GTX 750 Ti FTW, NO SLI :(

Yes, I was thinking and saying reference vs. reference.

Not my fault you didn't read my post or click the link...

NOT saying "SC" AT ALL in my post, and linking to an article that compared ONLY reference vs. reference benchmarks should have been pretty clear...
I did read and did look. You dont have to say SC when you are already quoting a post with SC in it. If anything the common sense reply would have been to specifically say exactly what you meant since again you were quoting me. So again please just let this go.
 
Hmm, interesting. There's no SLI hack to be found, but apparently multi-card arrays using the GTX 750 Ti are popular with altcoin miners (due to the low wattage): http://www.overclock.net/t/1468166/gtx-750-ti-mining/360#post_21916923

Really makes me want to see what these would do in SLI from a performance-per-watt standpoint.

I did read and did look. You dont have to say SC when you are already quoting a post with SC in it.
You read my post where I never said "SC" and did look at the link which was a reference card vs. a reference card? So how were you confused?

And, once again, your post was about both SC and reference.

I responded only to the part about reference. I made no mention of SC. I was not responding to anything you said about the SC editions.

If anything the common sense reply would have been to specifically say exactly what you meant since again you were quoting me.
I did say exactly what I meant. GTX 660 and GTX 760.

Note the lack of any "SC" suffix.
 
Last edited:
Again that was what was going on in your head. Your reply would have made more sense if you were more clear. In the end does it matter? What you originally said changes nothing as my point to him was that he could not even match the SC much less easily beat it.
 
Again that was what was going on in your head. Your reply would have made more sense if you were more clear
How could it have been more clear? I said the exact models which I was discussing and linked a comparison that compared ONLY those models. Reference vs. reference across the board.

Do I need to say "GTX 760 NOT THE SC VERSION" every time I'm talking about a reference model card now? :rolleyes:

What you originally said changes nothing as my point to him was that he could not even match the SC much less easily beat it.
You also made the point that "[A GTX 660] would have to be oced well past 1500 just to realistically match the 760.
Red text is what I was responding to...which you keep omitting for some reason.

And I still doubt a GTX 660 NOT THE SC VERSION would have to be overclocked that far to match a GTX 760 NOT THE SC VERSION.
 
They really should have called the maxwell cards the 740 and the 750. That way they can re-brand the 660ti as a 750 Ti and there wouldn't be a freaking huge gap between the 750ti and the 760.
 
They really should have called the maxwell cards the 740 and the 750. That way they can re-brand the 660ti as a 750 Ti and there wouldn't be a freaking huge gap between the 750ti and the 760.
Yeah they only called them the 750ti and 750 to get more money for them.
 
They really should have called the maxwell cards the 740 and the 750. That way they can re-brand the 660ti as a 750 Ti and there wouldn't be a freaking huge gap between the 750ti and the 760.
That would have been cleaner, but it would also mean rebuilding the GTX 660 and/or 660 Ti to support Boost 2.0 (a standard feature of 7XX series cards). Might have been more trouble than it was worth for a card that far down the ladder?

Lol you are a joke. You act like a jerk first here with your eye rolling and bad attitude.
I was rolling my eyes at you because you were throwing numbers only relevant to a discussion about SC cards at posts that had nothing to do with SC cards.

"The difference between X and Y isn't that big"
"What are you talking about? The difference between X and Z is huge!"

See the problem?
 
They really should have called the maxwell cards the 740 and the 750. That way they can re-brand the 660ti as a 750 Ti and there wouldn't be a freaking huge gap between the 750ti and the 760.

this would add confusion though the 750ti as a 750 with maxwell and then the 750ti as a rebranded 660ti thats not maxwell
 
That would have been cleaner, but it would also mean rebuilding the GTX 660 and/or 660 Ti to support Boost 2.0 (a standard feature of 7XX series cards). Might have been more trouble than it was worth for a card that far down the ladder?

I understand that, but in truth, just try SELLING Nvidia cards. For all the shit people give AMD cards (a lot of it unjustified, not all) their naming scheme seems much more fluid. Even now with their worse R branding, there isn't a huge gap anywhere in price or performance, and it's generally easy for customers to understand where cards sit.

I mean, c'mon: a 650, a 650 Ti and a 650 Ti Boost!? Try explaining to a customer that the 650 Ti Boost is a MUCH faster card than the 650. The customer says, well, the 'boost' version is more expensive, I'll get the normal: can't be that much of a difference!

Seriously, their naming is inconsistent as well. I like the new 'Ti' thing they got going, because it adds a bit of a step up and it smooths out the product stack... Yet there is no 760 or 770 Ti version, yet last generation, there was only a 650 and 660 Ti.. And then you have the 'boost' version... Ah, my head hurts just thinking about it.

Really, Nvidia should just start lower on the numbering scheme. Is anybody REALLY going to be sad that their new gt 720 is now a GT 710? That frees up a huge range of cards for them to fill up, and fill up EVENLY.

You have the X50, than the X50 Ti, which is ~10% faster. Then you have the X60, which is ~12% faster than the X50 Ti. Ten you have the X60 Ti, which is a smaller ~10% jump again. This 10-12-10-12 jump solidifies the cards into set brackets, and helps the customer understand better the relationship between the various arch.
 
Last edited:
I understand that, but in truth, just try SELLING Nvidia cards. For all the shit people give AMD cards (a lot of it unjustified, not all) their naming scheme seems much more fluid. Even now with their worse R branding, there isn't a huge gap anywhere in price or performance, and it's generally easy for customers to understand where cards sit.
It's generally not that much of a problem if you know what Ti means. They seem to have cleaned up their act with the 7XX series.

750 < 750 Ti < 760 < 770 < 780 < 780 Ti

If the number is higher, it's faster. Ti is the uber version of a specific number :D

Seriously, their naming is inconsistent as well. I like the new 'Ti' thing they got going, because it adds a bit of a step up and it smooths out the product stack... Yet there is no 760 or 770 Ti version
"Ti" is actually a really old thing, they've just reintroduced it. I remember buying a GeForce 2 Ti 440 waaaay back in the day.

As for Ti editions of the 760 and 770... There is a Ti edition of the GTX 760, but it's OEM-only.
The GTX 770 is already a higher-clocked GTX 680. I'm not sure there's much headroom left for a "Ti" version.
 
I know that the Ti is 'old' but kind of like how AMD's FX branding is 'old' but they dug it up from ten years ago to cash in on nostalgia.

And the average customer does not have a CLUE what any of this means. It's REALLY difficult to tell them that a 750 is slower than a 680, even though it has a higher number. So throw in the 'Ti' thing, and make it ONLY for certain card numbers, and you have a sure fire way to confuse a customer who only buys a computer once every 5 years or so.
 
It's REALLY difficult to tell them that a 750 is slower than a 680, even though it has a higher number.
Which has been an issue, on both sides, since the dawn of time. Not going to change, on either aside, any time soon :p

The model numbers are internally consistent to a specific series. If a person hasn't figured out how important the 2nd digit is by now, they shouldn't be buying graphics cards unassisted...
 
A 660 would have to be oced by 35% and have perfect scaling just to match the SC 760. In other words it would have to be oced well past 1500 just to realistically match the 760.[/QUOTE




WELL I HAVE A 60% OVERCLOCK ON MY GK104 660 OEM 800MHz stock VS the 1306MHZ it runs at

I have a OEM GTX 660. So, It has 1,152 Cuda cores to. And it has 96 ROP's

A reference GTX 760 with a stock 4770K gets 5,100 in firestrike.

A EVGA SC GTX 760 gets 5,600 in firestrike

This little OEM GTX 660 gets 5,800 at only 1250/7,000 in firestrike.

Im making right at 172gbps memory bandwidth.

It is pretty quick! It got 8,721 in 3dmark11

Catzilla 1.2, 720P is 15,204

Catzilla 584p is 19,900 something.

It is indeed faster than a GTX 760. I was going to upgrade to like a GTX 770, or a GTX 760 maybe. But it just wasn't enough improvement. A GTX 780 was the only logical upgrade. I know you can always overclock everything to a new level but still. This card is outstanding! ive got a screenshot saved I just found it let me upload it to the bucket.

After I applied the Patch for PCI-E 3.0 for sandy E and IVY E, I squeezed another 150 points or so out of it.
 
Last edited:
Which has been an issue, on both sides, since the dawn of time. Not going to change, on either aside, any time soon :p

The model numbers are internally consistent to a specific series. If a person hasn't figured out how important the 2nd digit is by now, they shouldn't be buying graphics cards unassisted...

Yes, that is the same for both sides, but I was using that fact to illustrate exactly how throwing an inconsistent 'Ti' label on a couple of cards makes it difficult to make the customer understand the overall product line. Nvidia should have Ti versions for every tier, not just a couple where they have space to fill.
 
Yes, that is the same for both sides, but I was using that fact to illustrate exactly how throwing an inconsistent 'Ti' label on a couple of cards makes it difficult to make the customer understand the overall product line.
What about "Ti" is inconsistent?

Ti = Titanium Edition = Better than the non-Ti. Seems pretty consistent to me...

Nvidia should have Ti versions for every tier, not just a couple where they have space to fill.
Why bother, exactly? Sounds like you want model numbers for the sake of model numbers, not because anyone actually wants them or would buy them in any quantity.

There is such a thing as being too granular. Give people too many choices and they freeze up.
 
The cards final scores ended up right around 5,931 in 3dMark FireStrike.

Everyone relax! It is ok! My GTX 660 is actually faster than a GTX 760 SC

Now, there is no telling what can be done to a GTX 760 SC, after unlocking voltage and overclocking the hell out of it, and squeezing its small body until it pull 7,000's lol BUT!

My 660 is faster than a "Reference GTX 760"

"And a GTX 760 Super clocked"
 
I'm pretty sure I made my case clear. To the 1% of people who identify as tech experts, it makes perfect sense. But to the average customer, it is inconsistent.

And seriously, I'm trying as hard as I can to tolerate your unwavering Nvidia passion, but dude, it's ALL RIGHT to admit that Nvidia can do something wrong. It's okay. It's not like if you admit that the Ti naming scheme may confuse customers, suddenly the Nvidia discrete market share will plummet, AMD will take over and hitler himself will raise from the grave and buy every high-end graphics board and use it for bitcoin mining.

It's alright, dude. It's alright.
 
Yes we get it that your OEM 660 that has more shaders and has been unlocked using custom BIOS and oced to really high speeds is matching the 760. :p
 
It's okay. It's not like if you admit that the Ti naming scheme may confuse customers, suddenly the Nvidia discrete market share will plummet
Uh... ok dude, calm down.

I'm legitimately curious what you find inconsistent about it. All Ti cards are better than their non-Ti counterparts, that looks consistent to me...
 
Yes we get it that your OEM 660 that has more shaders and has been unlocked using custom BIOS and oced to really high speeds is matching the 760. :p

Well! apparently it was impossible for a GTX 660 OEM to be faster or just as fast as a GTX 760 SC. So, I felt like I needed to reassure everyone that I was being honest is all. And it was faster than a GTX 760 SC :cool:;)

I was not trying to make a huge point!

I said it one time! ONE TIME lol that my GTX 660 OEM was faster than a 760 Reference, and a 760 Super clocked. And I come back, and see all of this! So I felt I needed to post a screen that it really was.
 
Uh... ok dude, calm down.

I'm legitimately curious what you find inconsistent about it. All Ti cards are better than their non-Ti counterparts, that looks consistent to me...

The Ti name scheme is inconsistent because it has no regular pairing with any tier. There is a 780 Ti, but not a 770 Ti. But there is a 750 Ti, but no 760 Ti. Yet last gen, there was a 660 Ti, but no 680 Ti. Do you see where I'm coming from? It's not good to have this sort of product inconsistency. Like with AMD cards, there is an 'X' version and a normal version across pretty much the entire range. The tiers that don't have an 'X' are the exeptions. I hate the new AMD naming scheme, but at least they own it. Nvidia just use the 'Ti' branding to fill product range holes in places they forgot or didn't predict would sell well.

Before you say 'but Ti cards usually come first' I'm talking about the overall range. The 'Ti' branding looks unprofessional, the fact that the 750 has a Ti, and the 780 has a Ti, but nothing between? It looks like Nvidia didn't really plan for the space between, or the just REALLY don't care about creating a consistent brand.
 
I understand that, but in truth, just try SELLING Nvidia cards. For all the shit people give AMD cards (a lot of it unjustified, not all) their naming scheme seems much more fluid. Even now with their worse R branding, there isn't a huge gap anywhere in price or performance, and it's generally easy for customers to understand where cards sit.

I mean, c'mon: a 650, a 650 Ti and a 650 Ti Boost!? Try explaining to a customer that the 650 Ti Boost is a MUCH faster card than the 650. The customer says, well, the 'boost' version is more expensive, I'll get the normal: can't be that much of a difference!

Seriously, their naming is inconsistent as well. I like the new 'Ti' thing they got going, because it adds a bit of a step up and it smooths out the product stack... Yet there is no 760 or 770 Ti version, yet last generation, there was only a 650 and 660 Ti.. And then you have the 'boost' version... Ah, my head hurts just thinking about it.

Really, Nvidia should just start lower on the numbering scheme. Is anybody REALLY going to be sad that their new gt 720 is now a GT 710? That frees up a huge range of cards for them to fill up, and fill up EVENLY.

You have the X50, than the X50 Ti, which is ~10% faster. Then you have the X60, which is ~12% faster than the X50 Ti. Ten you have the X60 Ti, which is a smaller ~10% jump again. This 10-12-10-12 jump solidifies the cards into set brackets, and helps the customer understand better the relationship between the various arch.

well its nvidia...
 
Well, they actually do have a GTX 760 Ti. Here is one!

http://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gtx-760ti-oem/specifications

It is a little beast to. 1,344 Cuda Cores! 256Bit bus, and proubly overclocks to 1,300Mhz to, 7,200 just like the rest of the GK104 scattered all over the place in about 50 or so different types of video cards lol.

I think the biggest thing I hate about NVidia, is the GTX 780 Ti. It is just a bad deal! It is $699.99 and a GTX 780 is $499.99.. This makes no sense! And it is literally like 10 % faster. That is just a lousy upgrade! A gtx 780 overclocks to a 780Ti level. And whats the worst about it!

What is the worst about it is, NVidia will sell all of the GTX 780Ti cards for 700 bucks or so! And then they release a 6Gb 780 Ti, and sell it for 700 bucks, and then sell the regular ones for $500 that everyone just bought for 700 bucks ! lol.

I love Nvidia, and AMD to! But damn NVidia! I wouldn't do that to your customers, especially knowing they are upset about the watchdogs Vram memory usage dillio thingy

It is just not fair! And they do it on purpose. That is why I bought a GTX 780 refurbished classified, I mean it will clock to 1293! 7,000Mhz and hit almost 11,000 in firestrike. And it was $414.99

And a GTX 780Ti cannot hit 10,000 stock in firestrike.

400 vs 700 is a BAD DEAL!

That is like selling a GTX 760 for $200 and a GTX 770 for $500 lol!! And they even have the same amount of cuda cores more than one another just like 780 and 780 Ti

I wanted to buy a GTX 780 Ti, but it was just a crappy deal. I know a lot of people bought them! And are happy. But, For 600 to 700. I would have bought a GTX Titan Original off of ebay NEW IN THE BOX!
 
The Ti name scheme is inconsistent because it has no regular pairing with any tier. There is a 780 Ti, but not a 770 Ti. But there is a 750 Ti, but no 760 Ti. Yet last gen, there was a 660 Ti, but no 680 Ti. Do you see where I'm coming from? It's not good to have this sort of product inconsistency. Like with AMD cards, there is an 'X' version and a normal version across pretty much the entire range. The tiers that don't have an 'X' are the exeptions. I hate the new AMD naming scheme, but at least they own it. Nvidia just use the 'Ti' branding to fill product range holes in places they forgot or didn't predict would sell well.

Before you say 'but Ti cards usually come first' I'm talking about the overall range. The 'Ti' branding looks unprofessional, the fact that the 750 has a Ti, and the 780 has a Ti, but nothing between? It looks like Nvidia didn't really plan for the space between, or the just REALLY don't care about creating a consistent brand.

they're just seeking chances to pull in as much cheddar
 
All of these GK110 cards have 384Bit memory bus, all of them mostly hit 7GHz memory speeds! So, bandwidth is not a issue between the GK110 bunch!

2,304 192 Rop's 384bit
2,688 224 Rop's 384 bit All of these numbers are very close! And do not make a noticeable huge performance boost unless really benchmarking.
2,880 240 Rop's 384Bit A GK110 is fast either way you take it.

It is just I can buy a GTX 780 and a GTX 760 from newegg for $625! lol

Then donate the GTX 760, overclock the 780 to a Ti level.

And just one lousy damn GTX 780Ti will cost me $700

So I am to! Totally with the TI being crap!

Now, the GTX Titan on the other hand! I would pay $1,000 new for a Titan Black. It seems like a good deal to me! I would spend $1,000 on a GTX Titan black. Before I spent $700 on a GTX 780Ti.
Not only does it have 6GB of vram, but a Titan is useful in other areas like development 3d graphic design, and rendering big scenes.

They had the GTX Titan for $1,000 And then the Titan black and they sold it for $1,000 to!

As for the Titan Z... I don't know what exactly they are doing with that lol. TWO (2) GTX Titans will out perform it for ONLY $2,000 bucks! And the Titan Z cost as much as 3 Titans?! Although, they cannot even afford to watercool it like AMD did with the 50% cheaper, AND! faster R9 295X LOL!
 
Last edited:
The Ti name scheme is inconsistent because it has no regular pairing with any tier. There is a 780 Ti, but not a 770 Ti. But there is a 750 Ti, but no 760 Ti. Yet last gen, there was a 660 Ti, but no 680 Ti. Do you see where I'm coming from?
Not really, no. I'm not seeing the need for every. single. card. to have a Ti variant. What purpose would that serve, aside from soothing your OCD?

Also, as I stated previously, the GTX 760 Ti does exist: http://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gtx-760ti-oem/specifications

As for the lack of a 680 Ti, Nvidia had no reason to release such a card. The HD 7970 didn't blow the doors off the GTX 680, and AMD had to go back and release a "GHz Edition" to compete properly. By the time a 680 Ti was necessary, the 700 series was already rolling out, so we got the GTX 770 instead (which is effectively what a 680 Ti would have been, minus Boost 2.0).

Nvidia just use the 'Ti' branding to fill product range holes in places they forgot or didn't predict would sell well.
Forgot? Didn't predict?

Then why was there a Ti edition of the 750 on day-one? :confused:

Before you say 'but Ti cards usually come first' I'm talking about the overall range. The 'Ti' branding looks unprofessional, the fact that the 750 has a Ti, and the 780 has a Ti, but nothing between?
They decided to have a BAMF edition of two of their most popular cards. I'm not seeing the problem here.

It looks like Nvidia didn't really plan for the space between, or the just REALLY don't care about creating a consistent brand.
Again, what's not consistent? The Ti versions are all consistently better than their non-Ti counterparts.
 
Last edited:
All of these GK110 cards have 384Bit memory bus, all of them mostly hit 7GHz memory speeds! So, bandwidth is not a issue between the GK110 bunch!

2,304 192 Rop's
2,688 224 Rop's
2,880 240 Rop's

It is just I can buy a GTX 780 and a GTX 760 from newegg for $625! lol

Then donate the GTX 760, overclock the 780 to a Ti level.

And just one lousy damn GTX 780Ti will cost me $700

So I am to! Totally with the TI being crap!

Now, the GTX Titan on the other hand! I would pay $1,000 new for a Titan Black. It seems like a good deal to me! I would spend $1,000 on a GTX Titan black. Before I spent $700 on a GTX 780Ti.
Not only does it have 6GB of vram, but a Titan is useful in other areas like development 3d graphic design, and rendering big scenes.

They had the GTX Titan for $1,000 And then the Titan black and they sold it for $1,000 to!

As for the Titan Z... I don't know what exactly they are doing with that lol. TWO (2) GTX Titans will out perform it for ONLY $2,000 bucks! And the Titan Z cost as much as 3 Titans?! Although, they cannot even afford to watercool it like AMD did with the 50% cheaper, AND! faster R9 295X LOL!
You keep confusing TMUs witrh ROPs. You did that earlier in this thread when you said your 660 had 96 ROPs. I thought it was just a typo but you are mixing them up again.
 
bad habit that's all.

I hope NVidia releases a GTX Titan with the 800 series.

I am going to try and have the cash lined up to afford one when they first come out.

Makes sense to Buy a Titan when it first released. Those guys are getting there monies worth, if they bought it when it released all the way up until the next series releases.

Dropping a $1,000 on a video card to last 2 or 3 years doesn't seem so bad really.
 
I think nVidia should release an SLI capable 750ti. With the massive delays they've suffered in getting 20nm rolled out, they do what? Release more $1000-3000 video cards and take a proverbial piss on the low and mid range segments.

755ti with SLI capability, 25-50% more CUDA cores, and available in 2GB and 4GB flavors.
Price them at $200 for 2GB, $250 for 4GB, and they will fly off of shelves.
 
Back on topic: I'm honestly surprised nobody has managed to develop a driver hack to allow running two GTX 750 Ti's in SLI. SLI doesn't strictly require a bridge connector anymore, that's not what's preventing it from working...
It's possible this early version of Maxwell in the 750 series simply isn't SLI-compatible.
 
I think nVidia should release an SLI capable 750ti. With the massive delays they've suffered in getting 20nm rolled out, they do what? Release more $1000-3000 video cards and take a proverbial piss on the low and mid range segments.

755ti with SLI capability, 25-50% more CUDA cores, and available in 2GB and 4GB flavors.
Price them at $200 for 2GB, $250 for 4GB, and they will fly off of shelves.
It already exists, it's called a GTX 760.
 
It already exists, it's called a GTX 760.

But it's not Maxwell. I think that's what he was getting at. I have to admit too that it would have been nice for Nvidia just to release this card as an 800 series card. Because now, the 700 series has both Maxwell and Kepler. This kind of cluster-fuckery is usually reserved for the low-end (IE - Fermi's can still be found on certain low-end GT-600's).
 
But it's not Maxwell. I think that's what he was getting at. I have to admit too that it would have been nice for Nvidia just to release this card as an 800 series card. Because now, the 700 series has both Maxwell and Kepler. This kind of cluster-fuckery is usually reserved for the low-end (IE - Fermi's can still be found on certain low-end GT-600's).
True. I guess what I was getting at is a product he describes as a "755 Ti" doesn't make any sense in NVIDIA's current product lineup.
 
True. I guess what I was getting at is a product he describes as a "755 Ti" doesn't make any sense in NVIDIA's current product lineup.

I was meaning a true Maxwell part, so it makes sense to me. Lower power, lower temps, SLI capable, 2-4GB of VRAM, and maybe even single slot at a hot price: I would have bought two or three of them instead of a 780 without giving it a second thought. If they were in stock. :p
 
Back
Top