effect 3 (2012)

Low, 1280×720	60.00
High, 1366×768	59. 90
Ultra, 1920×1080	59.90

The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim (2011)

Battlefield 3 (2011)

Specifications (specs)

Architecture	Kepler
Code name	GK104
Launch date	16 August 2012
Launch price (MSRP)	$299
Place in performance rating	616
Price now	$321. 99
Type	Desktop
Value for money (0-100)	17.34
Boost clock speed	980 MHz
Core clock speed	915 MHz
CUDA cores	1344
Floating-point performance	2,459.5 gflops
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm
Pipelines	1344
Texture fill rate	102.5 billion / sec
Thermal Design Power (TDP)	150 Watt
Transistor count	3,540 million
Audio input for HDMI	Internal
Display Connectors	2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort, One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI. ..
G-SYNC support
HDCP
HDMI
Maximum VGA resolution	2048×1536
Multi monitor support
Bus support	PCI Express 3.0
Height	4.376″ (11.1 cm)
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	9.5″ (24.1 cm)
SLI options	3-way
Supplementary power connectors	Two 6-pin
DirectX	12. 0 (11_0)
OpenGL	4.3
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB
Memory bandwidth	144.2 GB / s
Memory bus width	192-bit GDDR5
Memory clock speed	6.0 GB/s
Memory type	GDDR5
Shared memory	0
3D Blu-Ray
3D Gaming
3D Vision
Adaptive VSync
CUDA
FXAA
GPU Boost
SLI
TXAA

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti Review

One of the most anticipated graphics card releases of the year, the GTX 660 Ti is NVIDIA’s first entry in the mid-range price bracket to feature their powerful Kepler architecture. The promise is a grand one; even early leaks of its specifications revealed it would be offering the very same core and memory clock speeds seen in the pricier GTX 670 model. The confirmed starting retail price of the card is set at £249 — though we’re already seeing drops lower in places. It’s a cut of roughly £40-£50, but at what cost to the card’s raw performance?

Looking at the specs, the only major change being made here is to the GTX 660 Ti’s memory interface, which is shortened from a 256-bit bus to just a 192-bit one for its reference release, which has the unfortunate consequence of taking out an entire ROP unit too. All other factors remain precisely the same; the 2GB of GDDR5 RAM is still clocked at a staggering 6008MHz, and the 915MHz core clock and [Corrected] 1344 CUDA cores are thankfully unaffected in the transition. During our Digital Foundry review of the GTX 670, we found that cut-backs from the GTX 680 were pretty conservative, and in terms of the gameplay experience, in many titles you’ll have trouble discerning any kind of difference between this and its more expensive sibling.

The impact the decrease in bandwidth is easily measurable by the card’s fill-rate — the number of pixels that the card can render per second. We test the difference on a factory overclocked GTX 660 Ti ‘Power Edition’ from MSI, where the resulting memory bandwidth is calculated at just 144.2GBps. Compared to the 192.0GBps throughput possible on a stock GTX 670, this limitation primarily effects users intending to use higher resolutions or multiple passes of multi-sample anti aliasing in their games.

There are some key differences to this version of the card and the standard model. For starters, the core clock is bumped up from 915MHz to 1020MHz, while the boost mode clock — should there be power to spare — is capable of hitting 1098MHz. This comes at a cost to its rated TDP, which is reduced to a respectable 150 watts for the generic model, whereas this particular card is rated at 190 watts — putting it in a similar ballpark to the older Fermi cards. This means that two 6-pin PCIe connectors are still necessary to drive the card properly. NVIDIA has given carte blanche to its partners to overclock the standard design, so expect to see plenty of overclocked variants. It’s worth noting that our card has no memory overclock — it may be worth your while looking out for a variant where this is taken care of for you as it should go some way in overcoming the bandwidth challenges imposed by the narrower 192-bit bus.

«The GTX 660 Ti is effectively identical to the monster GTX 670 with just two major differences — memory bus drops down to 192-bit from 256-bit, impacting bandwidth significantly, while a ROP unit has also been removed.»

Caption

Attribution

The build quality of our overclocked MSI unit feels very sturdy overall, and we notice no flex present while installing. The front plastic frame used to hold the cooling system can feel flimsy while handling some non-OEM cards, but this doesn’t prove to be a problem at all here; the frame is bolted tightly to the PCB itself by four screws. Contained within it is the Frozr IV cooling system, taking the form of two 8cm fans that connect with a large aluminium fin array. This stretches across almost the entirety of the card’s length, and at the bottom, we see four cooling pipes tucked around the front of its full PCIe 3.0 interface.

The thermal output is exceedingly low as a result. In fact, we don’t hear the fans kick into their highest RPM preset during even sustained benchmarking sessions, and our heat sensor reads no greater than 55 degrees Celsius at peak. It’s a markedly quieter card than the reference GTX 670 too, which continues to create a faint, high-pitched whirr the moment any kind of gameplay begins. Here, we see the card achieve superior clocks through the use of a higher quality cooling array, which happens to stay very close to silent.

Turning it to its end, we see a flexible range of ports to work with that are identical to its more prestigious siblings. On the top row we have a dual link DVI-D, while on the bottom we see a DVI-I, and also means for DisplayPort 2. 1 and HDMI connections. Just as with all entries in the GTX 6xx series, the card also runs up to four displays simultaneously, or three stereo 3D displays if you can afford all the necessary kit.

GTX 660 Ti: Performance Analysis

For our tests, we plant the GTX 660 Ti into our high-end PC. This setup features an Intel i5-2500k processor overclocked to 4.2GHz, coupled with 8GB of 1600MHz RAM, which should remove any potential bottlenecks getting in the way of accurate GPU results. For comparison, we also test another factory overclocked card: the HD 7850 ‘IceQ Turbo X’ from HIS, which at around £200, is a small step down the mid-range price bracket the GTX 660 Ti is shooting for.

For an extreme perspective on performance-per-pound, we include the the low-end HD 6870 card in our tests too, which currently retails around the £100 mark or thereabouts, offering a sublime sweetpoint in terms of price vs. performance.

For Metro 2033 and Batman Arkham City, we run their respective in-game benchmark tools at a resolution of 1920×1080, with very high graphical settings, and DirectX 11 features such as tessellation enabled. To keep the tests consistent across both NVIDIA and AMD brands, we uncheck the PhysX boxes, and add the maximum level of multi-sample anti aliasing possible in either case — 4x for Metro 2033, and 8x for Arkham City. Naturally, we disengage v-sync to make sure there’s no ceiling for the frame-rate, should it rise above the 60Hz refresh of our display.

«Our benchmarking table illustrates nicely the difference in performance you can expect from what we would consider as the best £100, £200 and £250 graphics cards.»

It turns out that neither of these games can quite surpass 60FPS on average, but the 660 Ti does hit this number right on the nose. This is an impressive turnaround given the fears we had over the restricted memory bus, bearing in mind that high levels of MSAA could saturate the bandwidth available. Here we see a lead of approximately 20 per cent for demanding Unreal Engine 3 games like Arkham City, although the lead isn’t nearly as pronounced for the Metro test, where it’s barely 2FPS ahead.

In the case of 4A Studios’ game, the sheer number of concurrent light sources, animated enemies and fire effects simply brings most cards to their knees — particularly for the opening third of the fly-through. NVIDIA’s latest card does near close enough to the 30FPS mark on average to make this perceptibly smooth, but the fluctuations when the cannisters explode would make actual gameplay experience untenable.

To round out the benchmarks, we use the 3DMark 11 toolset which has become synonymous with gauging the proficiency of DirectX 11 compatible cards. Here we run through a gamut of synthetic tests which push hard on tessellation and physics-based tasks, and we see a very wide gap begin to form between the three cards. On the Extreme preset running at full 1920×1080 resolution, we find the overclocked GTX 660 Ti delivers over twice the overall score achieved on the HD 6870. The HD 7850 fares a little better by comparison, but the gap still remains substantial between the two, and certainly more so than the preceding gameplay tests.

Gameplay Analysis: Video Benchmarks

For the next round of tests, we pit these cards against each other in matching gameplay scenarios. As always, we pick the more demanding DirectX 11 titles such as Battlefield 3 and Crysis 2 to get an idea of how they cope with the API’s latest tricks, while a test of The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim gives us an overview of how these cards cope with large sandbox-style games.

We’re firm believers in image consistency during gameplay, so v-sync is engaged, eliminating tearing. This can affect performance in different ways — frame-rate is capped at 60FPS, while challenging areas can see a performance hit as «over budget» frames need to wait until the next screen refresh in order to be displayed. However, in our book, screen-tear on an enthusiast level PC shouldn’t be tolerated unless you’re a pro-gamer looking for the absolute minimum in terms of input lag.

«With only minor tweaks to Battlefield’s quality settings, the GTX 660 Ti can achieve a sustained, perceptual 60FPS performance level at ultra — impressive stuff for a £250 graphics card.»

