GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost Review: A Budget-Oriented GK106-Based Boss

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

sarinaide

Splendid
Jul 14, 2011
3,820
0
22,960
74


And what did that achieve, 20% higher power and temps to achieve what is weaker than 7850 vanilla performance. And the HD7790 is not a Sea Islands GCN 2.0 it still premised on Southern Islands GCN architecture. At this point in time th only information out on the GCN 2.0 arch is the 8850 and the 8600's designed for dual graphics support for Kaveri's mind blowing iGPU performance, the 8850 was rumored to be 40% faster than the 7850 it replaces and the 8600's designed for OEM and dual graphics mode for APU's are said to be faster than the current Cape Verde line up (7700s)

The HD7790 delivers 25% better performance than the 7770 and uses less power to produce that result. This 650ti boost is actually the more you look beyond the veil of "oh gosh its an nvida.....jizz" the more you see its fallacy belies its value.

 

sarinaide

Splendid
Jul 14, 2011
3,820
0
22,960
74


1) the 1GB boost is $150 while the 2GB is $170.

2) XFX DD 7850OC 2GB is $195, lower power, more performance notably when you start adding the MSAA and AF at higher res, as crysis showed, the 650ti has some serious gimps with severely low (lower than the 7770 and 7790/6870) min FPS and transition spikes.

3) Its power and temps for a card that is supposed to be a watered down 660 is somewhat alarming. A Vanilla HD7870(non ghz edition) at $215 consumes significantly lower power and delivers notably higher performance, or at $259 you can just pick up the 7870XT which is nothing short of impressive also under the 650ti Boosts power profile, it is somewhat sickening that this is being heralded a champion.
 
[citation][nom]sarinaide[/nom]And what did that achieve, 20% higher power and temps to achieve what is weaker than 7850 vanilla performance. And the HD7790 is not a Sea Islands GCN 2.0 it still premised on Southern Islands GCN architecture. At this point in time th only information out on the GCN 2.0 arch is the 8850 and the 8600's designed for dual graphics support for Kaveri's mind blowing iGPU performance, the 8850 was rumored to be 40% faster than the 7850 it replaces and the 8600's designed for OEM and dual graphics mode for APU's are said to be faster than the current Cape Verde line up (7700s)The HD7790 delivers 25% better performance than the 7770 and uses less power to produce that result. This 650ti boost is actually the more you look beyond the veil of "oh gosh its an nvida.....jizz" the more you see its fallacy belies its value.[/citation]

Actually, the 7790 is not the exact same GCN as the rest of the Southern Islands cards. It's more of a GCN 1.1 than a GCN 1.0 because there are a few minor differences (some of which, as you pointed out, probably at least partially account for the fairly significant power efficiency improvements over the 7770).
 

sarinaide

Splendid
Jul 14, 2011
3,820
0
22,960
74


While it is branded the 7700 monika, the 7790 to me is more a re-engineered Pitcairn probably with AMD intending on cutting the 7770 and 7850 1GB card the 7790 offers the right middleground but in the process delivers a far more efficient part than the Cape Verde's. AMD have not told me or indicated the use of Graphics Core Next 2.0, I account the efficiency to a) reduced transistor counts on a pitcairn and b) mature process.

 
[citation][nom]sarinaide[/nom]1) the 1GB boost is $150 while the 2GB is $170.2) XFX DD 7850OC 2GB is $195, lower power, more performance notably when you start adding the MSAA and AF at higher res, as crysis showed, the 650ti has some serious gimps with severely low (lower than the 7770 and 7790/6870) min FPS and transition spikes.3) Its power and temps for a card that is supposed to be a watered down 660 is somewhat alarming. A Vanilla HD7870(non ghz edition) at $215 consumes significantly lower power and delivers notably higher performance, or at $259 you can just pick up the 7870XT which is nothing short of impressive also under the 650ti Boosts power profile, it is somewhat sickening that this is being heralded a champion.[/citation]

2) Again, the 650 Ti Boost's stutter gimps and such are because of a seemingly faulty driver/platform combination.

3) The power consumption situation is not new. It's just like with the GTX 560 and the GTX 560 Ti. They both use about the same amount of power too. Yes, it kinda sucks, but it's not surprising.

The Radeon 7870 (non GHz Edition and GHz Edition are both pretty much the same thing for the 7870 AFAIK, they both have a 1GHz GPU frequency, the same GPU, and the same memory frequency with the same memory)'s placement in the power chart is probably a mistake. I think that it's only slightly less power-hungry than this GTX 650 Ti Boost.

That you are disturbed by the 650 Ti Boost's power consumption and not disturbed by the Radeon 7870 LE/XT's power consumption surprises me. That Radeon also has a very bad power efficiency issue relative to most other cards this generation. Furthermore, it does not consume less power than this GTX 650 Ti Boost. It consumes a helluva lot more power. It's something like 20% more power-hungry than the Radeon 7950 which consumes around 40% to 60% more power than the Radeon 7850.
 
[citation][nom]sarinaide[/nom]While it is branded the 7700 monika, the 7790 to me is more a re-engineered Pitcairn probably with AMD intending on cutting the 7770 and 7850 1GB card the 7790 offers the right middleground but in the process delivers a far more efficient part than the Cape Verde's. AMD have not told me or indicated the use of Graphics Core Next 2.0, I account the efficiency to a) reduced transistor counts on a pitcairn and b) mature process.[/citation]

I know for a fact that Radeon 7790 is not GCN 2.0, but is still not GCN 1.0 either because among other changes, it supports more execution instructions. You can head over to Anand for a little bit more info on this.

Your first solution seems to not make sense because it's a lot more efficient than Cape Verde, a smaller GPU. b isn't likely to make such a big improvement either IMO. Mature processes usually mean fewer flaws rather than such significantly improved silicon quality to enhance efficiency in a similar transistor count/GPU size against frequency curve. IE it makes making larger GPUs without as many flawed dies more easy, so they can afford to increase die size, but it doesn't really bring down their power profile without other differences being present.

For example, a considerable drop in frequency and voltage or an at least small change in architecture (like the updated VLIW5 in Radeon 6800 coming from Radeon 5800). The GCN in the Radeon 7790'S GPU is probably comparable to the VLIW5 in the Radeon 6800 GPU in that it has been changed a little and is more power efficient, among other small changes. It's still the same basic architecture, unlike VLIW4 coming from VLIW5, but it's not exactly the same.
 

sarinaide

Splendid
Jul 14, 2011
3,820
0
22,960
74


It is not a new arch so I don't know why drivers will be the issue, this issue was exhibited in the past with the 660ti, all I know it it is not the 192bit interface, but there is something FUBAR.

I was going on the numbers provided, which seemed a bit odd owing that the 7870 is a faster card, on the 7870XT, its performance and price tag warrants its power usage, it beats the 7950 and give the 670 at nearly 70% higher cost a good run for its money, so overall I would say it is very much a part worth looking to at $250 over a $320 7950 and $380 670.

I am assuming Toms benched the big version of the 650ti boost family so for that to deliver less performance than the 7850 using more power is nothing BOSS. it is like trying to justify a FX8150 over a 1100T when the 8150 was only marginally better, conversely the FX8350 completely demolishes its former flagships and is hence easier to justify.

I have seen the words godly, beastly and Bossly branded all to easily, it was just last week HD4600 was branded a match to Trinity when that is a complete lie. Albeit on this point I would say the HD7850 is still pretty much the boss in this segment but for the likelihood of it abdicating its position in the market by retirement.

 


The issue is simply a driver screw-up. It's not just for the 650 Ti Boost, but for all Nvidia cards with that driver in Tom's system, supposedly a problem with X79 compatibility. This info is all in the article. It is why the other Nvidia cards were tested with a slightly older driver version.

7870 XT uses a lot of power, much more than the 7870, which, as I said, has incorrect placement in the chart in this article because the 7850 consumes less power than the 7870. I still agree with you in that it is worth looking at, especially because it can be found in the 7870's price range and it is a little faster than the 7870 (it does not beat the 7950, it only meets the old version of the 7950 and is beaten by the Boost version).

I agree that it is being over-hyped, but it does have pricing that's lower than the 7850 right now, granted as we pointed out earlier, the 7850's other advantages such as the free games and superior power/thermal needs make it the better value.
 
[citation][nom]Henrik Olsson[/nom]from reviews around the web the GTX 650 ti boost is trading blows with the 7850 very well. i just gotta say it took nvidia awhile to get back into the game after AMD lowerd the pricing of there cards. good to see some competion again insted of just going "get the AMD card they are cheaper"[/citation]

i think nvidia can enter price war earlier but i believe they don't want to fall into amd's game. the last time nvidia actively engaging in price war was when GTX460 comes out. so far nvidia only release their new stuff with much more competitive price at launch. we heard less about price drop on nvidia side
 

loops

Distinguished
Jan 6, 2012
801
0
19,010
21
The 7850 is still a good call. You can get it now, it has been out and drivers tested. It goes on sale all the time and has plenty of aftermarket coolers to pick from.

