Can you name one company in the world that would exist as we know it today if it went 2 years without funding. Like if Apple stopped selling phones, tablets and Macs for 2 years, they would be in the same position they are now? Ditto nVidia with Tegras, GTXs and Quadros. AMD is restructuring so they minimise expenditure, maximise profits and can self-sufficiently fund themselves. They would use AMD's x86 CPU patents in their ARM-based iOS and Android devices? If AMD were bought by either of these companies, they would cede their right to be an x86 manufacturer. Please elucidate the value of these GPU patents of which you speak. Okay, another assumption of yours which has no bearing over choosing a graphics card. You chide AMD for bringing their drivers too late and yet denigrate them by making predicitions of the future? It is their choice but it also the reason PhysX is dying out. The number of PhysX games, especially those with additional effects has plummeted over the years as companies are afraid of alienating up to half (Radeon users) of their user base. We'll have to agree to disagree. I base my opinion on fact rather than speculation and hearsay. The best card for this situation would be a 670 or a 7950 Boost depending on which games the GPU will be used for.
I posted this in the 660 review comments and seems apt for this thread too: on the subject of price points and competitors at each one, i think i commented on another thread about this not being a too dissimilar situation than the last gen. cards from nvidia and ati slotting in between each other on both performance and price works for both of them: you've got a budget of £160 for a gfx card - the 7850, but for just £20 more you can have the 660 which would give you more power. you've got a budget of £180 for a gfx card - the 660, but for just £20 more you can have the 7870 which would give you more power. you've got a budget of £200 for a gfx card - the 7870, but for just £20 more....... It's obviously not quite as simplistic as that and gets a little more blurry the higher up you go, with the factory overclocked and double memory cards straying into the territory of the next model up, but they (nvida and amd) know that computer enthusiasts will always want just that bit more power, those last few extra fps. They don't want you to have to choose between one make or the other for the same price. the card you buy will ultimately be determined by how much your willing to spend when you hit that 'confirm order' button and quite often, whether your green or red
AMD are loosing money and fast ( like nokia and rim to name another 2 who are in desperate need of finance), Apple / samsung would survive for 5+ years if it stopped selling every product on the market with just cash in hand.(110billion dollars at last count in apples case, Around 45billion in samsungs ) The gpu patents that AMD has access to are from what they brought out of ATI, JP morgan was recently hired to try to find a buyer for AMD patents(12nov 2012 that info was released to shareholders on) . The gpu patents are worth a fortune to the correct buyer and if Apple or samsung wanted to implement there own GPU solutions one day would be vital to either company hoping to do this. AMD have lost a small fortune in the last 4 quaters (157,000) 37,000 (590,000) (177,000) ( quaters in brackets are losses the ones not are profit ) add it up and it is a large figure. Its also not hearsay that intel would have to prop up AMD (they already give them 1billion dollars in the last year alone even if that was compensation), If they dont they would instantly own a monoply on the CPU market and the monoply board would not be too impressed by this. physics is in more games today than it was 2 years ago. If anything the number of physics games has increased year on year. Wether physics is the next big thing is difficult to say and i have my douts. People buy top end equipment based on there history with the company, If you had a bad experience with your Samsung sg2 for example would you go out and buy a SG3 i dout i would and others would also look elsewhere for there products.
So according to this, If I could afford either a 660(ti?) or a 7870, the 7870 > 660 ??? And again its for the games listed on first page.
Basically, either AMD or nVidia graphics solution should be sufficient to get at least 1080p 4xAA relatively easily. For these set of games, all things being equal, I would expect nVidia cards to shade AMD cards by a few frames but nothing too significant. The onus then falls on you to decide which echelon of graphics card you are searching for: $240 - Upper Mid-Range Stock: 7870 > 660. Max OC: 7870 OC >> 660 OC $300 - Lower High-End Stock: 660Ti = 7950. Max OC: 7950 OC > 660Ti OC If you want the maximum longevity for your card, the $60 premium isn't too much to pay. As far as which vendor, there are amazing deals for both companies. This Sapphire 7950 Boost 3GB is $280 after rebate and it comes with three free games; conversely this MSi 660Ti 2GB Power Edition is $275 after rebate and comes with the new Assassin's Creed. If you want to overclock, you will be more likely to eke out maximum performance with a 7950 and this card also has an extra gigabyte of VRAM (although you will most likely never need it). The 660Ti has PhysX and other nVidia goodies so it comes down to your choice.
The 660Ti is slightly faster than the 7870 at your resolution. Add to that the fact that the games you play tend to favor Nvidia cards, and the 660Ti is a clear winner. The 7950 is even faster than the 660Ti, but it usually costs more than $300. However, as Kodongo pointed out, you might find rebate deals that will drop the price below your maximum budget of $300. It's not a bad card at all. If you decide to get a 660Ti, be careful not to be drawn into buying a 660 (non-Ti) for a minimal reduction in price. The 660 is a different GPU and is slower than the 7870. Don't consider it, unless you stumble on a really good deal, like $200 or below.
Now, when you say faster, are you going off of core clock speed? Because when I look at core clock speeds, it seems like the higher up the card goes, the lower the speed gets (but you get more memory and such)
Core clock isn't a very good way of analysing because AMD Clocks don't equal nVidia clocks and the core clock speed is only comparable on chips made from the same die such as 'Tahiti' for 7950 and 7970 or 'Pitcairn' for 7850 and 7870. It is a quite rough equivocation but imagine a dual-core processor at 4.0 GHz vs a quad-core 3.5 GHz. When it came to a brute force test, the quad core would win because despite the lower clock speed, there is more horsepower under the hood. The best comparison between cards from different companies and even different dies from the same company is simply real word benchmarking.
