• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Which graphics card to get?

humbug said:
July 16'th. and on 12.4 drivers???? those are one of the worst of all 7### series Drivers. get real.... That review is binned now. my review is on later drivers that's why the huge difference, what are you trying to do here with that rubbish? :p
Click to expand...

Wooooaaaaa there Tiger. I put a chart up the same as you did. Nvidia drivers are old also and later drivers have a better profile for BF3. They are reviewing the 6GB 7970. No reason for them to be biased towards either brand tbh and they even put an OC on both.

humbug said:
No, i'm talking about the performance on todays drivers. you can't pull up a review with obsolete drivers and claim its relevant today. and try making a point like that with it. :rolleyes:

seriously that's just completely ridiculous.
Click to expand...

So it is not ok for AMD to use older drivers (maybe they tried the newer drivers but it wasn't stable?) but it is ok for Nvidia to use older drivers? At least make it fair for both.
 
Last edited:
The thing is Rusty you know AMD have improved bf3 performance a good bit so the results you posted are now a false representation of performance now. On the other hand the hardocp results are a fair representation or at least close to what we would expect on the latest drivers.

Anyhow the ti660 is overpriced and at least this is usually agreed by the majority. Its not a good buy when compared to the 7950/7870 because of price not because its a bad card.
 
Last edited:
TheRealDeal said:
The thing is Rusty you know AMD have improved bf3 performance a good bit so the results you posted are now a false representation of performance now. On the other hand the hardocp results are a fair representation or at least close to what we would expect on the latest drivers.

Anyhow the ti660 is overpriced and at least this is usually agreed by the majority. Its not a good buy when compared to the 7950/7870 because of price not because its a bad card.
Click to expand...

Thank you, someone with some sanity.

Bring the price of GTX cards down to AMD cards and its all good for me, right now. Its not.
 
TheRealDeal said:
The thing is Rusty you know AMD have improved bf3 performance a good bit so the results you posted are now a false representation of performance now. On the other hand the hardocp results are a fair representation or at least close to what we would expect on the latest drivers.

Anyhow the ti660 is overpriced and at least this is usually agreed by the majority. Its not a good buy when compared to the 7950/7870 because of price not because its a bad card.
Click to expand...

humbug said:
Thank you, someone with some sanity.

Bring the price of GTX cards down to AMD cards and its all good for me, right now. Its not.
Click to expand...

Both myself and Rusty call the 660TI an over priced card. It is a mid range card the same as the 7870/50 and should also be in the same price bracket. It isn't a bad card and time will tell how well it copes and hopefully it will drop a few sheckles in price so I can recommend it as a mid range card.

I am fed up of seeing that chart and it being claimed as the bible of tests. Many charts/graphs/benches out can swing either way but does not make them any better or worse than that chart posted earlier, especially as it is not representative of todays gamers resoloutions.
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
@ Rusty0611, the reason that is there is because that's the way gaming monitor resolutions are going. most single 26" gaming monitors these days are 2560 x 1600.

But even if you do want to stick with a 21" 1920 x 1080P for a £340 card, or £400 + for the 680 the difference is still, almost nothing.
Click to expand...

eh? 26"?? not even most 27" are 1600p! show me where you find these monitors because i want one.

plus 27" are 1440p as they mostly seem to be 16:9
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
Thank you, someone with some sanity.

Bring the price of GTX cards down to AMD cards and its all good for me, right now. Its not.
Click to expand...

I think the only person not displaying 'sanity' is yourself. Basically anyone who points out that the 660Ti is not a BAD card just bad value for money is given a whole load of 7870 propaganda from you when not even mentioning the 7870.

TheRealDeal said:
The thing is Rusty you know AMD have improved bf3 performance a good bit so the results you posted are now a false representation of performance now. On the other hand the hardocp results are a fair representation or at least close to what we would expect on the latest drivers.

Anyhow the ti660 is overpriced and at least this is usually agreed by the majority. Its not a good buy when compared to the 7950/7870 because of price not because its a bad card.
Click to expand...

I don't take one review as gospel. It's crazy when there's so much back dooring and greasing going on.

(and I didn't post any charts)
 
Last edited:
Rusty0611 said:
I don't take one review as gospel. It's crazy when there's so much back dooring and greasing going on.

(and I didn't post any charts)
Click to expand...

Either do i take one review as gospel. What i do take though is that its the best one we have atm as its got recent drivers on it and it shows all the cards at there max oc's. They are also known as one of the better review sites.

Gregster they might not show 1080p but if a card can get playable frames at a higher resolution then things are only going to improve at 1080p. They also show a frame time graph and get there results from playing the games and not canned benchmarks. Kyle has been annoyed at AMD recently so i doubt he was doing anything to favour the AMD cards either.

All in all its a decent review on recent drivers so you may find people like to link it a lot in threads because usually the people asking questions have not seen it.

Sorry about the chart thing but i am not the only one to get you and Gregster confused lol. You do seem to have similar views.

Edit

Just looked at the hardocp review again and it does include 1080p.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/08/23/galaxy_gtx_660_ti_gc_oc_vs_670_hd_7950/3
 
Last edited:
I know what you're saying but at the end of the day it is still only one review and even looking at release day reviews it does show a large variance of results between them so if you apply this trend to now you could quite convincingly argue that the same would apply here too.

By applying the term 'best' review to it you aren't really being unbiased. It looks like - not saying that you are - that you feel it's the best one because it backs up your own POV on it. It's probably better to avoid using terms such as best when discussing reviews because as I say they are prone to manipulation.

At the end of the day only AMD are to blame for not having drivers which show the full potential of the card ready for release.

I'm glad they are now pumping out what the cards have to offer and it was not like performance was poor before hand but why so much improvement in six months? Why was this not available from the start?

Edit: The problem (and it is a problem) with the HardOCP review with regards to the 660Ti is as I say it's running settings not intended for a mid-range card. I mean supersamping and 8x MSAA? Why? What is this showing? I know you should keep your review suite to be consistent but this is an ad-hoc review and it would have been far better to run it with mid-range settings.

By accepting the results you're also implicitly assuming that every card is capable of reaching the overclock given in the review and also implicitly assuming that this is the maximum possible. I'm not saying this for/against any card but it is a flaw in the testing methodology.

I've seen a max OC review on a 680, maybe is was HardOCP actually, where the core was clocked to 1230 and the memory to 6.8 Ghz... I mean come on. I've had two 680's at both are closer to 1300 and 7.5 Ghz than they are the figures they're running at here. What's to say the 7950 can't go higher? What's the say the 670 doesn't go higher on the memory? etc.

You seem like a decent chap so I hope you can see that the doubts I'm putting out there on the review aren't aimed at swinging the balance either way but it does raise some serious doubts as to the validity of their results in real terms to what people with these cards are seeing.

That is my basic problems with this review outlined, and in summary, I feel it is a bit of a flimsy review. That is why when people (nearly always with AMD cards - not aimed at you again) post it over and over again all over the forums as a panacea for their aggravation at being challenged on their claims, I roll my eyes.
 
Last edited:
My moan is when people say things like "mullers a 670" as put 4 computers side by side and put a 3770K in each with a 680/670/7970/50 in each of them and then tell me that any of those cards "mullers" the oposition. You wouldn't have a clue what card was in what computer as they all play at a decent frame. Drop to say 40fps and you have a chance of guessing correct but even then it would be difficult.
 
Rusty0611 said:
I know what you're saying but at the end of the day it is still only one review and even looking at release day reviews it does show a large variance of results between them so if you apply this trend to now you could quite convincingly argue that the same would apply here too.

By applying the term 'best' review to it you aren't really being unbiased. It looks like - not saying that you are - that you feel it's the best one because it backs up your own POV on it. It's probably better to avoid using terms such as best when discussing reviews because as I say they are prone to manipulation.

At the end of the day only AMD are to blame for not having drivers which show the full potential of the card ready for release.

I'm glad they are now pumping out what the cards have to offer and it was not like performance was poor before hand but why so much improvement in six months? Why was this not available from the start?
Click to expand...

When i said best, what i meant was most recent and upto date drivers. The reason release reviews always differ is due to different games and settings used and even sometimes different drivers. I always try to get hold of recent reviews not for me but to show a true picture. This is not always easy as sometimes there can be months between reviews and not all review sites are trusted.

Like it or not Hardocp have a recent review with recent drivers which is the most meaningful review atm to judge performance between oc'ed 660/670/7950. I see no harm in users posting this to people that want advice on what card to buy in this price range.

I agree gregster there really would be no difference and thats why atm most spec me a card posts are easy when its someone with around £250 as if they have no brand preference the 7950 is so easy to recommend.
 
Last edited:
TheRealDeal said:
When i said best, what i meant was most recent and upto date drivers. The reason release reviews always differ is due to different games and settings used and even sometimes different drivers. I always try to get hold of recent reviews not for me but to show a true picture. This is not always easy as sometimes there can be months between reviews and not all review sites are trusted.

Like it or not Hardocp have a recent review with recent drivers which is the most meaningful review atm to judge performance between oc'ed 660/670/7950. I see no harm in users posting this to people that want advice on what card to buy in this price range.
Click to expand...

I've made a lengthy edit above.

It's well timed but the review has some serious flaws in it.

I mean it's all rather moot anyway, I don't disagree that the cards to buy at the moment are the 7850/7950 but not on the basis of this one review at all.

I know this review looks nice because it is on latest drivers and with overclocks but I have to keep repeating it, it is only one review. It isn't the most meaningful at all.

As I said, I can probably find a review in seconds on Google from an end user which says the complete opposite to what this review says but the game of review vs review doesn't really interest me.
 
Last edited:
Anyway TheRealDeal what are we arguing about? I don't disagree that the 7950 is faster than the 660Ti when overclocked on all set-up's :)

Performance wise it sits between the 7870 and the 7950 at a price point which then promptly cuts it out of contention.
 
Last edited:
Rusty0611 said:
Anyway TheRealDeal what are we arguing about? I don't disagree that the 7950 is faster than the 660Ti when overclocked on all set-up's :)
Click to expand...

No real argument was just view points on that review. Yea as i said above the 660ti is not a bad card just overpriced. Amd pretty much threw a spanner in the works when they dropped prices. It was about time too as now on this round cards are starting to get where they should have been priced or where i would have liked them to be.
 
Last edited:
When reviews can be biased (tweak town) :rolleyes: and user/member reviews aren't thorough enough and misses lots of variables and factors then the best option is to buy a card and become the Guinea pig. :D

It's an expensive way of doing things but you can argue against benchmarks, overclocks and reviews until your blue in the face.

;)
 
I see you've resorted to pettiness humbug without addressing any of the issues I raised about the review. I know my argument is stronger than yours and that just proves it.

I eagerly await the next instalment of "my link is better than yours" from you.

I love riling fanboys :D
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom