OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v3.0

GALAX GeForce GTX 660 Ti GC review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£260VRAM:2 GBMemory bus width:192 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):150 W

GALAX GeForce GTX 660 Ti GC Review: Compare 117 technical specifications to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

5.7/10

Overall score

Score
5.7/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 93% of models
Score components

40%

3.8

Technical score

25%

?

Reviews scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.6, the mark of a weaker model in this category

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

3.8

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 93% of graphics cards
6.7

Value for money

Value for money
6.7/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 83% of models
Score components

70%

5.7

Overall score

30%

9.2

Price

â–¼Worse than 83%
3.8

Technical score

Technical score
3.8/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
Score components

44%

1.8

Performance

24%

2.6

Memory

12%

8.5

Power

11%

6.1

Features

5%

8.4

Design

4%

6.3

Connectivity

â–¼Worse than 95%
?

Reviews score

Reviews score
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Grades by review (0)
We have not found an independent test of this model yet. Until we do, its review part counts as 7.6.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
No expert tests yet
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • No image
No image
Where to buy
    N/A~ £260
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What owners say about the GALAX GeForce GTX 660 Ti GC

Based on 211 owners sharing their experience in online comments

61%positive25%mixed14%negative

Owners mostly praise strong gaming value and lasting performance, while newer games expose frame-rate drops and memory limits.

What owners dislike

  • Owners say frame rates often dip or stutter in demanding games, especially at higher settings or with heavy smoke, fire or fog effects.22
  • Owners say newer games such as Assassin's Creed Syndicate and MSFS 2020 are too demanding, forcing lowest settings or low frame rates.14
  • Owners report screen tearing even when frame rate stays below the monitor's refresh rate, and V-sync does not fully fix it.12
  • Some owners report crashes, screen artifacts and driver errors, and a few cards failed within months or showed code 43.10
  • Owners say the 2 GB of video memory runs short in newer or modded games, and the 3 GB version helps somewhat.4
  • Owners say overclocking can freeze the PC or drop the display, and many cards hit a clock limit around 1200–1300 MHz.4
  • Some owners say the card runs hot at idle or under load, reaching around 86°C in SLI or running hot after a thermal paste issue.4

Points mentioned by at least 3 owners, most mentioned first.

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card GALAX GeForce GTX 660 Ti GC

Technical score
Technical score
3.8/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
Score components:

44%

1.8

Performance

24%

2.6

Memory

12%

8.5

Power

11%

6.1

Features

5%

8.4

Design

4%

6.3

Connectivity

3.8
Reviews score
7.6
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.7/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 83% of models
Score components:

70%

5.7

Overall score

30%

9.2

Price

6.7
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
1,730 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 1,730 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 96.2% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
0 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 0 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 83.1% of graphics cards and equal to 16.9% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
4,304 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 4,304 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 94.4% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
2,547 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 2,547 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 93.3% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
2.7 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 2.7 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 92% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.1% of graphics cards.
Show more
VRAM
2 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 2 GB of VRAM, which is less than 94.3% of graphics cards and equal to 3.9% of graphics cards.
Memory type
GDDR5
This graphics card uses GDDR5 memory, which is older than on 85.4% of graphics cards and equal to 13.2% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
192 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 192 bit memory bus, which is wider than that of 31.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 18.7% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
144.2 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 144.2 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 91.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.2% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
6,008 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 6,008 MHz, which is slower than that of 93.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.9% of graphics cards.
Show more
PCI Express (PCIe) version
3
This graphics card supports PCIe 3, which is older than on 77.6% of graphics cards and equal to 20.1% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x16
This graphics card uses x16 PCIe lanes, which is more than 24.1% of graphics cards and equal to 75.9% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
12
This graphics card supports DirectX 12, which is older than on 81.8% of graphics cards and equal to 17% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.2
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.2, which is older than on 94.9% of graphics cards and equal to 3.9% of graphics cards.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 2% of graphics cards and equal to 98% of graphics cards.
Show more
Max displays supported
4
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 4 displays, which is more than 9% of graphics cards and equal to 88.2% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
4096x2160
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 4096x2160, which is lower than that of 92.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 4.6% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
1
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 1 DisplayPort outputs, which is fewer than 88.1% of graphics cards and equal to 8.7% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
1.2
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.2, which is older than on 93.9% of graphics cards and equal to 5.1% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
5.4 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 5.4 Gbps, which is slower than on 87.9% of graphics cards and equal to 6% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
150 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 150 W, which is lower than that of 72.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.8% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
318 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 318 W under peak load, which is higher than 76.8% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
450 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 450 W PSU, which is lower than that of 84% of graphics cards and equal to that of 6.1% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
250 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 250 W, which is higher than that of 56% of graphics cards and equal to that of 4.5% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
150 W
Show more
Size
254x 111x 38 mm
Length
254 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 254 mm long, which is shorter than 66.3% of graphics cards and equal in length to 0.2% of graphics cards.
Height
111 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 111 mm tall, which is shorter than 83.6% of graphics cards and equal in height to 5.1% of graphics cards.
Slot width
2 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 2 slot/s, which is slimmer than 52.4% of graphics cards and equal in width to 43.4% of graphics cards.
Weight
1,361 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 1,361 g, which is heavier than 68.7% of Graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of Graphics cards.
Show more