Playing Battlefield 3 completely maxed out on the GTX 660 Ti is too much of an ask, but if you’re willing to drop MSAA and rely purely on FXAA, 60FPS becomes a far easier target to hit.

• Alternative Analysis: Battlefield 3 GTX 660 Ti vs. HD 6870

First up, we run Battlefield 3 at ultra settings across the board, and with a resolution of 1920×1080 to tax the fillrate on the GTX 660 Ti. This includes the higher 4x MSAA settings in conjunction with high quality FXAA, with the former being the biggest culprit for performance drops out of all the variables available. We follow our standard loop around the Operation Swordbreaker level, where the skirmishes around derelict car parks and war-torn highways pose a bigger challenge to sustaining 60FPS than any other campaign stage.

True enough, the frame-rate sticks like glue to the 50FPS line on the GTX 660 Ti for much of the way through the initial market section, which is an impressive feat considering it’s completely maxed out, though not ideal for players demanding the very best levels of response. The same bar for performance holds true during the two major outdoor battles, though instances where lines of vehicles explode can tug this straight down to the 30FPS line. This is still put in very positive light when compared to the overclocked HD 7850, which can barely stay afloat of the 40FPS mark during matching sections. Alas, the HD 6870 isn’t suited to these settings at all, preferring to lock itself to 30FPS during battle, and lower during these moments of high demand.

Moving on to Crytek’s flagship shooter, we find the introductory sequence in the submarine to be the heaviest hitter due to the excess of water and particle effects. As before, all settings are maxed out at extreme with the resolution set to 1080p.

«Crytek’s ultra quality settings prove too much for all of the GPUs we tested here, with none of them able to sustain 1080p60 — though overall the GTX 660 Ti proves to be good value for its £50 premium.»

Due to the limited 192-bit memory bus on the GTX 660 Ti, playability in Crysis 2 suffers with the addition of maximum quality post processing.

• Alternative Analysis: Crysis 2 GTX 660 Ti vs. HD 6870

Performance isn’t quite optimal for either the GTX 660 Ti or HD 7850 here — though funnily enough we do see long flourishes of 60FPS playback for the former during the battle sequence. This may owe itself to the New York skyscrapers acting as occluders, limiting the overall field of view during this enclosed area. For the rest of play, such as the long view over the harbours from above, we’re seeing fluctuations between 40 and 50FPS on these cards — though always in favour of NVIDIA’s offering.

Much of this will have to do, once again, with the combination of anti-aliasing and this higher resolution. The demands put on the card’s fill-rate are having a direct impact on performance, and dropping this setting immediately improves this juddering state of affairs. The HD 6870 suffers at these higher settings once again however, only this time it dips below our performance grid into sub-20FPS territory during cut-scenes, for example, during the bridge collapse section.

All three cards fare much better in The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, where, despite having all settings maxed out on ultra, the use of native DirectX 9 alleviates some of the demands imposed by the previous two games. It’s here that we find the GTX 660 Ti comes into its own with an impeccable 60FPS performance, while the HD 7850 achieves similar results for much of the downhill trail, only with occasional dips to 55FPS. The irregularity of these dips means it amounts to a perceptual 60FPS, which is a great achievement for the card considering it’s powered by a single 6-pin PCIe cable, and runs with a TDP of 150w.

«In our test, Skyrim manages to stay locked at 60 frames per second from start to finish on the new graphics card, even in the NPC intensive areas.»

We’re hard pressed to spot any hiccups in performance when Skyrim is maxed out on our factory overclocked GTX 660 Ti. This faultless performance isn’t attainable on the rival cards, where dropping to high settings is the only way for the HD 7850 to achieve the same consistency in frame-rate.

• Alternative Analysis: Skyrim GTX 660 Ti vs. HD 6870

The downward route to Helgen village doesn’t play out quite so handsomely for our HD 6870, which suffers for too often lurking in the 40FPS mire — but once it’s gone beyond this section it enjoys a clear stretch at the maximum potential frame-rate. This represents one of the most challenging sequences of play in the game, due to the uncommon number of NPCs condensed on-screen at once. For this card, the rest of the Skyrim is entirely playable at these settings at above 30FPS, but it doesn’t offer the sheer consistency of performance possible with the GTX 660 Ti.

Overall what we find when comparing our three test GPUs is best-in-class performance at each of their respective price-points. The GTX 660 Ti at around £240-£250 is clearly gunning for the Radeon HD 7870, where we would expect to see a much more interesting battle with NVIDIA’s new entrant.

Gameplays Analysis: The Best of the Rest

To get a broader impression of how each of these cards perform, we put aside the «big three» and take a cursory look at some other less demanding classics on the platform. Many of these easily fire through the 60FPS ceiling, so for these tests we choose to disengage v-sync to show the full extent of their capabilities. Besides this, all games are running at maximum settings at 1920×1080, with every graphical feature checked besides PhysX. If there’s an option for MSAA, we also choose 2x in every case as this is usually sufficient for removing edge artifacting at this higher resolution.

To kick off, we take a loop around the Cold Boot chapter of Portal 2 which has us puzzling though a sequence of mid-game areas, and which do little to tax the GTX 660 Ti. Even at these settings, we’re seeing an average frame-rate which doubles the requirement for most 3D displays — 259FPS is an embarrassment of riches for anyone looking for the smoothest response from their mouse.

It’s a similar tale of excess for the likes of Diablo 3 and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, which will no doubt both satisfy owners of 120Hz LCDs at these higher settings. The shadow settings in Diablo 3 are set to high, and smoothing is crucially enabled too — though removing this bumps for the frame-rate up by a further 40FPS at the cost of some very slight pixellation to these elements. In any case, the lead is considerable for the GTX 660 Ti, with over 50 per cent gains in performance over the HD 7850 — not bad for an extra £50. However, neither of the weaker cards fail in their plight to achieve 60FPS during our run-through of Old Tristram to the first waypoint.

«The gameplay matrix suggests a law of diminishing returns on less demanding games and with most displays maxing out at 60Hz, 1080p60 is a viable target even for today’s ‘entry-level’ enthusiast graphics hardware. «

DiRT 3 is another sterling performer at ultra settings, during which we drive a Cross Rally lap with seven other AI cars to the tune of 74FPS on the HD 6870, and 122FPS on GTX 660. The frame-rate improves gradually as we overtake more cars to take pole position, but the average is more than palatable from the starting line, for those keen to v-sync to a 60Hz monitor. Rage also hits this level of performance, though this isn’t necessarily a ground-breaking achievement given how thoroughly id Software has optimised the game since launch. Unfortunately, we can’t break free from the shackles of its 60FPS lock, even with v-sync disabled, to show the extent of any one card’s lead over another.

Moving over into RTS territory, we find StarCraft 2 to be stutter-free on NVIDIA’s latest card, even with shader and lighting settings at ultra. This is enough to service a 60FPS game while v-synced, but the HD 6870 and HD 7850 suffer from micro-stutters when new structures, such a pylons, are planted in quick succession. This ruins the flow of play in our 4v4 replay game on Kula’s Ravine — to such a degree that it makes the controls less dependable during any climatic stand-offs. Lowering these settings to the next rung down becomes a necessity for competitive play.

The only game which doesn’t quite make it onto the 60FPS boat when using the GTX 660 Ti is Saint’s Row: The Third. This is yet another title that takes advantage of DirectX 11’s feature-set, where playing through the introductory bank heist level leaves us an average of 5FPS shy of our target. The other cards struggle to greater lengths, inevitably, but frame-rates improve from running with DX9 quality lighting and shadows.

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti: The Digital Foundry Verdict

«The GTX 660 Ti is an excellent GPU with strong performance, but this time around, it’s not quite the breakthrough product we were hoping for.»

It’s clear that the GeForce GTX 660 Ti is a highly capable entry in the Kepler line-up, even taking into account the nips and tucks its specifications have taken compared to its elder siblings. Evidently, having both the memory bandwidth and ROPs massaged down to permit a lower price has done little harm to its ability to run games like Battlefield 3 and Crysis 2 at 1080p60. Bargaining for uniformly maxed out graphical settings may be off the cards here, as we’ve seen, but gameplay can be quickly put to rights again with a few light tweaks to the visual settings.

On paper, the Power Edition designed by MSI offers a sensibly weighted balance between the card’s heat and decibel output, and the nature of its factory overclock which elevates the boosted core frequency to almost that of the GTX 680’s 1110MHz. Given that the card is priced at £249 — similar to many of the conventional versions available — the value proposition begins to skew in its favour when considering performance-per-pound. Up against the enthusiasts’ sub-£200 favourite, the Radeon HD 7850, it’s clear that there’s a considerable amount of extra performance that does warrant the premium — though reports like Anandtech’s suggest that at this price-point, both AMD and NVIDIA cards have their charms.

In review, the performance of the GTX 660 Ti — cutbacks and all — does feel proportionate to the announced £250 price point. Our only concern is that prices are beginning to creep down on the GTX 670, to the point where certain models are available at £280. Commited PC enthusiasts may prefer to lay out the extra cash to get the full-fat ROP count and uncompromised memory bus, or else wait for pricing on the GTX 660 Ti to open up a wider gap to the higher-end model.

nVidia’s GeForce GTX 660 Ti: An Affordable Gaming Video Card | GamersNexus

Kepler’s initial GTX 670 and GTX 680 may have been prohibitively expensive for some gamers, but the GTX 660 Ti is now here, and we’ve got the specs comparison of the GTX 660 Ti, GTX 670, and GTX 680.

The 660 Ti is nVidia’s new mid-range GPU, planned to ship at $300, and nVidia has a lot to live up to — the company said at its announcement that the GTX 660 Ti is the «best card per watt ever made,» and at 150W, the 28nm CUDA microarchitecture with similar core structure to the GTX 670 may mean that’s true.

nVidia GeForce GTX 660 Ti Specs

Let’s hit the hard specs of this new graphics competitor:

CUDA Cores	1344
Base Clock	915 MHz
Boost Clock	980 MHz
Memory Config	2GB / 192b GDDR5
Memory Speed	6. 0 Gbps
Power Connectors	2×6-pin
TDP	150W
Outputs	2x DL-DVI HDMI Displayport 1.2
Bus Interface	PCI-e 3.0

Nvidia stresses a marketing focus on taking advantage of Dx 11’s capabilities, including Dx 11 tessellation and the use of TXAA (see the slides below). Other Kepler cards are also capable of these advancements, of course, but the 660 Ti is one of the first cards to offer the level of performance it boasts at a $300 price.

Take these relative performance charts with a grain of salt as they were created by nVidia and are, no doubt, tested with some bias, but they still give a good foundation for the 660 Ti.

nVidia Testing Settings

All of nVidia’s tests were run with the following hardware:

• Motherboard: Rampage IV Extreme (x79)
• CPU: 3960X-3. 3GHz
• RAM: 8GB Corsair DDR3
• SBIOS: 0803
• GeForce Driver: 304.73
• Radeon Driver: Catalyst 12.7 Beta

The game settings for the games listed are as follows:

nVidia GTX 660 Ti vs. GTX 470 (Kepler vs. Fermi)

This chart features an older card in the Fermi line — the GTX 470, which is still being used by upwards of 4.92% of gamers on Steam, according to the hardware survey, making it the second most utilized Dx11 GPU.

[GTX 660 FERMI]

nVidia GTX 660 Ti vs. AMD Radeon HD 7870

The 560 Ti held a small performance advantage over the 6870, in some instances, so if the last generation is any precursor to now, the results aren’t too surprising. At best, the GTX 660 Ti performed nearly 1.4x better (in FPS) than the 7870 in The Secret World; approximately 1.2x better in Battlefield 3 and Crysis 2.

The boost isn’t necessarily large, but going forward it may be relevant — a difference between 20 FPS and 30 FPS can be the difference between playability and decrease graphics.

Nvidia’s chart shows the GTX 660 Ti’s relative performance in Just Cause 2, Crysis 2, Batman: AC, Lost Planet 2, Battlefield 3, TSW, Max Payne 3, StarCraft 2, Skyrim, Dragon Age 2, and Deus Ex.

nVidia GTX 660 Ti vs. AMD Radeon HD 7950

Using the same games as listed above, nVidia ran a similar test between their 660 Ti and the HD 7950. Again, keep marketing bias in mind when reviewing this information.

nVidia GTX 660 Ti Power Efficiency — FPS-per-Watt

To flex their wattage efficiency muscles a bit, nVidia also released this graph — for reference, the HD 7950 operates at around 200W; the 660 Ti is marketed at 150W.

Spec Comparison — GTX 660 Ti, GTX 670, GTX 680

 

Specifications	EVGA GTX 660 Ti 2GB	GTX 670 2GB	GTX 680 2GB
Graphics Cores	1344	1344	1536
Texture Units	112	112	128
ROPs	24	32	32
Base Clock Frequency	980	915 MHz	1006 MHz
Boost Clock Frequency	1059	980 MHz	1058 MHz
Memory (Frequency)	2GB (1,502MHz)	2GB GDDR5 (1,502 MHz)	2GB GDDR5 (1,502 MHz)
Memory Interface	192-bi	256-bit	256-bit
Transistor Count	3. 5 billion	3.5 billion	3.5 billion
Display Connectors	2 x Dual Link DVI, 2 x HDMI 1.4a (Fast), 2 x DisplayPort 1.2	2 x Dual Link DVI, 2 x HDMI 1.4a (Fast), 2 x DisplayPort 1.2	2 x Dual Link DVI, 2 x HDMI 1.4a (Fast), 2 x DisplayPort 1.2
Power Connectors	2 x 6-pin PCIe	2 x 6-pin PCIe	2 x 6-pin PCIe
Thermal Design Power (TDP)	150W	170W	195W

GTX 660 Ti Benchmark — Metro 2033

While we haven’t had a chance to benchmark the new addition to the Kepler family, the team over at TechPowerUp have. Here’s what their real-world bench in Metro 2033 found:

Our thoughts on all this? It’s certainly shaping up to be a great card for the gap — we’ve been waiting for that $300 price range to be filled with a powerful current-gen card for a while now, so hopefully this is it.

Have questions about the GTX 660 Ti? Post them below and we’ll make sure they’re answered.

GeForce GTX 660 Ti [in 12 benchmarks]

NVIDIA
GeForce GTX 660 Ti

• PCIe 3.0 x16 interface
• Core frequency 915
• Video memory size 2048 MB
• Memory type GDDR5
• Memory frequency 6.0 Gbps
• Maximum resolution

Description

NVIDIA started GeForce GTX 660 Ti sales on August 16, 2012 at a recommended price of 299$. This is a desktop video card based on the Kepler architecture and 28 nm manufacturing process, primarily aimed at gamers. It has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory at 6.0 Gb/s, and coupled with a 192-bit GDDR5 interface, this creates a bandwidth of 144. 2 Gb/s.

In terms of compatibility, this is a dual-slot PCIe 3.0 x16 card. The length of the reference version is 24.1 cm. An additional 2x 6-pin power cable is required for connection, and the power consumption is 150 watts.

It provides poor performance in tests and games at the level of

14.83%

from the leader, which is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 Ti.

GeForce GTX
660 Ti

or

GeForce RTX
3090 Ti

General information 9999 (A100 SXM4)

Value for money

To obtain an index, we compare the characteristics of video cards and their cost, taking into account the cost of other cards.

• 0
• 50
• 100

Features

GeForce GTX 660 Ti’s general performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core clock, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. They indirectly speak about GeForce GTX 660 Ti’s performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider its benchmark and gaming test results. 2x 6-pin Support SLI +

RAM

Parameters of memory installed on GeForce GTX 660 Ti — type, size, bus, frequency and bandwidth. For video cards built into the processor that do not have their own memory, a shared part of the RAM is used.

9000

Types and number of video connectors present on GeForce GTX 660 Ti. As a rule, this section is relevant only for desktop reference video cards, since for laptop ones the availability of certain video outputs depends on the laptop model.

Memory type	144.2 GB/s	of 14400 (Radeon R7 M260)
Demeded memory	—

Audio input for HDMI	internal

Technology solutions and APIs supported by GeForce GTX 660 Ti are listed here. You will need this information if your graphics card is required to support specific technologies.

3D Blu-Ray	+
3D Gaming	+
3D Vision	+

Support API

APIs supported by GeForce GTX 660 Ti, including their versions.

SHEDER MODERAL 9005E0005

---

Overall benchmark performance

This is our overall performance rating. We regularly improve our algorithms, but if you find any inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in the comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GTX 660 Ti
14.83

• Passmark
• 3DMark 11 Performance GPU
• 3DMark Vantage Performance
• 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
• 3DMark Fire Strike Score
• 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
• GeekBench 5 OpenCL
• GeekBench 5 Vulcan
• GeekBench 5 CUDA
• Unigine Heaven 3.0
• Octane Render OctaneBench
• Unigine Heaven 4.0

Passmark

This is a very common benchmark included in the Passmark PerformanceTest package. He gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation, running four separate tests for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11, and 12 (the latter being done at 4K resolution whenever possible), and a few more tests using DirectCompute.

Benchmark coverage: 26%

GTX 660 Ti
4369

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is Futuremark’s legacy DirectX 11 benchmark. He used four tests based on two scenes: one is several submarines exploring a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All tests make extensive use of volumetric lighting and tessellation and, despite being run at 1280×720, are relatively heavy. Support for 3DMark 11 ended in January 2020 and is now being replaced by Time Spy.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

GTX 660 Ti
8415

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark. It loads the graphics card with two scenes, one of which is a girl running away from some kind of military base located in a sea cave, and the other is a space fleet attacking defenseless planet. Support for 3DMark Vantage was discontinued in April 2017 and it is now recommended to use the Time Spy benchmark instead.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

GTX 660 Ti
23726

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is a legacy benchmark that uses DirectX 11 feature level 10, used to test home PCs and low-end laptops. It displays several scenes of some strange teleportation device launching spaceships into the unknown at a fixed resolution of 1280×720. As with the Ice Storm benchmark, it was deprecated in January 2020 and 3DMark Night Raid is now recommended instead.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

GTX 660 Ti
37758

3DMark Fire Strike Score

Benchmark coverage: 14%

GTX 660 Ti
4734

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests showing a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature that appears to be made of lava. Using resolution 1920×1080, Fire Strike shows quite realistic graphics and is quite demanding on hardware.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

GTX 660 Ti
5432

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widely used benchmark for graphics cards that combines 11 different test scenarios. All of these scenarios are based on the direct use of the processing power of the GPU, without the use of 3D rendering. This option uses the Khronos Group’s OpenCL API.

Benchmark coverage: 9%

GTX 660 Ti
13082

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

Geekbench 5 is a widely used benchmark for graphics cards that combines 11 different test scenarios. All of these scenarios are based on the direct use of the processing power of the GPU, without the use of 3D rendering. This option uses the Vulkan API from AMD and the Khronos Group.

Benchmark coverage: 5%

GTX 660 Ti
14179

GeekBench 5 CUDA

Geekbench 5 is a widely used benchmark for graphics cards that combines 11 different test scenarios. All of these scenarios are based on the direct use of the processing power of the GPU, without the use of 3D rendering. This option uses NVIDIA’s CUDA API.

Benchmark coverage: 5%

GTX 660 Ti
11274

Unigine Heaven 3.

0

This is an old DirectX 11 based benchmark using the Unigine 3D game engine from the Russian company of the same name. It depicts a medieval fantasy city spread over several floating islands. Version 3.0 was released in 2012 and was replaced by Heaven 4.0 in 2013, which introduced several minor improvements, including a newer version of the Unigine engine.

Benchmark coverage: 5%

GTX 660 Ti
79

Octane Render OctaneBench

This is a dedicated benchmark for measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine created by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program or as a plug-in for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other applications. It renders four different static scenes and then compares the render times to the reference card, which is the GeForce GTX 9 at the moment.80. This benchmark does not measure gaming performance and is intended for professional 3D artists.

Benchmark coverage: 4%

GTX 660 Ti
43

Unigine Heaven 4.0

This is an old DirectX 11 based benchmark, a newer version of Unigine 3.0 with relatively minor differences. It depicts a medieval fantasy city spread over several floating islands. The benchmark is still occasionally used despite its significant age, and it was released back in 2013.

Benchmark coverage: 1%

GTX 660 Ti
774

---

Mining hashrates

GeForce GTX 660 Ti performance in cryptocurrency mining. Usually the result is measured in mhash / s — the number of millions of solutions generated by the video card in one second.

DirectX	12 (11_0)
9004 5.1

Bitcoin / BTC (SHA256)

99 Mh/s

Game tests

FPS in popular games on the GeForce GTX 660 Ti, as well as compliance with system requirements. Remember that the official requirements of the developers do not always match the data of real tests.

Average FPS

Here are the average FPS values ​​for a large selection of popular games at various resolutions:

Full HD0672 Popular games Full HD Low Preset Full HD Medium Preset Full HD High Preset Full HD Ultra Preset 1440p High Preset 1440p Ultra Preset 4K High Preset 4K Ultra Preset Cyberpunk 2077 14-16 Assassin’s Creed Odyssey 14-16 Assassin’s Creed Valhalla 14-16 Battlefield 5 14-16 Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14-16 Cyberpunk 2077 14-16 Far Cry 5 14-16 Far Cry New Dawn 14-16 Forza Horizon 4 14-16 Hitman 3 14-16 Horizon Zero Dawn 14-16 Red Dead Redemption 2 14-16 Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14-16 Watch Dogs: Legion 14-16 Assassin’s Creed Odyssey 14-16 Assassin’s Creed Valhalla 14-16 Battlefield 5 14-16 Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14-16 Cyberpunk 2077 14-16 Far Cry 5 14-16 Far Cry New Dawn 14-16 Forza Horizon 4 14-16 Hitman 3 14-16 Horizon Zero Dawn 14-16 Metro Exodus 14-16 Red Dead Redemption 2 14-16 Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14-16 The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14-16 Watch Dogs: Legion 14-16 Assassin’s Creed Odyssey 14-16 Assassin’s Creed Valhalla 14-16 Battlefield 5 14-16 Cyberpunk 2077 14-16 Far Cry 5 14-16 Far Cry New Dawn 14-16 Forza Horizon 4 14-16 The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14-16 Watch Dogs: Legion 14-16 Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14-16 Hitman 3 14-16 Horizon Zero Dawn 14-16 Metro Exodus 14-16 Red Dead Redemption 2 14-16 Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14-16 Assassin’s Creed Odyssey 14-16 Assassin’s Creed Valhalla 14-16 Battlefield 5 14-16 Cyberpunk 2077 14-16 Far Cry 5 14-16 Far Cry New Dawn 14-16 Forza Horizon 4 14-16 Watch Dogs: Legion 14-16 Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14-16 Hitman 3 14-16 Horizon Zero Dawn 14-16 Metro Exodus 14-16 Red Dead Redemption 2 14-16 Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14-16 The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14-16 Assassin’s Creed Odyssey 14-16 Assassin’s Creed Valhalla 14-16 Battlefield 5 14-16 Cyberpunk 2077 14-16 Far Cry 5 14-16 Far Cry New Dawn 14-16 Forza Horizon 4 14-16 Watch Dogs: Legion 14-16 Relative performance Overall performance of the GeForce GTX 660 Ti compared to its closest competitors in desktop graphics cards. AMD Radeon R7 370 102.9 AMD Radeon HD 7870XT 102.29 NVIDIA P104-100 101.82 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti 100 AMD Radeon R9 270 98.58 AMD Radeon RX 460 94.34 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 94.07 AMD competitor We believe that the nearest equivalent to GeForce GTX 660 Ti from AMD is Radeon R9 270, which is slower by 1% on average and lower by 6 positions in our rating. Radeon R9 270 Compare Here are some of AMD’s closest competitors to the GeForce GTX 660 Ti: AMD Radeon HD 7870 106.81 AMD Radeon R7 370 102. 9 AMD Radeon HD 7870XT 102.29 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti 100 AMD Radeon R9 270 98.58 AMD Radeon RX 460 94.34 AMD Radeon HD 7850 87.66 Other video cards Here we recommend several video cards that are more or less similar in performance to the reviewed one. Radeon R7 370 Compare GeForce GTX 580 Compare GeForce GTX 480 Compare Radeon HD 7870 Compare GeForce GTX 760 Compare GeForce GTX 750 Ti Compare Recommended Processors According to our statistics, these processors are most often used with the GeForce GTX 660 Ti. Core i5 3470 4.5% Core i7 3770 3% Core i5 3570 2.4% Core i5 2400 2.4% FX 6300 2.2% Core i5 3570K 1.8% Core i3 3220 1.4% Core i5 3330 1.3% Core i3 10100F 1.3% Core i7 3770K 1. 2% User rating Here you can see the rating of the video card by users, as well as put your own rating. Tips and comments Here you can ask a question about the GeForce GTX 660 Ti, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch. Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti Review. Benchmarks and features The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti graphics card (GPU) is position 220 in our performance ranking. Manufacturer: NVIDIA. Runs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti with a minimum clock speed of 915 MHz. The graphics chip is equipped with an acceleration system and can operate in turbo mode or when overclocked at a frequency of 980 MHz. The RAM size is 2 GB GB with a clock speed of 6.0 GB/s and a bandwidth of 144.2 GB/s. The power consumption of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti is 150 Watt and the process technology is only 28 nm. Below you will find key compatibility, sizing, technology, and gaming performance test results. You can also leave comments if you have any questions. Let’s take a closer look at the most important features of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti. To have an idea of ​​which video card is better, we recommend using the comparison service. 4.1 From 93 Hitesti Grade Popular video cards Most viewed AMD Radeon RX Vega 7 Intel UHD Graphics 630 Intel UHD Graphics 600 NVIDIA Quadro T1000 AMD Radeon RX Vega 10 NVIDIA GeForce MX330 Intel HD Graphics 530 Intel UHD Graphics 620 Intel HD Graphics 4600 Intel HD Graphics 520 Buy here: AliExpress General information The base set of information will help you find out the release date of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti graphics card and its purpose (laptops or PCs), as well as the price at the time of release and the average current cost. This data also includes the architecture used by the manufacturer and the video processor code name. Performance Rating Position: 280 Value for money: 10.96 Architecture: Kepler Code name: GK104 Type: Desktop Release date: 16 August 2012 (9 years ago) Starting price: $299 Current price: $198 (0.7x MSRP) Value for money: 8.66 GPU Code Name: GK104 Market segment: Desktop Specifications This is important information that determines all the performance characteristics of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti graphics card. The smaller the technological process of manufacturing a chip, the better (in modern realities). The clock frequency of the core is responsible for its speed (direct correlation), while signal processing is carried out by transistors (the more transistors, the faster the calculations are performed, for example, in cryptocurrency mining). Conveyors: 1344 Core Clock: 915 MHz Acceleration: 980MHz Number of transistors: 3,540 million Process: 28nm Power consumption (TDP): 150 Watt Number of texels processed in 1 second: 102.5 billion/sec Floating point: 2,459. 5 gflops CUDA Cores: 1344 Pipelines / CUDA cores: 1344 Acceleration speed: 980MHz Number of transistors: 3,540 million Estimated heat output: 150 Watt Dimensions, connectors and compatibility There are many form factors of PC cases and laptop sizes today, so it is extremely important to know the length of the video card and its connection types (except for laptop versions). This will help make the upgrade process easier, as Not all cases can accommodate modern video cards. Interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 Length: 9.5″ (24.1cm) Additional power: Two 6-pin SLI options: + Tire support: PCI Express 3. 0 Height: 4.376″ (11.1 cm) Memory (frequency and overclocking) The internal memory is used to store data when performing calculations. Modern games and professional graphics applications place high demands on the amount and speed of memory. The higher this parameter, the more powerful and faster the video card. Memory type, size and bandwidth for NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti + overclocking capability in turbo mode. Memory type: GDDR5 Maximum RAM amount: 2GB Memory bus width: 192-bit GDDR5 Memory frequency: 6.0 GB/s Memory bandwidth: 144.2 GB/s Shared memory: — Port and display support As a rule, all modern video cards have several types of connections and additional ports, for example HDMI and DVI . Knowing these features is very important in order to avoid problems connecting a video card to a monitor or other peripherals. Display connections: One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI, One DisplayPort G-SYNC support: + Multi monitor support: 4 displays HDCP: + Maximum VGA resolution: 2048×1536 Audio input for HDMI: Internal HDMI: + Technologies Each graphics card manufacturer complements its products with proprietary technologies that are used both in games and in the workflow. Below is a list of features that will be useful to you. 3D Vision: + GPU Boost: + CUDA: + 3D Gaming: + FXAA: + TXAA: + Adaptive VSync: + 3D Blu-ray: + API Support All NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti supported APIs are listed below. This is a minor factor that does not greatly affect the overall performance. DirectX: 12 (11_0) OpenGL: 4.3 Vulkan: 1.1.126 Shader Model: 5.1 OpenCL: 1.2 General gaming performance All tests are based on FPS. Let’s take a look at where the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti ranks in the gaming performance test (the calculation was made in accordance with the recommendations of the game developer for system requirements; it may differ from real situations). Select games Horizon Zero DawnDeath StrandingF1 2020Gears TacticsDoom EternalHunt ShowdownEscape from TarkovHearthstoneRed Dead Redemption 2Star Wars Jedi Fallen OrderNeed for Speed ​​HeatCall of Duty Modern Warfare 2019GRID 2019Ghost Recon BreakpointFIFA 20Borderlands 3ControlF1 2019League of LegendsTotal War: Three KingdomsRage 2Anno 1800The Division 2Dirt Rally 2. 0AnthemMetro ExodusFar Cry New DawnApex LegendsJust Cause 4Darksiders IIIFarming Simulator 19Battlefield VFallout 76Hitman 2Call of Duty Black Ops 4Assassin´s Creed OdysseyForza Horizon 4FIFA 19Shadow of the Tomb RaiderStrange BrigadeF1 2018Monster Hunter WorldThe Crew 2Far Cry 5World of Tanks enCoreX-Plane 11.11Kingdom Come: DeliveranceFinal Fantasy XV BenchmarkFortniteStar Wars Battlefront 2Need for Speed ​​PaybackCall of Duty WWIIAssassin´s Creed OriginsWolfenstein II: The New ColossusDestiny 2ELEXThe Evil Survival 2Middle-earth:8 Shadow of WarFIFA EvolvedF1 2017Playerunknown’s Battlegrounds (2017)Team Fortress 2Dirt 4Rocket LeaguePreyMass Effect AndromedaGhost Recon WildlandsFor HonorResident Evil 7Dishonored 2Call of Duty Infinite WarfareTitanfall 2Farming Simulator 17Civilization VIBattlefield 1Mafia 3Deus Ex Mankind Divid edMirror’s Edge CatalystOverwatchDoomAshes of the SingularityHitman 2016The DivisionFar Cry PrimalXCOM 2Rise of the Tomb RaiderRainbow Six SiegeAssassin’s Creed SyndicateStar Wars BattlefrontFallout 4Call of Duty: Black Ops 3Anno 2205World of WarshipsDota 2 RebornThe Witcher 3Dirt RallyGTA VDragon Age: InquisitionFar Cry 4Assassin’s Creed UnityCall of Duty: Advanced WarfareAlien: IsolationMiddle-earth: Shadow of MordorSims 4Wolfenstein: The New OrderThe Elder Scrolls OnlineThiefX-Plane 10. 25Battlefield 4Total War: Rome IICompany of Heroes 2Metro: Last LightBioShock InfiniteStarCraft II: Heart of the SwarmSimCityTomb RaiderCrysis 3Hitman: AbsolutionCall of Duty: Black Ops 2World of Tanks v8Border 2Counter-Strike: GODirt ShowdownDiablo IIIMass Effect 3The Elder Scrolls V: SkyrimBattlefield 3Deus Ex Human RevolutionStarCraft 2Metro 2033Stalker: Call of PripyatGTA IV — Grand Theft AutoLeft 4 DeadTrackmania Nations ForeverCall of Duty 4 — Modern WarfareSupreme Commander — FA BenchCrysi s — GPU BenchmarkWorld in Conflict — BenchmarkHalf Life 2 — Lost Coast BenchmarkWorld of WarcraftDoom 3Quake 3 Arena — TimedemoHalo InfiniteFarming Simulator 22Battlefield 2042Forza Horizon 5Riders RepublicGuardians of the GalaxyBack 4 BloodDeathloopF1 2021Days GoneResident Evil VillageHitman 3Cyberpunk 2077Assassin´s Creed ValhallaDirt 5Watch Dogs LegionMafia Definitive EditionCyberpunk 2077 1.5 GRID LegendsDying Light 2Rainbow Six ExtractionGod of War low 1280×720 med. 1920×1080 high 1920×1080 ultra 1920×1080 QHD 2560×1440 4K 3840×2160 Horizon Zero Dawn (2020) low 1280×720 med. 1920×1080 high 1920×1080 ultra 1920×1080 QHD 2560×1440 4K 3840×2160 Death Stranding (2020) low 1280×720 med. 1920×1080 high 1920×1080 ultra 1920×1080 QHD 2560×1440 4K 3840×2160 F1 2020 (2020) low 1280×720 med. 1920×1080 high 1920×1080 ultra 1920×1080 QHD 2560×1440 4K 3840×2160 Gears Tactics (2020) low 1280×720 med. 1920×1080 high 1920×1080 ultra 1920×1080 QHD 2560×1440 4K 3840×2160 Doom Eternal (2020) low 1280×720 med. 1920×1080 high 1920×1080 ultra 1920×1080 QHD 2560×1440 4K 3840×2160 Description 5 Stutter — The performance of this video card with this game has not yet been studied enough. Based on interpolated information from graphics cards of a similar performance level, the game is likely to stutter and display low frame rates. May Stutter — The performance of this video card with this game has not yet been studied enough. Based on interpolated information from graphics cards of a similar performance level, the game is likely to stutter and display low frame rates. 30 Fluent — Based on all known benchmarks with the specified graphic settings, this game is expected to run at 25 fps or more 40 Fluent — According to all known benchmarks with the specified graphic settings, this game is expected to run at 35fps or more 60 Fluent — Based on all known benchmarks with the specified graphic settings, this game is expected to run at 58fps or more May Run Fluently — The performance of this video card with this game has not yet been studied enough. Based on interpolated information from graphics cards of a similar performance level, the game is likely to show smooth frame rates. ? Uncertain — testing this video card in this game showed unexpected results. A slower card could deliver higher and more consistent frame rates while running the same reference scene. Uncertain — The performance of this video card in this game has not yet been studied enough. It is not possible to reliably interpolate data based on the performance of similar cards in the same category. The value in the fields reflects the average frame rate across the entire database. To get individual results, hover over a value. AMD equivalent AMD Radeon R7 370 Compare NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti in benchmark results Benchmarks help determine performance in standard NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti benchmarks. We have compiled a list of the most famous benchmarks in the world so that you can get accurate results for each of them (see description). Pre-testing the graphics card is especially important when there are high loads, so that the user can see how the graphics processor copes with calculations and data processing. Overall performance in benchmarks NVIDIA Quadro M2200 20.35% AMD Radeon R9 M390X 20.17% NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti 20.14% AMD Radeon RX 560 Mobile 20.05% NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M SLI 20.05% Unlike Ice Storm, 3DMark’s Cloud Gate test uses more resource intensive scenes. The better the final score, the faster your graphics card. Processing is done with DirectX 10. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile NVIDIA Quadro M2200 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 AMD Radeon RX 560 Mobile This is an advanced graphics card benchmark. When using DirectX 11 for processing, typical testing time is 15 minutes. The higher the score, the faster the graphics card. AMD Radeon R9M290X NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M SLI NVIDIA Quadro P1000 Complex graphic scenes require all the graphics card resources. They use the entire RAM and computing power. The test’s results can be viewed below. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti AMD Radeon R9 M290X NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M This benchmark analyzes the gaming performance of a graphics card using Direct X 11 (multithreading, tessellation, shader calculations). NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 AMD Radeon R7 370 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti NVIDIA Quadro P2000 Mobile NVIDIA Quadro P2000 This Direct X10 based benchmark contains tests for artificial intelligence, physics and 6 computational tests. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M AMD Radeon R9 M290X NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX SLI Passmark is an excellent benchmark that is updated regularly and shows relevant graphics card performance information. NVIDIA Quadro M2200 AMD Radeon R9 M390X NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti AMD Radeon R9 M395X NVIDIA Quadro P1000 Unigine Heaven 4.0 stands out for its precise results and extreme test stability. It is based on UNIGINE 1.9 platform0005 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti AMD Radeon HD 7870 AMD Radeon R9 270X This test works for all types of video cards, has an innovative cross-platform core, supports Direct X 9/10/11 and OpenGL. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M NVIDIA Quadro M3000M NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti AMD Radeon HD 7970 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile This test gives the best estimate of GPU performance. It provides highly accurate results. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 NVIDIA Tesla C2075 4.1 From 93 Hitesti Grade Share on social networks: To leave a review, you need to log in Review NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti Compare NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti VS AMD Radeon R7 370 NVIDIA GeForce MX150 AMD Radeon HD 8280 NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GT NVIDIA GeForce 6800 NVIDIA QuadroFX 540 AMD Fiji AMD Caicos AMD Baffin NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti specs and benchmarks in 31 games and 12 benchmarks NVIDIA started selling the GeForce GTX 660 Ti on August 16, 2012 for a suggested price of $299. This is a desktop video card, based on the Kepler architecture, with a 28 nm process technology. It has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory with a frequency of 1502 MHz, a 192-bit bus, which provides a bandwidth of 6 Gb / s. The card occupies 2 slots, connected via PCIe 3.0 x16 interface. The length of the reference version is 241 mm. The card requires the connection of two 6-pin auxiliary power cables, the declared maximum power consumption is 150 watts. Specifications GPU GPU option GK104-300-KD-A2 Architecture Kepler Manufacturer TSMC Process 28 nm Number of transistors 3540 million Crystal area 294 mm² Graphic card Release date August 16, 2012 Generation GeForce 600 Predecessor GeForce 500 Descendant GeForce 700 Launch price $299 Market price $299 Data bus interface PCIe 3. 0 x16 Frequencies Base frequency 915 MHz Boost frequency 980 MHz Memory frequency 1502 MHz Memory Memory capacity 2 GB Memory type GDDR5 Memory bus 192 bit Memory speed 6 Gb/s Memory bandwidth 144.2 GB/s Render configuration Shader blocks 1344 Texture blocks 112 Raster blocks 24 SMX Multiprocessors 7 L1 cache 16 KB L2 cache 384 KB Rated output Pixel fill rate 27. 44 GP/s Texture Fill Rate 109.8 GT/s Performance FP32 2.634 Tflops Performance FP64 109.8 GFlops Graphics DirectX 12 (11_0) OpenGL 4.6 OpenCL 1.2 Vulcan 1.1 CUDA 3 Shader model 5.1 Video card design Occupied slots 2 Length 241 mm Heat Sink Requirements 150 W Recommended PSU power 450 W Outlets 2x DVI 1x HDMI 1x DisplayPort Power supply 2x 6-pin Board number P2004 Maximum temperature 78 °C Maximum noise 51. 9 dB Game FPS Assassin’s Creed Valhalla (2020) Better than AMD Radeon R9270, but worse than NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580. 1920×1080 / Ultra / 14.4 2560×1440 / Ultra / 12.5 3840×2160 / Ultra / 8.5 Valorant (2020) Better than AMD Radeon R9 270, but worse than NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580. 1920×1080 / Ultra / 63.3 2560×1440 / Ultra / 51. 8 3840×2160 / Ultra / 45.0 Death Stranding (2020) Better than AMD Radeon R9 270, but worse than NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580. 1920×1080 / Ultra / 28.7 2560×1440 / Ultra / 22.3 3840×2160 / Ultra / 13.5 Cyberpunk 2077 (2020) Better than NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580, but worse than NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580. 1920×1080 / Ultra / 14.4 2560×1440 / Ultra / 13.5 3840×2160 / Ultra / 8.9 Apex Legends (2019) Better than NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q, but worse than AMD Radeon HD 6970. 1920×1080 / Ultra / 27.0 2560×1440 / Ultra / 20.1 3840×2160 / Ultra / 12. 0 Metro Exodus (2019) Better than AMD Radeon R9 270, but worse than NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580. 1920×1080 / Ultra / 17.3 2560×1440 / Ultra / 13.5 3840×2160 / Ultra / 8.5 Red Dead Redemption 2 (2019) Better than AMD Radeon R9 270, but worse than NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580. 1920×1080 / Ultra / 14.8 2560×1440 / Ultra / 12. 1 3840×2160 / Ultra / 7.7 Counter-Strike: Global Offensive (2012) Better than NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX, but worse than NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580. 1024×768 / Low / 246.3 1366×768 / Medium / 220.8 1366×768 / Tall / 198.9 1920×1080 / Ultra / 191.6 2560×1440 / Ultra / 77. 0 3840×2160 / Ultra / 69.3 League of Legends (2019) Better than AMD Radeon R9 270, but worse than NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580. 1920×1080 / Ultra / 173.3 2560×1440 / Ultra / 96.2 3840×2160 / Ultra / 38.5 The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim (2011) Better than AMD Radeon HD 7970M, but worse than AMD Radeon HD 8970M. 1366×768 / Tall / 90 1920×1080 / Ultra / 65 2560×1440 / Ultra / 68.8 Battlefield 4 (2013) Better than NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M, but worse than NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M. 1024×768 / Low / 126 1366×768 / Medium / 107.2 1366×768 / Tall / 90. 4 1920×1080 / Ultra / 42 Metro: Last Light (2013) Better than AMD Radeon R9 290X, but worse than NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760. 1024×768 / Low / 122.3 1366×768 / Medium / 110 1366×768 / Tall / 72.1 1920×1080 / Ultra / 41.1 BioShock Infinite (2013) Better than NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680, but worse than NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050. 1280×720 / Low / 200.7 1366×768 / Medium / 168.8 1366×768 / Tall / 151.3 1920×1080 / Ultra / 62.9 Crysis 3 (2013) Better than NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460, but worse than AMD Radeon HD 7970. 1024×768 / Low / 94.1 1366×768 / Medium / 83 1366×768 / High / 61. 9 1920×1080 / Ultra / 30.3 Tomb Raider (2013) Better than NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile, but worse than NVIDIA GeForce GTX 470. 1024×768 / Low / 304.4 1366×768 / Medium / 222.5 1366×768 / Tall / 135.3 1920×1080 / Ultra / 48.1 Thief (2014) Better than NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile, but worse than NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M. 1024×768 / Low / 72.5 1366×768 / Medium / 66.7 1366×768 / Tall / 64.8 1920×1080 / Ultra / 40.9 Wolfenstein: The New Order (2014) Better than AMD Radeon HD 8970M, but worse than NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M. 1280×720 / Low / 60 1280×720 / Medium / 60 1920×1080 / Tall / 60 1920×1080 / Ultra / 57. 1 The Elder Scrolls Online (2014) Better than NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti, but worse than NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti. 1024×768 / Low / 98.4 1366×768 / Medium / 94 1366×768 / Tall / 85.7 1920×1080 / Ultra / 67.4 Hitman: Absolution (2012) Better than AMD Radeon HD 7970, but worse than NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M SLI. 1024×768 / Low / 67.2 1366×768 / Medium / 62.9 1366×768 / Tall / 55.4 1920×1080 / Ultra / 27.8 Company of Heroes 2 (2013) Better than NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M, but worse than NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M. 1024×768 / Low / 55.9 1366×768 / Medium / 51. 5 1366×768 / Tall / 46.8 1920×1080 / Ultra / 25.3 StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm (2013) Better than AMD Radeon HD 7770, but worse than Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200. 1024×768 / Low / 296.3 1366×768 / Medium / 121.4 1366×768 / Tall / 108.9 1920×1080 / Ultra / 65. 9 SimCity (2013) Better than AMD Radeon HD 8970M, but worse than NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680. 1024×768 / Low / 158.4 1366×768 / Medium / 119.3 1366×768 / Tall / 95.2 1920×1080 / Ultra / 62.9 World of Tanks v8 (2012) Better than NVIDIA Quadro K3100M, but worse than NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX. 1024×768 / Low / 113.8 1366×768 / Medium / 73.1 1366×768 / Tall / 66.7 1920×1080 / Ultra / 60.5 Diablo III (2012) Better than NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M, but worse than NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M. 1024×768 / Low / 312.8 1366×768 / Medium / 250.8 1366×768 / Tall / 246. 1 1920×1080 / Ultra / 217.7 Mass Effect 3 (2012) Better than NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M, but worse than AMD Radeon HD 8970M. 1280×720 / Low / 60 1366×768 / Tall / 59.9 1920×1080 / Ultra / 59.9 Battlefield 3 (2011) Better than NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590, but worse than NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580. 1024×768 / Low / 141.2 1366×768 / Medium / 112.1 1366×768 / Tall / 99.5 1920×1080 / Ultra / 46.4 Total War: Rome II (2013) Better than NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M, but worse than NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M. 1024×768 / Low / 266 1366×768 / Medium / 194. 8 1366×768 / Tall / 141.4 1920×1080 / Ultra / 33.8 X-Plane 10.25 (2013) Better than NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M, but worse than NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M. 1024×768 / Low / 105.7 1366×768 / Medium / 46.8 1366×768 / Tall / 26.4 1920×1080 / Ultra / 21. 7 Borderlands 2 (2012) Better than NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M, but worse than NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M. 1024×768 / Low / 122.7 1366×768 / Medium / 108.7 1366×768 / Tall / 104.3 1920×1080 / Ultra / 89.4 Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 (2012) Better than NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M, but worse than AMD Radeon HD 7970. 1024×768 / Low / 235.5 1366×768 / Medium / 206.7 1366×768 / Tall / 140.4 1920×1080 / Ultra / 95.4 Dirt Showdown (2012) Better than AMD Radeon HD 7970, but worse than NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M. 1024×768 / Low / 90.9 1366×768 / Medium / 72. 9 1366×768 / Tall / 71.7 1920×1080 / Ultra / 62.1 Benchmark tests 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU: 37758 Better than NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 but worse than NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile. 3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score: 13673 Better than AMD Radeon RX Vega 9 but worse than NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M. 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics: 5432 Better than AMD Radeon R9 M290X but worse than NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M. 3DMark Fire Strike Score: 4734 Better than NVIDIA Quadro P1000, but worse than NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M. 3DMark Vantage P: 23726 Better than NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M, but worse than AMD Radeon R9 M290X. 3DMark06: 22997 Better than AMD Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000), but worse than NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX. 3DMark11 P: 7693 Better than NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M, but worse than Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics. 3DMark11 P GPU: 8415 Better than NVIDIA Quadro P2000 but worse than AMD Radeon R7 370. Octane Render OctaneBench: 43 Better than NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950, but worse than NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M. Passmark: 4344 Better than AMD Radeon R9 270 but worse than AMD Radeon R9M390X. Unigine Heaven 3.0: 78.7 Better than NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile, but worse than NVIDIA Quadro M3000M. Unigine Heaven 4.0: 774 Better than AMD Radeon HD 7870 but worse than NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580. Comparison with other graphics cards Map 1: Map 2: Video reviews and tests Error 403 The request cannot be completed because you have exceeded your quota. : quotaExceeded If you find a mistake or have something to add, write in the comments. Have you had any experience with this video card? Is it worth buying such a card today? Steam Deck performance on par with GeForce GTX 660 Ti Platforms: PC Categories: Equipment Tags: Geekbench Steam Deck GeForce GTX 660 Ti Source Comments Forum Formula 1 02. 10.2022 18:21 from CoolerSIK Humor: jokes, pearls, cool links 02.10.2022 18:07 from Luther Resident Evil 3 Remake 02.10.2022 17:53 from Ku6opr Okami HD 02.10.2022 17:39 from opponent Xbox Series X [Xbox Scarlett] 02.10.2022 17:32 from 3edd Based on the Geekbench benchmark, the Steam Deck graphics chip is comparable to the GeForce GTX 660 Ti . The RDNA 2 graphics core, which is built into AMD’s custom notebook processor, performed similarly to the discrete graphics card. During testing, the Steam Deck chip was identified as Valve Jupiter. In Geekbench, he scored 14,562 points. In addition to the mentioned GeForce 660 Ti, which was released in 2012 and scored 14,509points in the benchmark, the closest GPU competitors were Intel Iris Xe MAX and Radeon RX Vega 11 with 14,737 and 14,896 points, respectively. The first customers received pre-ordered Steam Deck at the end of last month on February 25th. Valve originally planned to release the device in December, but then decided to delay the release by two months, citing a shortage of chips. See also : The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Japan gave the new President of Chile a Pokémon Squirtle plush. Subscribe to our Telegram channel, where we publish what does not fall into the news feed, and follow us online: Telegram channel Google News Yandex News Yandex Zen Latest news 02. 10.2022 The new character of the fighting game MultiVersus may be the Joker from the animated series of the 90s 02.10.2022 Die Heretic: New Warhammer 40,000: Darktide Shooter Trailer Dedicated to Preacher Class 02.10.2022 Corey Barlog Urges Publishers to Remove Permanent Online Connection for Singles Games 02.10.2022 DF: Uncharted PS5 Remaster Collection Harnesses Hidden GPU Power in VRR Mode 02. 10.2022 Closer to Kratos: WRC Generations has been postponed, but will now be released simultaneously on PC, Xbox and PlayStation 02.10.2022 Microsoft Flight Simulator developers have released an update with improvements to the map of Canada GPU frequency 65MHz higher? 980MHz vs 915MHz 10W below TDP? 140W vs 150W 52MHz faster GPU turbo speed? 1032MHz vs 980MHz 22W lower power consumption at peak load? 296W vs 318W Why is Nvidia GeForce GTX 660 Ti better than Nvidia GeForce GTX 660? 0.58 TFLOPS above FLOPS? 2.46 TFLOPS vs 1.88 TFLOPS 6 GPixel/s higher pixel rate? higher number of textured pixels? more stream processors? 1344 vs 960 1000million more transistors? 3540 million vs 2540 million 32 more texture units (TMUs)? 112 vs 80 588 higher PassMark (G3D) score? 4692 vs 4104 21. 1GTexels/s higher 3DMark Vantage Texture Fill? 86.4GTexels/s vs 65.3GTexels/s Nvidia GeForce GTX 660 vs Nvidia GeForce MX130 Nvidia GeForce GTX 660 Ti vs Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050 Nvidia GeForce GTX 660 vs Nvidia GeForce MX150 Nvidia GeForce GTX 660 Ti vs AMD Radeon HD 7850 Nvidia GeForce Nvidia GeForce 940MX Nvidia GeForce GTX 660 Ti vs Nvidia GeForce GTX 960 Nvidia GeForce GTX 660 2 Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti Nvidia GeForce GTX 660 Ti vs Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti Nvidia GeForce GTX 660 vs Nvidia GeForce MX110 Nvidia GeForce GTX 660 Ti vs Nvidia GEFORCE GTX 670 NVIDIA GEFORCE GTX 660 VS NVIDIA GEFORCE GTX 1050 NVIDIA GTX 660 TI 9000 DDR4 9000 NVIDIA GEFORCE GEFORCE GEFORCE GEFORCE GEFORCE GTR4000 NVIDIS GEFORCE GEFORCE GTR4000 NVIDIS GEFORCE GEFORCE GTR4000 NVIDIS GEFORCE GTR4000 NVIDIS GEFORCE GTR4000 NVIDIS GEFORCE GTR4000 NVIDID GEFORCE GTR4000 NVIDID GEFORCE GTr0005 vs Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060 Nvidia GeForce GTX 660 Ti vs AMD Radeon R9 270X Nvidia GeForce GTX 660 vs Nvidia GeForce GTX 960 Nvidia GeForce GTX 660 Ti vs NVIDIA GeForce MX110 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 VS AMD Radeon HD 7850 NVIDIA GEFORCE GTX 660 TI VS 9000 370 9000 9000 2 NVIDID RADEON R7 370 NVIDI0005 Functions The price ratio 8. 0 /10 1 Votes reviews is not Games 9.0 /10 9000 1 Votes reviews yet there are no ,0002 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 Performance 6.0 /10 1 Votes reviews yet there is no Reliability 10.0 /10 1 VOTES reviews yet Performance 1.GPU clock speed 980MHz 915MHz The graphics processing unit (GPU) has a higher clock speed. 2.turbo GPU 1032MHz 980MHz When the GPU is running below its limits, it can jump to a higher clock speed to increase performance. 3.pixel speed 19.6 GPixel/s 25.6 GPixel/s The number of pixels that can be displayed on the screen every second. 4.flops 1.88 TFLOPS 2. 46 TFLOPS FLOPS is a measurement of GPU processing power. 5.texture size 78.4 GTexels/s 102 GTexels/s Number of textured pixels that can be displayed on the screen every second. 6.GPU memory speed 1502MHz 1502MHz Memory speed is one aspect that determines memory bandwidth. 7.shading patterns Shading units (or stream processors) are small processors in a graphics card that are responsible for processing various aspects of an image. 8.textured units (TMUs) TMUs accept textured units and bind them to the geometric layout of the 3D scene. More TMUs generally means texture information is processed faster. 9 ROPs ROPs are responsible for some of the final steps of the rendering process, such as writing the final pixel data to memory and for performing other tasks such as anti-aliasing to improve the appearance of graphics. Memory 1.memory effective speed 6008MHz 6008MHz The effective memory clock frequency is calculated from the memory size and data transfer rate. A higher clock speed can give better performance in games and other applications. 2.max memory bandwidth 144GB/s 144GB/s This is the maximum rate at which data can be read from or stored in memory. 3.VRAM VRAM (video RAM) is the dedicated memory of the graphics card. More VRAM usually allows you to run games at higher settings, especially for things like texture resolution. 4.memory bus width 192bit 192bit Wider memory bus means it can carry more data per cycle. This is an important factor in memory performance, and therefore the overall performance of the graphics card. 5. GDDR memory versions Later versions of GDDR memory offer improvements such as higher data transfer rates, which improves performance. 6. Supports memory debug code ✖Nvidia GeForce GTX 660 ✖Nvidia GeForce GTX 660 Ti Memory debug code can detect and fix data corruption. It is used when necessary to avoid distortion, such as in scientific computing or when starting a server. Functions 1.DirectX version DirectX is used in games with a new version that supports better graphics. OpenGL version 2. The newer the OpenGL version, the better graphics quality in games. OpenCL version 3. Some applications use OpenCL to use the power of the graphics processing unit (GPU) for non-graphical computing. Newer versions are more functional and better quality. 4. Supports multi-monitor technology ✔Nvidia GeForce GTX 660 ✔Nvidia GeForce GTX 660 Ti The video card has the ability to connect multiple screens. This allows you to set up multiple monitors at the same time to create a more immersive gaming experience, such as a wider field of view. 5. GPU temperature at boot Lower boot temperature means the card generates less heat and the cooling system works better. 6.supports ray tracing ✖Nvidia GeForce GTX 660 ✖Nvidia GeForce GTX 660 Ti Ray tracing is an advanced light rendering technique that provides more realistic lighting, shadows and reflections in games. 7. Supports 3D ✔Nvidia GeForce GTX 660 ✔Nvidia GeForce GTX 660 Ti Allows you to view in 3D (if you have a 3D screen and glasses). 8.supports DLSS ✖Nvidia GeForce GTX 660 ✖Nvidia GeForce GTX 660 Ti DLSS (Deep Learning Super Sampling) is an AI-based scaling technology. This allows the graphics card to render games at lower resolutions and upscale them to higher resolutions with near-native visual quality and improved performance. DLSS is only available in some games. 9. PassMark result (G3D) This test measures the graphics performance of a graphics card. Source: Pass Mark. Ports 1.has HDMI output ✔Nvidia GeForce GTX 660 ✔Nvidia GeForce GTX 660 Ti Devices with HDMI or mini HDMI ports can stream HD video and audio to the connected display. 2.HDMI connectors Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Nvidia GeForce GTX 660) Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Nvidia GeForce GTX 660 Ti) More HDMI connectors allow you to connect multiple devices such as game consoles and TVs at the same time. HDMI version 3 Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Nvidia GeForce GTX 660) Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Nvidia GeForce GTX 660 Ti) Newer versions of HDMI support higher bandwidth for higher resolutions and frame rates. 4. DisplayPort outputs Allows connection to a display using DisplayPort. 5.DVI outputs Allows connection to a display using DVI. 6.mini DisplayPort outputs Allows connection to a display using mini DisplayPort. Price match Cancel Which graphics cards are better? NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti Specifications Drivers Price Name: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti Series: GeForce 600 GPU architecture: Kepler GPU model: GK104-300 CUDA cores: 1344 Base clock (Boost): 915 MHz (980 MHz) Memory speed: 6 Gbps Memory: 2 Gb GDDR5 (192-bit) The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti graphics card is based on a 28 nm process technology and based on the GK104-300 GPU. The card supports Directx 12 API. NVIDIA has placed 2048 megabytes of GDDR5 RAM, which is connected using 192-bit interface. The graphics processor operates at 915 MHz, which can be increased to 980 MHz. The number of CUDA cores is 1344, with a speed of 6000 Mbps. The power consumption of the video card is 150W, and the recommended power supply is 450W. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti supports Microsoft DirectX 12 API and OpenGL 4.3. Specifications for NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti GPU specifications: Model: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti Series: GeForce 600 GPU model: GK104-300 Architecture: Kepler Process: 28nm CUDA cores: 1344 Graphics Processing Unit (GPC): 4 Streaming Multiprocessors (SMs): 7 Texture Units (TMUs): 112 Base clock: 915MHz Boost clock frequency (Boost): 980 MHz (+65 MHz) Number of transistors: 3. 5 billion Memory specifications: Memory capacity: 2 Gb Memory type: GDDR5 Memory bus: 192-bit Memory speed: 6000 Mbps (6 Gbps) Memory clock: 1502MHz Texture Fill Rate: 102.5 GTexel/s Display support: Maximum digital resolution: 3840×2160@30Hz or 4096×2160@24Hz via HDMI. 4096×2160@60Hz and 3840×2160@60Hz via Displayport Maximum VGA resolution: 2048×1536 Standard connectors: Dual Link DVI-I, Dual Link DVI-D, HDMI, DisplayPort Multi-monitor support: Yes, up to 4 monitors HDCP: Yes HDMI: Yes Audio input for HDMI: Internal Thermal characteristics: Max GPU temperature: 97℃ Energy consumption (TDP): 150 W Recommended Nutritional Requirements: 450 W Additional power connectors: 6-pin x2 Video card dimensions: Height: 11. 12 cm Length: 24.13 cm Width: 2 slots Technologies and capabilities: CUDA: Yes SLI: Yes, 3-way G-Sync: Yes V-Sync: Yes PhysX: Yes 3D Vision: Yes Blu Ray 3D: Yes 3D games: Yes GameStream: Yes DSR: Yes GPU Boost: Yes DirectX: 12 API Vulcan API: Yes OpenGL: 4.3 Tire: PCI Express 3.0 Support OS: Microsoft Windows 7-10, Linux, FreeBSDx86 Please note: Operating system: Windows 11 version: 516. 94 WHQL download [784.45 MB] 9000-9000 Win 9000 , Windows 8 64 -by version: 473.81 WhQL download [593.15 MB] Type: Standard Driver Information: License Agreement Driver Information: Release Notes (v472.12) (PDF) Control Panel User’s Guide (PDF) The GeForce Game Ready Driver version 473.81 WHQL is also suitable for all video cards from affiliated manufacturers: Asus, Gigabyte, Zotac, MSI, Palit and so on. Obsolete NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti 9 drivers0021 Operating system: 9000 : Obsolete Operating System: Windows 10 32-bit Version: 391.35 WHQL 04 27 March 2018 Download [347. 42 MB] Status: Outdated Operating system: Windows 8 32-bit, 8.1 32-bit, 7 32-bit version: 391.35 WHQL Date of output: 27 2018 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 329.12 MB] Status: Obsolete Operating system: Windows 8 64-bit, 8.1 64-bit, 7 64-bit version: 391.35 WHQL Release date: March 27, 2018 Download [403.45 MB] 9000 Operating system: Windows XP 32-bit version: 368.81 WhQL Date of Output: July 14, 2016 003 Status: Obsolete Operating system: Windows XP 64-bit Windows Server 2003 x64 version: 368.