About: ROPs and FLOPS and pixels and textels

[kitamesume]

they were using light games though, but wow how the heck did they make some of the games run over 60FPS at *gasp* 1440P, even the GTX670 had hiccups at those settings =/

edit: check the review's comments, seems like there is something that made it go nuts.
edit2: seems like theres two reasons as to why AMD did worse, its windows8 and the drivers.
it appears as Nvidia's drivers favors windows8 more than windows7 since the jitter on the GTX660Ti was ironed out as said in the comments.
while as usual AMD sucks at their drivers that now they're suffering the usual results.

edit3: also that the whole review was pitted with a GTX660Ti superclocked against a stock HD7950 boost, seems like an unfair comparison isn't it?

(click to show/hide)

the comparisons should've been between cards like these:
[$299.99]ZOTAC AMP! ZT-60804-10P GeForce GTX 660 Ti
[$299.99]GIGABYTE GV-R795WF3-3GD Radeon HD 7950

• same price - check
• both non-stock - check

[Saras]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130809 this is EVGA's stock 660 ti, notice how it's running a good 15% slower than the zotacs AMP! card.

The 7950 used is... a stock one. And judging what I find from the 7950 overclocking results http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1679776

That's not really a fair competition, as I see the card overclocked to over 25% of it's base clocks.

[kitamesume]

^indeed it wasn't, although at most that AMP card can still go +100mhz on average though it'll be pushing it to max OC on most non-cherry cards.
ideally it should be a comparison to both cards at nearly the same frequency, mostly both at 1,100mhz should be a fair OC since majority of the cards can OC that far.

speaking of OC cards, Asus GTX660Ti CU TOP and MSI GTX660Ti PE OC seems to be the best candidates, they got a lot of feedbacks reaching +100mhz at most without touching the voltage settings.

though i'm still wondering how they managed to pull consistent 60+FPS with 1440P at high settings =/

[buchno]

It's extra fun since the 7950 is able to clock up to or over 50% the reference frequency of 800MHz with about any decent aftermarket cooler.

...also, this is just plain wrong:

However, only a few other cards can match the Vapor-X's 950MHz boost clock, and they all cost more than the Sapphire.

[GoGeTa006]

Damnit ! Now im back to square 1. . .
The ASUS 7950 Monster-looking card (which looks mounteously awesome) or that 660 Ti FTW. . .

I see so many reviews everywhere about how even though the ati shows better numbers (when OCd) the nvidia feels "smoother" gameplay. . .


And that radeon uses over 70W more than the nvidia. . .gonna have to factor that into the PSU price. . .was thinking of 600 but that wont b enough for the ati. . .

Ill probably go for. . .
Whichever is cheapest. . .
FFS =_=
I feel like a girl confused n shopping mayhem

[kitamesume]

it depends on what you prefer.

Nvidia advantages:
low power consumption
low heat production
stable drivers

AMD advantages:
high performance
low cost
high Vram capacities

edit: also, if both GTX660Ti and HD7950 are at the same price, its automatically HD7950's win.

[Saras]

Generally, ATI offers better bang/buck with nVidia giving you a more stable/better user experience. So expect to pay a lil bit of premium for an equivalent card from nVidia, like an extra 5-10%.

However in the end, both points tend to be negligible. Just do what I told you before. Get a list of games you want to play and look for what they're optimized for and get that.

[buchno]

I see so many reviews everywhere about how even though the ati shows better numbers (when OCd) the nvidia feels "smoother" gameplay. . .

That may be because there is evidence that the 7xxx-series may suffer from microstuttering, even when only using a single card.
They talk about it in the article you linked.

Edit: Although, it's most likely a software issue, so it is possible to fix it if they write better drivers.