GALAX GeForce GTX 660 Ti GC vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 16x larger L2 cache
    This graphics card has more L2 cache than the average graphics card (384 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    384 MB vs 24 MB
  • 30.8% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (450 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    450 W vs 650 W
  • 30.2% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (150 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    150 W vs 215 W
  • 14 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (111 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    111 mm vs 125 mm
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 3 more GPUs supported
    This graphics card supports more GPUs in multi-GPU mode than the average graphics card (3 vs 0). The average graphics card supports 0 GPUs in multi-GPU mode.
    3 vs 0
  • 2 more DVI outputs
    This graphics card has more DVI outputs than the average graphics card (2 vs 0). The average graphics card has 0 DVI outputs.
    2 vs 0
  • Supports multi-GPU linking
    This graphics card supports multi-GPU linking, the average graphics card does not.
  • 2x cheaper
    GALAX GeForce GTX 660 Ti GC is cheaper than the average graphics card (£260 vs £520).
    £260 vs £520
  • More FP64 throughput
    This graphics card has a better FP64 ratio than the average graphics card (1:24 vs 1:64).
    1:24 vs 1:64
  • 16x larger L2 cache
    This graphics card has more L2 cache than the average graphics card (384 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    384 MB vs 24 MB
  • 3 more GPUs supported
    This graphics card supports more GPUs in multi-GPU mode than the average graphics card (3 vs 0). The average graphics card supports 0 GPUs in multi-GPU mode.
    3 vs 0
  • Supports multi-GPU linking
    This graphics card supports multi-GPU linking, the average graphics card does not.
  • 2 more DVI outputs
    This graphics card has more DVI outputs than the average graphics card (2 vs 0). The average graphics card has 0 DVI outputs.
    2 vs 0
  • 30.8% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (450 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    450 W vs 650 W
  • 30.2% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (150 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    150 W vs 215 W
  • 14 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (111 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    111 mm vs 125 mm
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 28.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (254 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    254 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 56.7% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,084 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,084 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 10 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (2 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    2 GB vs 12 GB
  • 33 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (7 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    7 vs 40
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 5.6x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (28 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    28 nm vs 5 nm
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • 47.6% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,006 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,006 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 70.2% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (112.7 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    112.7 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 51.3% lower sentiment score
    3.8 vs 7.8
  • 10.5% worse value for money
    GALAX GeForce GTX 660 Ti GC has worse value for money than the average graphics card (6.71 vs 7.4).
    6.71 vs 7.41
  • 56.7% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,084 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,084 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 33 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (7 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    7 vs 40
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 47.6% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,006 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,006 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 82.5% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (28.2 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    28.2 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 70.2% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (112.7 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    112.7 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 72 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (112 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    112 vs 184
  • 40 fewer ROPs
    This graphics card has fewer ROPs than the average graphics card (24 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    24 vs 64
  • 144 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    0 vs 144
  • 88.1% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (2.7 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    2.7 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 11 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2012 vs 2023).
    August 2012
    2012 vs 2023
  • 81% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (4,304 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    4,304 points vs 22,638 points
  • 88.3% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (1,730 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    1,730 points vs 14,779 points
  • 99.6% lower FP16 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP16 performance than the average graphics card (0.1 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP16 performance of 29.5 TFLOPS.
    0.11 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS
  • 78.9% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (2,547 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    2,547 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 77.1% lower FP64 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP64 performance than the average graphics card (0.1 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP64 performance of 0.48 TFLOPS.
    0.11 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS
  • 3,008 fewer FP32 units
    This graphics card has fewer FP32 units than the average graphics card (1,344 vs 4,352). The average graphics card has 4,352 FP32 units.
    1,344 vs 4,352
  • 10 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (2 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    2 GB vs 12 GB
  • 67.8% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (144.2 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    144.2 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 68.4% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (6,008 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    6,008 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 87.5% smaller L1 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L1 cache than the average graphics card (16 KB vs 128 KB). The average graphics card has 128 KB L1 cache.
    16 KB vs 128 KB
  • 14.2% slower VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a lower VRAM clock than the average graphics card (1,502 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    1,502 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 5.6x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (28 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    28 nm vs 5 nm
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No ray tracing
    This graphics card does not support ray tracing, the average graphics card does.
  • No FSR support
    This graphics card does not support FSR, the average graphics card does.
  • Older PCIe version
    This graphics card supports an older PCIe version than the average graphics card (3 vs 4).
    3 vs 4
  • No XeSS support
    This graphics card does not support XeSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No mesh shaders
    This graphics card does not support mesh shaders, the average graphics card does.
  • Older Vulkan version
    This graphics card supports an older Vulkan version than the average graphics card (1.2 vs 1.4).
    1.2 vs 1.4
  • No DirectStorage support
    This graphics card does not support DirectStorage, the average graphics card does.
  • No Resizable BAR
    This graphics card does not support Resizable BAR, while the average graphics card does. 76.4% of Graphics cards support it.
  • Older DirectX version
    This graphics card supports an older DirectX version than the average graphics card (12 vs 12 Ultimate).
    12 vs 12 Ultimate
  • Older shader model
    This graphics card supports an older shader model than the average graphics card (6.5 vs 6.8).
    6.5 vs 6.8
  • No sampler feedback
    This graphics card does not support sampler feedback, the average graphics card does.
  • 84.5% fewer transistors
    This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (3,540 million vs 22,900 million). The average graphics card has 22,900 million transistors.
    3,540 million vs 22,900 million
  • Older FSR version
    This graphics card supports an older FSR version than the average graphics card (3 vs 3.1).
    3 vs 3.1
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (1.4a vs 2.1a).
    1.4a vs 2.1a
  • 2 fewer DisplayPort outputs
    This graphics card has fewer DisplayPort outputs than the average graphics card (1 vs 3). The average graphics card has 3 DisplayPort outputs.
    1 vs 3
  • No AV1 encoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
  • No AV1 decoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 decoding, the average graphics card does.
  • No DSC support
    This graphics card does not support DSC, the average graphics card does.
  • No VRR support
    This graphics card does not support VRR, the average graphics card does.
  • More basic codec support
    This graphics card encodes more basic formats than the average graphics card (H.264 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9).
    H.264 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9
  • Older DisplayPort version
    This graphics card supports an older DisplayPort version than the average graphics card (1.2 vs 1.4a).
    1.2 vs 1.4a
  • Older HDCP version
    This graphics card supports an older HDCP version than the average graphics card (1.4 vs 2.3).
    1.4 vs 2.3
  • Older NVDEC generation
    This graphics card has a lower NVDEC generation than the average graphics card (1 vs 6). The average graphics card offers NVDEC generation 6.
    1 vs 6
  • Lower display resolution
    This graphics card supports a lower maximum digital resolution than the average graphics card (4096x2160 vs 7680x4320). The average graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320.
    4096x2160 vs 7680x4320
  • Not VR ready
    This graphics card is not VR ready, while the average graphics card is.
  • 75% lower DisplayPort bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower DisplayPort bandwidth than the average graphics card (5.4 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps). The average graphics card has DisplayPort bandwidth of 21.6 Gbps.
    5.4 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps
  • 1 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • No fan stop
    This graphics card does not support fan stop, the average graphics card does.
  • 33 dB noisier at idle
    This graphics card has a higher idle noise level than the average graphics card (33 dB vs 0 dB). The average graphics card has an idle noise level of 0 dB.
    33 dB vs 0 dB
  • 8.6 dB noisier under load
    This graphics card has a higher load noise level than the average graphics card (44 dB vs 35.4 dB). The average graphics card has a load noise level of 35.4 dB.
    44 dB vs 35.4 dB
  • 8 °C higher load temperature
    This graphics card has a higher load temperature than the average graphics card (75 °C vs 67 °C). The average graphics card has a load temperature of 67 °C.
    75 °C vs 67 °C
  • 13.6% higher board power limit
    This graphics card has a higher board power limit than the average graphics card (250 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    250 W vs 220 W
  • 44.5% higher peak power draw
    This graphics card has a higher peak power draw than the average graphics card (318 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a peak power draw of 220 W.
    318 W vs 220 W
  • No backplate
    This graphics card does not include a backplate, the average graphics card does.
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.
  • 34.2% heavier
    This graphics card is heavier than the average graphics card (1,361 g vs 1,014 g). The average graphics card weighs 1,014 g.
    1,361 g vs 1,014 g

Third-party reviews

What customers like about GALAX GeForce GTX 660 Ti GC

  • 3 GB GDDR5 memory for older 1080p games
  • PCIe 3.0 x16 support
  • Moderate 150 W board power for its class

What customers don't like about GALAX GeForce GTX 660 Ti GC

  • Legacy 2012 GPU with outdated performance
  • No ray tracing or DLSS support
  • Driver support is already legacy

Verdict

The Galaxy GeForce GTX 660 Ti GC is a factory-overclocked performance-segment graphics card based on the 28nm Kepler architecture, featuring 1,344 CUDA cores and a 192-bit memory interface. This specific GC (Galaxy Clocked) edition boosts the base clock to 1006 MHz and the boost clock to 1084 MHz, paired with 2 GB or 3 GB of GDDR5 memory running at an effective 6.0 Gbps. Its main pros include superior 1080p gaming performance for its era, a custom dual-fan cooling solution for better thermal management, and support for up to four simultaneous displays via DVI, HDMI, and DisplayPort. However, its primary cons are the asymmetrical 192-bit bus which can lead to memory bandwidth bottlenecks in demanding scenarios, a relatively high 150W TDP requiring two 6-pin power connectors, and limited DirectX 12 compatibility (Feature Level 11_0) which hinders performance in modern titles.

Compare GALAX GeForce GTX 660 Ti GC with other products in the Graphics cards category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of GALAX GeForce GTX 660 Ti GC and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found