[testmachine]

Yeah stick with the NVidia!

 

[SCHUMI_4EVER]

I may have finally just found my new card !!!
http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/48...views/4869/nvidia_geforce_gtx_660_ti_2gb_reference_video_card_review/index.html

Also if subsequent reviews substantiate that performance then nVidia wins this round hands down and I'll finally be able to vote.

 

[Phil]

The 660Ti is an awesome card, regardless of the 192 bit bus. As long as you stay away from high res multi monitor setups.

 

[SCHUMI_4EVER]

Even at 2560x1600 the card delivers way more FPS than it should, but yeah you're right, I'm not planning on ever going above 1680x1050 or if that monitor breaks above 1080P though.
Also if you can afford a multi-monitor setup that will be too much for this card then you can afford a 670 or 680 or a 7970.

 

[Princess Garnet]

Also if you can afford a multi-monitor setup that will be too much for this card then you can afford a 670 or 680 or a 7970.

Everything's not Black or White. For example, 1440p monitors are getting cheap, as are multiple 1080p monitors. Being able to afford that doesn't mean you can afford GPUs twice as expensive and/or twice the time or anything.

 

[SCHUMI_4EVER]

Even if you buy 2 of the cheapest 1080P monitors here it will still be as much as a 670, perhaps only just slightly less, but that's still close enough.
Multi-monitor gaming isn't meant for those on a tight budget.

 

[Princess Garnet]

Even if you buy 2 of the cheapest 1080P monitors here it will still be as much as a 670, perhaps only just slightly less, but that's still close enough.

That's flawed logic. If you can buy one thing at a certain amount, it doesn't mean you can buy another.

Multi-monitor gaming isn't meant for those on a tight budget.

More Black or White only thinking? I never said it was a budget thing, just that it's not necessarily only in the realm of needing disposable income either.

 

[SCHUMI_4EVER]

Ok let's try this a different way....unless you already have powerful graphics card then unless you're retarded you wouldn't try multi-monitor gameplay.
So only people that either had or are going to have a 670 level card will go for multiple monitors.

Mid-range cards and multiple monitors DO NOT go together.

 

[Princess Garnet]

That has nothing to do with what you originally said or what I was saying in turn though. You made it sound like affording multiple monitors is in the realm of disposable income and I was saying they weren't. Higher resolution (at least 1440p) monitors are coming with "budget" (relatively) offerings, and multiple monitors are more common than you may think. It doesn't mean you can just afford a $400 GPU on the spot if you have more than one monitor, either already or are buying them now. That was my point.

 

[SCHUMI_4EVER]

Well you're a moron if you buy multiple monitors without having a $400 GPU. Now you're the one arguing just for the sake of arguing. Ok yes the possiblity exist...but my scenario is MUCH MUCH MUCH more likely.

And we have yet to get a single 1440P monitor locally.

 

[Princess Garnet]

Now you're the one arguing just for the sake of arguing.

Pardon me!? Forgive me if you say something that I contest.

All I was saying was that multiple monitors aren't in the realm of needing disposable income or where only those buying video cards near half a grand can afford.

If you want to power heavier games with high settings/frame rates, then yes, naturally, you'll want the GPU support (maybe even with multiple video cards, but if you're just running one monitor, that's a waste), but, although I know for some "PC gamers" to grasp, not everyone cares about that as much.

And we have yet to get a single 1440P monitor locally.

Your locale isn't what determines what's true globally. Cheaper 1440p monitors are becoming more popular (if selectively) as of recent, and good riddance; 1080p is lame.

 

[SCHUMI_4EVER]

Look locally a 1080P monitor will cost you somewhere between R1800 and R2600 depending on brand and whether it's 21.5" or 24". Now 2nd Tier cards and Flagships start at about R4000. Which means they cost just about the same. Which means if you can afford one you can afford the other. And if you can only afford one, then you likely can't even afford that one and had to make cut backs elsewhere to afford it and should have never bought it in the first place. I don't mean immediately spending twice as much, but over a much shorter period than someone who had to stretch to afford (ie can't actually afford) to get just one of the two items.

Also for the first time EVER we have a 3rd Tier card that can just about handle 1440P.

Also a single monitor is a necessity (as far as operating a computer goes), a second monitor is a luxury...which automatically puts it in the realm of disposable income even if the person can't afford a flagship or 2nd-tier card.

 

[-StrikE-]

Well you're a moron if you buy multiple monitors without having a $400 GPU. Now you're the one arguing just for the sake of arguing. Ok yes the possiblity exist...but my scenario is MUCH MUCH MUCH more likely.

And we have yet to get a single 1440P monitor locally.

I have no idea what you to are arguing and i don't have the strength to read it up but why do you need a 400$ GPU for a multiple monitor setup ? Cause you don't, unless you plan to game using both...

 

[SCHUMI_4EVER]

that's exactly what we're talking about, gaming on both

 

[SCHUMI_4EVER]

Anyways back to the topic at hand
These card kick some major rear end
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6159/the-geforce-gtx-660-ti-review
http://www.pcworld.com/article/260944/evga_gtx_660_ti_review_kepler_rendered_affordable.html
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/08/16/nvidia-geforce-gtx-660-ti-2gb-review/1

Also the PC World review read my mind

At $310, the eVGA GTX 660 Ti is aimed at gamers who want very good performance without spending the $400 or more for higher end cards. These users tend to hold onto their cards for 2-3 years, so are likely upgrading from an older GTX 260 card. If so, the GTX 660 offers pretty substantial performance gains, as well as the ability to run DirectX 11 titles.

That is me exactly (although I've almost had mine for 5 years and plan to keep the 660 for quite long while).

 

[-StrikE-]

that's exactly what we're talking about, gaming on both

Sorry then the way you where expressing yourself it sounded like generally you need a 400$ card for multiple monitor setup .

 

[Phil]

I don't know about 5 years Schumi. Once the new consoles are out, the requirements for games will start heading up, and the 192 bit bus is going to be out of breath. So 3 years, yeah.

 

[SCHUMI_4EVER]

Yeah I know, I know, but my 448bit bus isn't preventing from my GTX260 from being out of breath. Also the other current cards won't be that far behind (and it'll still be ahead of the previous Gen 500 cards). And until my monitor breaks I plan to game at 1680x1050 forever. Besides after the next 2 years I'm pretty sure my gaming appetite will have been greatly reduced.

And if I don't get it then I'll keep my GTX260 and that will be even more out of breath, or dead.

 

[Phil]

Will your 260 is not channeling anything through the bus, with that 896mb cap. Next gen games will go above and beyond 2gb running texture mods in some cases, so even my card will choke. Kepler in general is bandwidth starved. If the GK104 had 4GB standard running on a 384bit bus, the gap between AMD would be much wider.

 

[DarkSamus]

^^hehehe, I have a GTX580 3GB