7950 OR 660Ti?

ynnekb55 · 8 Jan 2013 at 16:57

Im currently with an i53570k ans a 7850, I've looked at benchmark tests on anandtech.com, and they both yield similar benchmarks, I don't know which to go for, although right now im currently aimed at the 660ti due to Nvidias optimisation advantages in games, but im unsure either way.

660ti : http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-284-AS
(Im currently after the Gigabyte windforce with 3gb and 3 fans, but this is for example)

7950: http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-098-GI
(the 660ti I want looks practically the same)

Bench Results: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/550?vs=647

MeatLoaf · 8 Jan 2013 at 16:58

Hi there

Assuming you have no loyalty to a particular brand the 7950 seems to be the card of choice at the moment.

ynnekb55 · 8 Jan 2013 at 17:01

even with the optimisation advantages that Nvidia has with newer titles?

Rusty0611 · 8 Jan 2013 at 17:08

ynnekb55 said:
even with the optimisation advantages that Nvidia has with newer titles?

What optimisation advantages?

+1 7950.

The 660Ti competes on performance with the 7870. The 7950 is ok the next tier above.

Gregster · 8 Jan 2013 at 17:08

One thread should be enough to cover your questions. No need for duplicates.

ynnekb55 · 8 Jan 2013 at 17:11

gregster said:
One thread should be enough to cover your questions. No need for duplicates.

I meant optimisation advantages in the idea that most games take heavy advantage of the PhysX engine

shankly1985 · 8 Jan 2013 at 17:13

ynnekb55 said:
I meant optimisation advantages in the idea that most games take heavy advantage of the PhysX engine

Lol they is very few PhysX game out there. I could most probably count them on my hand.
Get the 7950 and enjoy

abnewton · 8 Jan 2013 at 17:14

ynnekb55 said:
I meant optimisation advantages in the idea that most games take heavy advantage of the PhysX engine

Far far less than you think:

http://www.geforce.com/hardware/technology/PhysX/pc-games

ynnekb55 · 8 Jan 2013 at 17:15

shankly1985 said:
Lol they is very few PhysX game out there. I could most probably count them on my hand.
Get the 7950 and enjoy

Great, atleast that removes me of any doubt for the next 4 months I need to wait to get it, by then do you think an of the 8000 series GPU's would be out for that price range?

Rusty0611 · 8 Jan 2013 at 17:19

ynnekb55 said:
I meant optimisation advantages in the idea that most games take heavy advantage of the PhysX engine

Most games actually don't take advantage of PhysX. Also PhysX isn't an optimisation it's an enhancement. Sorry to be a pedant but it's a completely different thing.

Borderlands 2, Batman, Mirror's Edge, Planetside 2, Metro 2033. There ain't that many games that utilise it and where they do the effects can be forgetful. There's a couple above where the effects are really nice though.

Gregster · 8 Jan 2013 at 17:31

shankly1985 said:
Lol they is very few PhysX game out there. I could most probably count them on my hand.
Get the 7950 and enjoy

You have lots and lots of fingers then.

I do find it funny that PhysX gets slated and always by people who own an AMD card. I bought my card (not for PhysX) for the best details possible and it just so happens I get the added bonus of PhysX effects in a few games.

I wonder how many people upgraded their GPU's to play BF3 on ultra? Why not tell them to turn settings to low and be happy. Might as well tell them to lower the resolution as well, that way they could hold onto their GPU's for a couple of more years.

My point being, we upgrade to get the best graphics possible and if someone wants the added extras of PhysX, then respect their questions without dismissing it because you can't use it.

humbug · 8 Jan 2013 at 17:35

If you want Physx (and there are games that support it) get the GTX 660TI, but if its raw performance your after for that money, get the 7950.

Final8y · 8 Jan 2013 at 17:39

gregster said:
You have lots and lots of fingers then.

I do find it funny that PhysX gets slated and always by people who own an AMD card. I bought my card (not for PhysX) for the best details possible and it just so happens I get the added bonus of PhysX effects in a few games.

I wonder how many people upgraded their GPU's to play BF3 on ultra? Why not tell them to turn settings to low and be happy. Might as well tell them to lower the resolution as well, that way they could hold onto their GPU's for a couple of more years.

My point being, we upgrade to get the best graphics possible and if someone wants the added extras of PhysX, then respect their questions without dismissing it because you can't use it.

Well that stands to reason because anyone who though it was worthwhile would have a NV card first and for most, you would not have a AMD card primarily if you thought it was.

humbug · 8 Jan 2013 at 17:41

Final8y said:
Well that stands to reason because anyone who though it was worthwhile would have a NV card first and for most, you would not have a AMD card primarily if you thought it was.

Nice... lol Stitch that...

J/K

Gregster · 8 Jan 2013 at 17:46

Final8y said:
Well that stands to reason because anyone who though it was worthwhile would have a NV card first and for most, you would not have a AMD card primarily if you thought it was.

You missed my point totaly. I get fed up of people dismissing PhysX and saying it just isn't worth it, when others would disagree. I personaly like the effects that come with it and sadly the guys who dismiss it, own AMD cards.

I am not saying that everyone should own an Nvidia card but just don't be so quick to rubbish anybody who likes it or has questions on it. The OP has asked about it and the AMD crew have dismissed it.

I see you own an AMD card Final8y

Rusty0611 · 8 Jan 2013 at 17:51

True Gregster. The problem is only really the number of games it's implemented in and the quality/playability of those games.

I agree - the effects used like they are in Borderlands 2 are superb and if they were implemented more frequently and to that standard then it would be a real selling point.

Edit: anyway the OP originally thought it was implemented in 'most' games - it isn't so it's a case of the OP weighing up a card from nVidia from a lower tier with PhysX if the games he plays includes it or a more powerful single GPU solution.

An average clocking 7950 is probably 15% quicker (with AA applied) than an average clocking 660Ti. Quite a large difference

.

psychodil · 8 Jan 2013 at 17:56

Ive got an AMD card and would like physx compatiblilty. Wouldnt pay any extra for it though. Everybody likes eye candy after all.

Gregster · 8 Jan 2013 at 18:03

and Unreal engine 3 using PhysX details (that AMD users will not see)

Just a couple of games I pulled from Youtube to display what the AMD crew are missing out on

Is it worth the premium? I will leave that upto the OP to decide.

Gregster · 8 Jan 2013 at 18:07

Rusty0611 said:
True Gregster. The problem is only really the number of games it's implemented in and the quality/playability of those games.

I agree - the effects used like they are in Borderlands 2 are superb and if they were implemented more frequently and to that standard then it would be a real selling point.

Edit: anyway the OP originally thought it was implemented in 'most' games - it isn't so it's a case of the OP weighing up a card from nVidia from a lower tier with PhysX if the games he plays includes it or a more powerful single GPU solution.

An average clocking 7950 is probably 15% quicker (with AA applied) than an average clocking 660Ti. Quite a large difference .

My biggest gripe with PhysX is the lack of support. I would love to see more games using it.

humbug · 8 Jan 2013 at 18:09

Its not necessarily something we 'missout' on tho gregster

i play BL2 with Physx on the CPU, its just not maxed.

Metro-2033, however, is.

I think the reason not many devs take it up is precisely because their game is then in some way tied to one GPU brand, its not really very good for business if thats the understanding people are going to get from it.