CASE: POINT:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150641: 7850 2 gig @ 180 and has a 20 buck rebate...so 160...then to just kick the green team in the teeth it come with 2 AAA games and one that could be the game of the year:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16800995146

It is no contest. With deals like this the green team need to come up more than what Tom's seems to be all happy about.
 


TO be fair, Nvidia can probably sustain a price war a lot better than AMD.
Why you ask? Other than the fact they have less capitol...
AMDs manufacturing costs are higher. They have a larger die for each card at every price point...
They bring more physical hardware at each price point too...

AMD can not sustain it unless GloFlos considerably cheaper than Nvidias fabs. Which I am reasonably sure it is not...
 


All good points, but Nvidia simply doesn't seem interested in price wars. They've made far fewer price reductions despite there being some that they should make if they wanted to reach price/performance parity with AMD with many of their cards.
 


The 7790 as it is never had a 256 bit bus planned AFAWK. The old 7790 slide was a completely different card with a different GPU (a Pitcairn LE IIRC), hence the 256 bit bus like the Radeon 6790.

A 256 bit bus would have made the Radeon 7790 into a Radeon 7850 as far as performance matters. I think that they made the right decision because they had nothing to compete against the GTX 650 Ti in performance and the Radeon 7790 does just that.
 

both nvidia and amd have their gpus built by the same fabricator - tsmc. glofo makes amd's high performance(!) cpus and apus. tsmc makes low power apus (e.g. kabini, temash) and gpus.
 

shikamaru31789

Honorable
Nov 23, 2012
274
0
10,780
0
Nvidia may be pricing their sub $200 line competitively (finally), but I still feel like AMD may be the better value. With AMD you get 2 free $50 games (and they're pretty darn good games, Tomb Raider+Bioshock Infinite), with Nvidia you only get microstransaction currency for games that aren't all that popular. And AMD may respond to this move with price drops on their sub-$200 cards.
 

basketcase87

Distinguished
Sep 19, 2011
88
0
18,630
0
[citation][nom]UltimateDeep[/nom]the 650 Ti Boost IMO should have been called the GTX 660 Lite. Edition since the specs of the 650 Ti Boost is very similar to the GTX 660 except it has 192 less cores.[/citation]
No gamer wants a "lite" graphics card. It doesn't matter what it is, naming it "___ boost" sounds much better than "___ lite."
 

Maxx_Power

Honorable
Jul 17, 2012
1,862
0
12,160
153


How can one be original in your terms when what I said is a common sentiment ? :D

I just read the Anandtech review now, having read the Hexus and HardOCP then Toms in that order first.
 

slomo4sho

Distinguished
Oct 30, 2008
3,199
0
21,160
171


Instead, its better to lose more market share to nVidia? Because unless nVidia fails to meet demand by having a supply shortage, I don't see any compelling reason to go with an AMD chip at or below the $175 price point at this time. Sometimes self-cannibalism is necessary ensure survival, AMD is already hemorrhaging and shooting itself in the foot in the middle of this race is only ensuring that bleeds out quicker.

 


And still Nvidia sells more cards. Much more. Everywhere I look people want to buy GTX650s adn GTX680s while neither of those two are competitive AT ALL... Because F logic. People are obsessed with the green team.
 


LOL!!!!
That is a VERY good point... Funny...
 

it's not just because of performance. nvidia has historically had genrerally superior software support, p.r., isv relationship and a very, very strong position in workstation and hpc sector. until gcn, amd pretty much sat on it's ass while nvidia made money. at least, that's what it looks like from the outside. amd's core business is cpus and that's where they focus more.
unfortunately for amd, this card is the new gtx550ti (i hate that card). but unlike last time(worse for amd), there is a gtx 650ti-128bit bringing up the rear. gtx550ti didn't have a wingman.
 

slomo4sho

Distinguished
Oct 30, 2008
3,199
0
21,160
171


As someone who has owned the GTX 650. HD 7770, HD 7850, GTX 660, and HD 7870, I can honestly say nVidia provides greater utility at every price point. nVidia has much better multi-monitor and driver support than AMD. Eyefinity requiring DP or active adapters for 3+ displays was not a very smart move. I am able to run a tri-display workbench on a GTX 650 without the need for a special monitor or adapter and that is value that AMD just can't deliver on their entry level 7750 or 7770.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS