Intention to set up a sli. Doubts.
-
Hello everyone. I'm posting this message because I see that some of you are using sli in your systems.
I had an hd 7950 boost until last month. My intention was to build 2, but with no reference cards, changing the source and other things, it was all very expensive and with possible temperature problems.I sold the hd 7950 and currently have a 3gb reference evga gtx 660. I bought this model to avoid the problem of the asymmetric bus since I like to tweak games a lot, etc...
The thing is that for older games, the gtx 660 works better for me (more stable fps), but in others, even lowering details, they go worse like skyrim or battlefield3.My intention is to build another one at the end of the month, but I don't want to find myself in the situation of not liking the invention and having to sell everything quickly and losing a lot of money.
What bothers me is that a gtx 570 that I had moved skyrim and battlefield3 much better. The nvidia drivers, since the 310, are horrible in battlefield3. The feeling is that it doesn't run smoothly at all. Like you're at 25 fps and with a lot of ping. It's even worse with the latest drivers. I also have performance problems, because this kepler crashes quickly, performing much less than the gtx 570 I had, as I said before.
I still play a lot of this game and it horrifies me that the problem of this game with drivers isn't solved. That's why I ask for advice on making a sli of mid-range keplers on a 1080p monitor. If I'm going to have a roller coaster of fps, little scaling with a monitor and continue having problems with battlefield3, then maybe I have to discard the idea.
Regards and thanks.
P.D: My equipment is an i7 2700k overclocked and so on.
-
Good afternoon. I'm posting this message because I see that some of you are using sli in your computers.
Until last month, I had an hd 7950 boost. My intention was to build 2, but with no reference cards, changing the source and other things, it all came out very expensive and with possible temperature problems.I sold the hd 7950 and currently have a reference evga gtx 660 3gb. I bought this model to avoid the problem of the asymmetric bus since I like to tweak games a lot, etc...
The thing is that for older games, I play better with the gtx 660 (more stable fps), but in others, even lowering details, they go worse like skyrim or battlefield3.My intention is to build another one at the end of the month, but I don't want to find myself in the situation of not liking the invention and having to sell everything quickly and losing a lot of money.
What bothers me is that a gtx 570 that I had moved skyrim and battlefield3 much better. The nvidia drivers, since the 310, are horrible in battlefield3. The feeling is that it doesn't run smoothly at all. Like you're at 25 fps and with a lot of ping. Worse still with the latest drivers. I also have performance problems, because this kepler crashes quickly, performing much less than the gtx 570 I had, as I said before.
I still play a lot of this game and it horrifies me that the problem of this game with drivers is not solved. That's why I ask for advice on making a sli of mid-range keplers on a 1080p monitor. If I'm going to have a roller coaster of fps, little scaling with a monitor and continue having problems with battlefield3, then maybe I have to discard the idea.
Greetings and thanks.
P.D: My computer is an i7 2700k overclocked and so on.
I can only tell you that if I don't like the GK104 less even the GK106, if they are graphics that perform well, but they are performance chips that are not as stable as the high-end ranges, that's talking about GK104. The GK106 was already a mid-range chip that performs but less stable than GK104. The GK106 should have been for 650Ti, graphics of good performance for little money.
The 660 can perform more than a 570 but maybe it's not as stable, although it will depend on the game, I can't talk about BF3 or skyrim because I don't know how they would go with SLI, maybe Oliver who has had a 660 SLI and plays skyrim.
greetings
-
Muy buenas. Pongo este mensaje ya que veo que algunos montáis sli en vuestros equipos.
Tuve hasta el mes pasado una hd 7950 boost. Mi intención era montar 2, pero al no haber tarjetas de referencia, cambiar de fuente y demás, me salía todo muy caro y con posibles problemas de temperaturas.Vendí la hd 7950 y actualmente tengo una evga gtx 660 de referencia de 3gb. Me compré este modelo para no sufrir el problema del bus asimétrico ya que me gusta modear mucho los juegos, etc…..
la cuestión es que para juegos antiguos, me va mejor la gtx 660(más estables los fps), pero en otros, incluso bajando detalles, van peor como skyrim o battlefield3.
Mi intención es montar otra a finales de mes, pero no quiero verme en la tesitura de no gustarme el invento y tener que vender todo rápido y perdiendo bastante dinero.
Lo que me mosquea es que una gtx 570 que tuve movía mucho mejor el skyrim y el battlefield3. Los drivers de nvidia, desde los 310 va horrible en el battlefield3. La sensación es que no va nada suave. Como si vas a 25 fps y con mucho ping. Peor es todavía con los últimos drivers. También tengo problemas de rendimiento, porque esta kepler se viene abajo enseguida, rindiendo mucho menos que la gtx 570 que tuve, como dije antes.
Todavía juego mucho a este juego y me horroriza que no se solucione el problema de este juego con drivers. Por eso pido consejo sobre hacer un sli de keplers de gama media en un monitor de 1080p. Si voy a tener una motaña rusa de fps, poco escalado con un monitor y seguir teniendo problemas con el battlefield3, pues igual tengo que desechar la idea.
Saludos y gracias.
P.D: Mi equipo es un i7 2700k oceado y demás.
La verdad no sé qué pasa con tu configuración, porque por mi experiencia con una GTX 660 y juegos como el BF3, debería rendir bastante bien, más que suficiente (te hablo de una variante de 2GB, para más inri), siendo realmente un caso muy similar en cuanto a comportamiento a una GTX 670 pero ofreciendo algo así como el 75% del rendimiento o un poco más.
Esto es, para empezar creo que sabes que obviamente no es tan rápida como una 7950, así que esa parte supongo que la tienes en cuenta al mirar los juegos.
Lo que no entiendo es porqué tienes esos problemas de estabilidad, parece que no limitados ya al último driver, supongo que has hecho una instalación limpia porque si no te diría que empieces por eso, por si hubiera restos de la 7950 interfiriendo.
Yo la verdad es que juego a Skryrim, a BF3 y a todo lo que citas al máximo y con fps sólidos como rocas, la GTX 660 no debería ser muy distinta en eso.
Te diría que estudies bien si no será que está fallando algo distinto con una GTX 660 en solitario, debería ir mejor (no te digo que a 60 fps con BF3 a tope, pero poco menos, y sí desde luego estable, ya te digo que la probé en mapas MP como caspian border y partidas de 64 jugadores). El SLI debería funcionar bien, pero lo primero sería detectar qué problemas tienes y porqué, ya que ni siquiera parece limitado al último driver de nvidia (el 320.18, que por otro lado a mí me va de fábula).
Fjavi:
Que el chip GK104 no fue pensado como un top es evidente, pero de ahí a andar diciendo que no es estable o que dan rendimientos "más estables" (aparte de más fps) chips "tops", como dices, hay un trecho.
Te recomendaría que hablaras de lo que has probado y analizado en directo, porque yo con otro usuario he analizado mi GTX 670 vs una GTX 780, y evidentemente la GTX 780 le pasa la mano por la cara a la GTX 670 en rendimiento, pero curiosamente no se han visto situaciones de "mayor estabilidad", más bien al contrario ya que las diferencias, proporcionalmente hablando, se recortan cuando se mira en vez de los fps medios los fps mínimos, en vez de aumentar.
Así que de facto la estabilidad, desde un punto de vista puramente analítico es hasta mejor. Otro asunto es que al tener más fps medios y mínimos más altos de forma absoluta la experiencia sea algo mejor, pero eso no es lo que tú estas atribuyendo a los chips performance o de gama inferior como son el GK104 o el GK106.
Nada mejor que probar las cosas…. y analizarlas numéricamente, para eso de ser un poco objetivos.
-
What happens to me is what many people suffer with this game, even with more powerful GPUs:
I decided to open this topic because it seems that this problem is being ignored: Any driver released after version 306.97 stutters badly on Battlefield 3, making the game unplayable. I am not the only one reporting this issue, if you also experience this situation please post here so we can get their attention.
I have tested this issue on the following machines: Windows 7 laptop equipped with an nVidia GTX 680m, Windows 7 laptop equipped with a GT 640m, Windows 7 desktop with dual GTX 670 on SLI, Windows 8 desktop with a single GTX 680. All systems were running core i7 class CPUs.
Driver 306.97 runs butter-smooth. Drivers 310.70 and up (including 314.22) are a stutter mess. Get your drivers straight nVidia.
–--------------------------------------------------------------------
Important INFO: As others have stated, after driver 310.70 (r310) nVidia changed the power management on the GPUs. Maybe it is related to the stuttering issue. You can find this information on page 9 of the 310.70 driver release PDF.http://us.download.nvidia.com/Windows/310.70/310.70-win8-win7-winvista-desktop-release-notes.pdf
Power Efficiency Optimizations
Release 310 drivers introduce power-optimizing enhancements. As a result of these enhancements, you may notice that GPU core clock speeds are different with this driver. For example, the GPU core clock might be faster when the GPU is in idle mode than in previous drivers. Or you may notice higher GPU core clock speeds after closing or opening certain games than in previous drivers. This is because the reported GPU core clock frequency is no longer correlated to GPU power-saving states. Instead of lowering the GPU core clock frequency, the hardware and software use other methods to put the GPU into a low power state when the GPU is idle or in response to changing application requirements. This ensures optimum power use while continuing to provide high
+1 to this - I've never installed anything later than 306.97 because I've read about the performance problems in BF3 and also Skyrim that people are reporting with any drivers later than 306.97 - as you have said this is NOT being recognised at all - please as many people as possible reply to this so it gets some recognition - people are basically faced with the choice at the moment of updating drivers to help newer games, in the process breaking older ones, or staying with older drivers to keep older games as they should be, but not getting the performance they should be in new games…. this is a DRIVER issue with something since 306.97 and it has to be recognised at some point
I have been disappointed with my BF3 performance since getting a new PC in January (see sig.). Never even used the 306 drivers, currently using 310.
Terrible stuttering and screen tearing which make the game basically unplayable.
I run a mix of ultra, high and low in graphics settings with no AA getting around 140fps uncapped in multiplayer. I tried many different settings to try and fix things, capping fps at various numbers, v sync/triple buffering, render ahead limit…....only one thing works for me after much searching(as mentioned by someone above).
Cap fps at 59.95 and use v sync.
59 also seems to work as well. Anything else......60, 61, 62.....screen tearing and stuttering even with v sync.
I believe using 59.95 with v sync gets rid off the input lag you normally get using v sync. If I cap it at 60fps I get noticeable input lag but with 59.95 it's gone(or greatly reduced anyway).
I also get quite bad tearing in Bad Company 2 but the gameplay is smooth otherwise.
Hopefully this will be fixed by the time BF4 comes out......preferably sooner.
Taken from the official nvidia forum. The installation is recent and I have the same problem as many users. Since 310, the performance of battlefield3 and skyrim has been reduced.
I use the 314.21 beta because they are the ones that work halfway well, but it's not the same as with the competition's cards. With all the later ones, I suffer from microstuttering and very pronounced lag. I even tried the hd 7750 from the HTPC and, by adjusting parameters, it runs much smoother, which is impressive. Skyrim is another one that I have a Russian rollercoaster of fps, when with an hd 7870 it used to run much more stable with the same mods. Even the gtx 570 gave better performance. Of course, I'm talking about drivers from October more or less, when there were no such problems.
That's why, even seeing a video of battlefield3 with an SLI of gtx 660 and noticing stuttering, I ask those who have built these systems. I went back to nvidia for the quality of their drivers and now I find myself with 2 games that I usually play daily, with problems. That's why I doubt that with 2 it will be solved, since SLIs require using more recent drivers, etc….
Then I install those 306 ones to see if there's an improvement and rule out problems with driver versions and nvidia's failure.
I've tried the solutions from the forum, but it still doesn't run 100% fluid. It reminds me of when I had the phenom II 965 and an hd 5870, when the system should have run smooth, smooth.
Edit: Installed the 306.97 and what a change. Battlefield3 perfectly fluid. Here I already notice a feeling of smoothness and 60 fps. Verified, it's a driver problem that worsens performance in certain games.
I just have to check the frame pre-rendering option and set it to 1. If I can't improve with new drivers, I can only rule out the SLI, because it won't be useful for my games.
-
What happens to me is what many people suffer with this game, even with more powerful GPUs:
Taken from the official nvidia forum. The installation is recent and I have the same problem as many users. Since the 310, the performance of battlefield3 and skyrim has been reduced.
I use the 314.21 beta because they are the ones that work halfway well, but it's not the same as with the competition's cards. I suffer from microstuttering and very pronounced lag with all the higher ones. I even tried the htpc's hd 7750 in its day and adjusting parameters makes it much smoother, which is amazing. Skyrim is another one that I have a Russian mountain of fps, when with an hd 7870 it went much more stable with the same mods. Even the gtx 570 gave better call of duty. Of course I'm talking about drivers from October more or less, when there were no these problems.
That's why, seeing even a video of battlefield3 with a gtx 660 sli and noticing stuttering, that's why I ask those who have set up these systems. I went back to nvidia for the quality of their drivers and I find myself with 2 games that I usually play daily, with problems. That's why I doubt that with 2 I will solve it, since sli require using more recent drivers, etc….
Then I install the 306 ones to see if there is an improvement and we rule out problems with driver versions and nvidia failure.
I have tried the forum solutions, but it still doesn't run 100% fluid. It reminds me of when I had the phenom II 965 and an hd 5870, when the equipment should run fine, fine.
Edit: Installed the 306.97 and what a change. Battlefield3 perfectly fluid. Here I already notice a feeling of smoothness and 60 fps. Proven, driver problem that worsens performance in certain games.
I have to check the option of frame pre-rendering to put it to 1. If I can't improve with new drivers, I only have to rule out sli, because it won't serve me for my games.
Well the truth is that I don't understand it, all the changes I've seen since those 306.97 have been positive, if so I would say that it's possible that an OC becomes unstable and causes everything from lock problems to as subtle as performance problems due to the greater efficiency of the latest drivers.
That is, I have seen in the latest drivers that I have had to lower some MHz the GPU (not much, but something) and even the memory because when increasing performance and with the heaviest games, the previous OCs were knocked down.
But well, it compensated for the improvement in performance that I have seen in games like Tomb, sniperV2, FarCry 3 itself, etc.
I play BF3 sporadically in MP, and honestly I don't see any problem. I'm also playing Skyrim without MODs yes, but with HD textures, and with custom filters like SSAA 4X for transparencies, plus some other improvements via the control panel (and MSAA 8x), and as smooth as silk, stuck at 60 fps.
So it must be a problem either of OCs that no longer work well, or if so some kind of conflict with other hardware that in my case doesn't happen, because well, for me the latest drivers are some of the best I've seen in the GTX600 series.
Well, now I realize a detail, sometimes when coming out of hibernation a component of the nvidia driver COM fails, related to the panel but that loads itself again, something that didn't happen before. If it doesn't load correctly again it could cause problems in how it executes games. It's the best I've seen. But nothing more.
Look at the OC issue, and if not… see if someone on those forums has found where the conflict is.
-
hello.
I think it was on Noticias3D (N3D) that I read a comparison of SLI of the 660 and honestly, it came out very well, both in terms of results and prices (to make matters worse, some of those who commented on the comparison, I think are currently stopping by this forum;D) surely if anyone wants and feels like it, they can post the link.
or directly do a copy paste (which is not illegal;D)
regards -
I honestly don't know what's going on with your setup, because from my experience with a GTX 660 and games like BF3, it should perform quite well, more than enough (I'm talking about a 2GB variant, to make matters worse), being really a very similar case in terms of behavior to a GTX 670 but offering something like 75% of the performance or a little more.
That is to say, to begin with I think you know that it's obviously not as fast as a 7950, so I suppose you take that into account when looking at games.
What I don't understand is why you have those stability issues, it seems that they are not limited to the latest driver, I suppose you have done a clean installation because if not I would tell you to start with that, in case there were remnants of the 7950 interfering.
I honestly play Skyrim, BF3 and everything you mention at maximum settings and with solid fps, the GTX 660 shouldn't be very different in that regard.
I would tell you to study well if it's not that something else is failing with a GTX 660 in solo mode, it should perform better (I'm not saying at 60 fps with BF3 at max, but little less, and certainly stable, I'll tell you that I tested it on MP maps like Caspian Border and 64-player matches). SLI should work well, but the first thing would be to detect what problems you have and why, since it doesn't even seem limited to the latest nvidia driver (the 320.18, which by the way works like a charm for me).
Fjavi:
It's evident that the GK104 chip wasn't designed as a top chip, but from there to saying that it's not stable or that "more stable" performance (besides more fps) is given by "top" chips, as you say, there's a distance.
I would recommend that you talk about what you have tested and analyzed firsthand, because I have analyzed my GTX 670 vs a GTX 780 with another user, and obviously the GTX 780 blows the GTX 670 away in performance, but curiously no situations of "greater stability" have been seen, rather the opposite since the differences, proportionally speaking, are reduced when looking at minimum fps instead of average fps, instead of increasing.
So de facto stability, from a purely analytical point of view, is even better. Another matter is that having higher average fps and higher minimums in absolute terms makes the experience somewhat better, but that's not what you are attributing to performance chips or lower-end chips like the GK104 or GK106.
There's nothing better than trying things out... and analyzing them numerically, to be a bit objective.
What I'm referring to is that high-end ranges are always more stable, they are better prepared even though performance/price comes out much worse.
I already had this happen between g80 and g92, for me the g80 was always better for gaming, here I think something similar happens, besides that the GK106 won't perform like the GK104 and this one won't perform like the GK110, these are logical things and that's why they sell the most powerful GK110 for almost €1000.
I for sure would never exchange a 580 for a 660, let them tell me that they perform more and consume less, for me a GK106 is a chip designed for normal resolutions and without abusing filters, even if it's another architecture I prefer the high-end, the GK104 seems better to me but I don't think it's a chip to be called x80, the ones that can be called x80 are GK110, GF110 or GF100, although obviously a GK104 performs better than the GF1x0.
For me it's that the GK104 should have been called what the 770 is now called, that's raising the category a point, also in the same price range.
regards
-
What I mean is that the high-end ranges are always more stable, they are better prepared even though performance/price come out much worse.
I already experienced it between the G80 and G92, for me the G80 was always better for gaming, here I think it happens similarly, besides that the GK106 won't perform like the GK104 and this one won't perform like the GK110, they are logical things and that's why they sell the most powerful GK110 for almost €1000.
I certainly would never exchange a 580 for a 660, let them say what they want about them performing more and consuming less, for me a GK106 is a chip designed for normal resolutions and without abusing filters, even if it's another architecture I prefer the high-end, the GK104 seems better to me but I don't think it's a chip to be called x80, the ones that can be called x80 are GK110, GF110 or GF100, although obviously a GK104 performs more than the GF1x0.
For me the GK104 should have been called what the 770 is now called, that already raises the category a point, besides being in the same price range.
regards
Well look what a curious thing, I have here a couple of cards, a G80 (8800 GTS 640) and a G92 (8800GT), I felt like testing how they went in current games less than a year ago, to see how each one performed. And the G92 won hands down, but not just for higher fps, but for stability, for everything. The extra memory of the GTX was useless for anything, and even doing tests of the cards as PhysX accelerators, I stayed without a doubt with the G92.
The GTX 660 doesn't perform more than the GTX 580, if anything similar, but not having a narrow bus or 24 ROPs implies that it has to be slower. The GTX 560 Ti outperformed the much more sophisticated GTX 260 216 that I had before this one, for much bus of 448 bits and 40 ROPs that it had (and much, much more bandwidth), the GTX 660 when I tested it, within its limitations (similar to the GTX 580, in terms of VRAM), worked more than well. And the 8800 GTS vs the 800GT, totally surprised that the latter was so clearly better than the former (not in average fps, I insist, in sensations of fluidity, minimums, etc).
And the GTX 670, don't even get me started. I already told you that against a GTX 780 it's obviously losing, but it has some minimums that don't have much to envy the big one. There's a lot of placebo effect in this world.
Apart from some occasional functioning problems like those of Ismarub, let's see if we end up knowing why they happen or if they are solved in the next driver revision, but I already told you that what happens to it is not the normal tonic. Although obviously it must be a minority problem but sufficiently widespread to have its threads of users affected by the network.
regards.
-
I made a mistake about the "bandwidth" between GTX 260 and GTX 560 Ti, in the end they are not very different, although the GTX 260 is much more over this. That's what I meant.I'm sorry I can't make the correction in another way. :facepalm:
-
Well, look at this curious thing, I have here a couple of cards, a G80 (8800 GTS 640) and a G92 (8800GT), which I was given to try out how they performed in current games less than a year ago, to see how each one did. And the G92 won hands down, but not just for higher fps, but for stability, for everything. The extra memory of the GTX was useless for anything, and even when testing the cards as PhysX accelerators, I without a doubt stayed with the G92.
The GTX 660 doesn't perform better than the GTX 580, if anything, but not having a narrow bus or 24 ROPs doesn't mean it has to be slower. The GTX 560 Ti outperformed the much more sophisticated GTX 260 216 that I had before this one, despite having a 448-bit bus and 40 ROPs (and much, much more bandwidth), the GTX 660 when I tested it, within its limitations (similar to the GTX 580 in terms of VRAM), performed more than well. And the 8800 GTS vs the 800GT, I was totally surprised that the latter was so clearly better than the former (not in average fps, I insist, in feelings of fluidity, minimums, etc.).
And the GTX 670, don't even get me started. I already told you that against a GTX 780 it's obviously losing, but it has some minimums that have nothing to envy to the big one. There's a lot of placebo effect in this world.
Apart from some occasional performance issues like those of Ismarub, we'll see if we end up knowing why they happen or if they'll be fixed in the next driver revision, but I already told you that what happens to him is not the normal situation. Although obviously it must be a minority problem but sufficiently widespread to have its threads of users affected by the network.
Regards.
That 8800Gt should perform better than my 9800GTX, the graphics card that has disappointed me the most. I changed to another one 4 months ago, because I never felt it played better than a GTS, it was like putting NFS MW and with the GTS it made much, much better times despite performing less, the only game where you could say the gtx played better was in cod4.
Of course, compared to when the GTX came out, if we compare years later, neither is good for anything, if for PhysX, in current games they both drag along.
Besides, the GTS OC from 500 MHz to 700 or more and the GTX 675 to 800 already blown from OC, the only thing is that the 9800GTX wasn't as expensive as a 680, not even as a 670.
regards
-
That 8800Gt should perform better than my 9800GTX, the graphics that has disappointed me the most. I changed it 4 months ago for another one, because I never thought it would perform better than a GTS. I used to play NFS MW with a GTS and it was much faster despite having less performance. The only game where you could say the GTX performed better was in cod4.
Of course, compared to when the GTX came out, if we compare years later, neither is worth anything. If it's for PhysX, in current games, both lag.
Besides, the GTS OC went from 500 MHz to 700 or more and the GTX 675 to 800 already blown from OC. The only thing is that the 9800GTX was not as expensive as a 680, not even as a 670.
regards
Another game that I really pushed it, precisely, NFS MW (the first one), in the times of my previous 8800GT (not the one I mentioned that I looked at recently), and I tell you that I was doing great, I finished the game like a champion, without problems, and going at about 300 Km/h in urban areas, even if it's through bypasses, had its complication and demand for reflexes.
The OC of the 8800GTS, the one I'm telling you about, is quite low, nothing that a basic 8800GT wouldn't do. But well, one always tends to remember what came out expensive and rendered very well at the time as better than what it was in the end. I already told you that I took both graphics and adjusted qualities in games like Batman AC and similar, and with the same quality, the 8800GT gave more fps and went better (because one thing usually implies the other although there is not at all a "better delivery" of frames, simply because more fps delivered in the same "irregular" way is closer to covering any anomaly than the same with fewer fps).
In PhysX, by the way, I recommend you take a look at this:
http://wwwendigo.blogspot.com.es/2012/04/merece-la-pena-reciclar-una-tarjeta.html
As you can see in that article, the GTX 560 Ti performed better on its own in most tests than using the 8800 GTS 640 MB, but when I used the 8800GT for the same thing a while later... I was pleasantly surprised that it went much better.
It's not that it has more shader power for PhysX (+33%), it's that the improvement goes much further thanks to the slightly more modern and capable architecture in GPGPU/PhysX. The version of CUDA that this graphics card uses is superior, supporting "atom ops", very useful for properly accelerating gpgpu.
So, both in games and as an auxiliary accelerator for PhysX, the 8800GT performed much better now than the 8800GTS 640. The performance of the 8800GT as superior is incontestable:
http://wwwendigo.blogspot.com.es/2012/06/sapphire-hd4850-refurbished-compra.html
In all that analysis, the difference was there again and again. I had an 8800GTS 320MB at the time (and I tried the 640 MB one when it came out, by the way, 400€ at the time, and the 8800GTX... 600€), after a while I switched to an 8800GT for several reasons, and the performance was more solid then, without a doubt. In no case did I miss anything from the 8800GTS.
If years later, when I tried again 8800GT vs 8800GTS 640, I came to the same conclusions and with modern games, it's that the 8800GT won even in the acid test, the one of aging better.
Things are not what they seem, and one has to leave prejudices aside before talking about "instabilities" so cheerfully. Moreover, there are ways to quantify these types of irregularities and I have looked for them and I have not found them.
The problem of Ismarub must be on another side, some kind of incompatibility or instability that we will see why it's there, but it's not directly because of the muscle of the GTX 660, which I have seen adequate (with its level of performance, you shouldn't ask for the impossible).
