GTX 670 Listed at $415

SonDa5

SonDa5

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 20, 2008
Messages
7,437
a36eacad_Gigabyte-GTX-670-Listed-635x522.png



http://wccftech.com/gigabyte-geforce-gtx-670-listed-415-core-clocked-980mhz/

Looks like price is going to be around $400 to start.

If this card can over clock it may be a better value than GTX 680.

I don't see how this card is going to be able to compete with HD7950 with less vRAM and higher price.
 
Not a good price IMO, I got my 570 for $300, I would think the pricing should be closer to that. Better off just skipping this gen for GPU's, this settles it. Can buy two 570's for the price of one 670, that just isn't right!
 
You guys cant moan, over here in England (or the 'UK') we have to pay way over the odds for these graphics cards (even though they are already over priced)

For you a 680 costs $500 which equals to £307
Over here we have to pay £440!!!
That's the same as you having to pay $715......

Its the same for all GPU's............. it sucks hard, so you should be happy!
 
DougCBJ said:
Not a good price IMO, I got my 570 for $300, I would think the pricing should be closer to that. Better off just skipping this gen for GPU's, this settles it. Can buy two 570's for the price of one 670, that just isn't right!
Click to expand...
this whole 28nm generation sucks for those of us with already decent cards looking for a reasonable upgrade. 7 months ago I got my Galaxy non reference GTX570 for $260 plus it came with Batman AC. spending 400 bucks now for a next gen card for only around a 30% increase is a joke.
 
cannondale06 said:
this whole 28nm generation sucks for those of us with already decent cards looking for a reasonable upgrade. 7 months ago I got my Galaxy non reference GTX570 for $260 plus it came with Batman AC. spending 400 bucks now for a next gen card for only around a 30% increase is a joke.
Click to expand...

Shhh! You'll ruin the price-fixing..
 
DougCBJ said:
Not a good price IMO, I got my 570 for $300, I would think the pricing should be closer to that. Better off just skipping this gen for GPU's, this settles it. Can buy two 570's for the price of one 670, that just isn't right!
Click to expand...

um it was the same way before the 600 series.. it was the same before the 500 and 400 series.. it was the same before the 200 series.. the pricing from generation to generation hasn't really changed other then nvidia isn't charging 600 dollars for their flag ship GPU this time.

either way i expected the first 28nm to be lackluster. second generation 28nm is where the real performance should be. i think the problem is both AMD and Nvidia made significant changes with their gpu's this time around.

but i still think 400 sounds about right.. the power usage difference is a pretty significant difference in whether you choose the 670 over a 570 even if the performance is pretty close. obviously not everyones reasoning for buying something is the same. but the big question is how much did they nerf the card shader wise(not sure if its been posted since i haven't been paying that much attention to the 670 threads). another way to look at it.. you are just buying another 570 to replace a 480.. same exact cards other than the 570 being a little more power efficient then the 480.
 
I remember the 8800 Ultra being $650-750 back in 2008-2009.

There's nothing new here with the prices. We had a good run with the 40-45nm gpu generation but we're back to where we were before with the prices. :rolleyes:
 
Trackr said:
Shhh! You'll ruin the price-fixing..
Click to expand...

More price bracket bumping since you get effectively no price\performance improvement than you did in past gen upgrades -in fact, if this price holds true, the price\performance has actually decreased so far with this gen's midrange cards.

But yes, there is price fixing going on her between AMD and nVidia. There's too much money to be made for them not to be explicitly (or implicitly) collaborating on this.
 
hdgamer said:
I remember the 8800 Ultra being $650-750 back in 2008-2009.

There's nothing new here with the prices. We had a good run with the 40-45nm gpu generation but we're back to where we were before with the prices. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Considering the 8800 series came out in 2006 and the G92 in 2007, i think your timing is a bit off.
 
bastage said:
dont know if this has already been posted, but...

http://videocardz.com/32476/geforce-gtx-660-ti-and-gtx-670-specification-leaked
Click to expand...
probably just a rumor but the 670 looks exactly like what I thought it would. the 660ti seems odd though. it makes sense to be a cut down gk104 but why increase the clocks on it over the 670? 660ti sli would probably slaughter the gtx680 for the same price so might be the new killer setup for 1920x1080/1200. 1.5gb of vram would hold that setup back in a couple games at 2560 though.
 
cannondale06 said:
probably just a rumor but the 670 looks exactly like what I thought it would. the 660ti seems odd though. it makes sense to be a cut down gk104 but why increase the clocks on it over the 670? 660ti sli would probably slaughter the gtx680 for the same price so might be the new killer setup for 1920x1080/1200. 1.5gb of vram would hold that setup back in a couple games at 2560 though.
Click to expand...

Maybe the 670 clocked at a full 1006 Mhz came too close to the 680, or exceeded the target TDP. 660Ti should have a nice price/performance ratio though.
 
Well, hell...What do I do now? I've got a GTX 560ti, not 448 core. I was thinking about saving up for a 670 or 680, but I was also considering just adding another 560ti when prices drop more. I'm about to buy one of the high res korean monitors, and will need to push some pixels for skyrim and whatever else comes out within the couple of years after.... crap. How would dual 560ti's stack up based on the specs of the GTX 670? (it's pure speculation, I know) I usually get a card that's pretty good, sit on it till the games coming out dictate that I need to add another to keep frame-rates up, and then upgrade once I have to after that.
 
Damn, was hoping the 670 would be $350. I figured it would be $399 though. It will be hard for me to pull the trigger at that price.

Wonder how the 660 ti will perform compared to the 7850.
 
csgamer said:
Damn, was hoping the 670 would be $350.
Click to expand...
Same here. I bought my GTX 570 not too long after release and payed €320. I was hoping the 670 would come in at a similar price. I am planning to upgrade my system sometime this year and it looks like I am going to have to either downsize or review my budget.
 
i was really hoping 1.5gb cards where going to be thing of the past in the midrange. Granted it doesnt seem to effect games much @ stock but I like to load up those high rez texture mods. Looks like to get the most of my budget, I'm going to have to decide between a 7850 or 660 ti (maybe 3gb versions will hit fast) to hold me over till next series - when price/performance should be much better, too bad i need an upgrade now.
 
atticus14 said:
i was really hoping 1.5gb cards where going to be thing of the past in the midrange. Granted it doesnt seem to effect games much @ stock but I like to load up those high rez texture mods. Looks like to get the most of my budget, I'm going to have to decide between a 7850 or 660 ti (maybe 3gb versions will hit fast) to hold me over till next series - when price/performance should be much better, too bad i need an upgrade now.
Click to expand...
since when was 1.5 used on mid range cards in the past? 560ti was 1gb and 6870 was 1gb.
 
Come on you know what he meant. 3GB and 4GB is the new gold standard in high end cards. I have not recommended cards under 2GB to serious gamers in over a year. For many buyers it is not just about today. They PLAN on keeping that card for up to 5 years. 1GB or 1.5GB isn't going to be enough to make it that long even if you can accept the card's tech getting old.

We have reached a point where you should not be considering 1GB until you hit the cards under $150.
 
Advil said:
Come on you know what he meant. 3GB and 4GB is the new gold standard in high end cards. I have not recommended cards under 2GB to serious gamers in over a year. For many buyers it is not just about today. They PLAN on keeping that card for up to 5 years. 1GB or 1.5GB isn't going to be enough to make it that long even if you can accept the card's tech getting old.

We have reached a point where you should not be considering 1GB until you hit the cards under $150.
Click to expand...
no I did not know what he meant. he talked about mid range cards and that is what the gtx660ti will be. 1.5gb will not be an issue on that card because its going to be about the same or slower than the gtx580 which does just fine. only in sli would 1.5gb not be enough and even then only in very few cases at 2560x1600.

now personally I would not buy a card without at least 2gb but I also would not buy a card as slow as the gtx660ti.
 
Advil said:
Come on you know what he meant. 3GB and 4GB is the new gold standard in high end cards. I have not recommended cards under 2GB to serious gamers in over a year. For many buyers it is not just about today. They PLAN on keeping that card for up to 5 years. 1GB or 1.5GB isn't going to be enough to make it that long even if you can accept the card's tech getting old.

We have reached a point where you should not be considering 1GB until you hit the cards under $150.
Click to expand...


Are you serious? Unless you're gaming across multiple monitors, there's only a few games that use more than 1gb of Vram on a 2560X1600 monitor. And these games don't actually USE the vram, they cache it like windows does. This would be Battlefield 3, Stalker COP, and a few others. I personally don't see games advancing that much in the next five years, but I see hardware utilizing the software more efficiently where we won't need that much vram. Besides, in five years if games do advance, your card would be to slow so the vram issue wouldn't be the cause of slowing down the games anyways. I say buy what you think is the best at the moment.
 
The amount of importance people put on GPU RAM is ridiculous. For some amount of GPU processing power there is only so much RAM it can make use of. It doesn't matter if games far in the future will use more RAM, you'll be turning down settings anyways because your GPU processing power can't handle it.

Someone needs to benchmark an old 8800GT 512MB vs a 1GB version running Battlefield 3 to show how useless that extra ram still is.
 
hdgamer said:
Are you serious? Unless you're gaming across multiple monitors, there's only a few games that use more than 1gb of Vram on a 2560X1600 monitor. And these games don't actually USE the vram, they cache it like windows does. This would be Battlefield 3, Stalker COP, and a few others. I personally don't see games advancing that much in the next five years, but I see hardware utilizing the software more efficiently where we won't need that much vram. Besides, in five years if games do advance, your card would be to slow so the vram issue wouldn't be the cause of slowing down the games anyways. I say buy what you think is the best at the moment.
Click to expand...
now that I disagree with. I can use over 1gb right now in several games at just 1920x1080 with my gtx570. and for some games it is actually needed. a high end card does need over 1.5gb for sure to get the most out of it.

and 5 years is a LOOOONG time as 5 years ago we were arguing over 256mb vs 512mb of vram. then a couple of years later we had the 512mb versus 1gb debate which did not last long either as 512mb quickly became insufficient.
 
Its going to retail 399, frys already has them. You cant buy them though because they have a street date on them, the register wont let you purchase them.
 
660Ti is the same price as the 7850. Thats not good for Nvidia. 7850 overclocks like mad and has more memory to boot, seems like a bad comparison.
 
Cali3350 said:
660Ti is the same price as the 7850. Thats not good for Nvidia. 7850 overclocks like mad and has more memory to boot, seems like a bad comparison.
Click to expand...
what? the gtx660ti is likely to be about the same or just a little slower than the gtx580. even the gtx570 is about 15% faster than the stock 7850. so sure you can oc the 7850 but even when you do it will just match or barely beat the stock gtx660ti. and that is with a really oc that not ever 7850 will even do. and then of course you can still oc the gtx660ti. if anything the 7850 is going to look worse for the money no matter how you look at it.
 
cannondale06 said:
what? the gtx660ti is likely to be about the same or just a little slower than the gtx580. even the gtx570 is about 15% faster than the stock 7850. so sure you can oc the 7850 but even when you do it will just match or barely beat the stock gtx660ti. and that is with a really oc that not ever 7850 will even do. and then of course you can still oc the gtx660ti. if anything the 7850 is going to look worse for the money no matter how you look at it.
Click to expand...

please show us the 660ti benchmarks that your obviously holding back, sounds great!
 
atticus14 said:
please show us the 660ti benchmarks that your obviously holding back, sounds great!
Click to expand...
just estimating that it will probably be about 35% slower than the gtx680 which makes sense.

either way how can he make the determination that the 7850 will be the better value when he does not know the performance of the gtx660ti either?
 
Last edited:
cannondale06 said:
just estimating that it will probably be about 35% slower than the gtx480 which makes sense.

either way how can he make the determination that the 7850 will be the better value when he does not know the performance of the gtx660ti either?
Click to expand...

I think hes saying its not good in the most simplest terms instead of declaring performance numbers that dont exist yet. Outside of informed people in enthusiasts forums 2GB vs 1.5 GB wins nearly everytime in a consumers mind especially at the same price and GeeBeez is the only "computer" term they are relatively familiar with. About the same as when my acquaintances like to quote their 100 billion contrast levels of that new tv they picked up.

Although it would be nice if the card does compare favorably to 580 @ stock, it would put a lot of pressure on the 7870, 7850, 7950, and even its own 670 lol. 250 would be a great price* for something that can equal a 580 and OC even further.

*great price is a relative term for overall crappy (imo) next gen price/performance
 
Damn I hope it doesn't cost that much, GPU prices need to come back down already! This is getting ridiculous.
 
hdgamer said:
I remember the 8800 Ultra being $650-750 back in 2008-2009.

There's nothing new here with the prices. We had a good run with the 40-45nm gpu generation but we're back to where we were before with the prices. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I paid $250 for my GTX 260 (no rebates). It was still many months until the 4** series.

They need to bring the price down on the 670 by $200+ before it will be worth buying.

Also looks like t he 660ti will be 1.5GB. Too little for $250. At 1680x1050 I hit 1.3GB in ArmA 2 and Rise of Flight. Probably will go over that with some high res texture packs.
 
Last edited:
Will it be better suited for folding at home though? Since apparently the 680 GTX is not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top