Hi everyone!
Can someone please tell me why this GPU isnt poppular:
EVGA e-GeForce GTX660 SC Signature 2 3GB
Its amazingly good,it has 3GB and GDDR5!
An explanation wold really be apreciated.
Because you can get a Radeon HD 7870 XT (which performs much, much better) for the same price.
Yeah, this version is quite slow for a 3GB card.
But can you tell me why is it so slow?
It is crap, the end.
Optimization, they haven't got an adequate driver to help the card explain to itself how to use the increased number of memory controllers efficiently, so it's really slow and mucking around with it. Also, because everyone would rather have a Geforce 660Ti or a Radeon 7870 XT (Especially in the UK where the Club3D Joker line of cards is sold.)
yaaaay lets be harsh and start a flame war for no good reason, how about we actually answer the question. from checking the specs it seems like a custom pcb 660 with a a slighter higher core clock and slighter higher boost on the core, seems pretty standard for a custom gtx 660. so i dont get how its crap.
that would make sense Mndless, shame really. is it a "new" card?
So i better buy a better GPU like the GTX 660 Ti because its cheap?I mean in my country the dollar prise is multiplied by 1,5 so that suck too.
I don't think many people bought GTX 660s or GTX 660Tis...
Are you sure and if you are please tell me why no one buys it ?
The VRAM means little to nothing unless you are running more than one monitor and with this card, it is not really possible at playable frame rates. Higher VRAM in GPU's is just a cheap marketing tool in some cases by companies to squeeze more money out of consumers. AMD 7870 will be much more reasonable or at a stretch, go for the 7950 if you really want/need 3gb of VRAM.
I have 2 of these (model# 03G-P4-2667-KR) in SLI on dual 27" monitors. It's a good card for running dual monitors. Plenty of vram even for single card on dual monitors. Boost clock out the box is 1137 Mhz. Easily even more overclockable through Precision X tool. But... If you're only running a single monitor, get a 670/680 or a 7970. Plain and simple.
... 7970 and 7950 both have 3g of vidram. also, vidram is not really an issue with dual monitors, or even triple, unless you're running surround gaming. my intel SB HD3000 graphics runs a 1080p and a 768p screens just fine, although it can't even handle moderate gaming.
I think he was referring to surround gaming. That's where vram actually comes in to play. Even 1gb of vram is really enough to handle a single monitor at 1080p
Well ive decidet to get the NVIDIA GTX 660 Ti,its slightly better than the AMD 7950 example: http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html
Thanks for all the help guys,because this is gona be in my first PC! ^^
That site is clearly made by Nividia fan boys, it's one single test for various GPU's in one application, that could easily accelerated by CUDA cores. Find a real benchmark site, and decide which one will perform better with the games you play.
nooooooooooooooooo! go with the 7950/7970 or 670/680... take our word for it lulz
Yeah..... Passmark had a 580 at the top of the list for most of last year, beating not only all AMD cards from the 7000 series, but also a 680 and 690 (and it'sstill above the 690, which just tells me their benchmark is shitty). I give them absolutely no validity.
passmark was showing fx4100 at 3600 pts last year, now it shows around 4k, I benchmarked it and mine is showing 4,6k pts