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

[blazorthon]

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.

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.

You're being over-dramatic 😉

All AMD has to do is drop prices a little and they're good to go again.

 

[blazorthon]

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.

Nvidia most certainly does not have "much" better multi-monitor support nor much better driver support. AMD is only a little behind in multi-monitor support and even then, only if you can't use Displayport. AMD's drivers aren't behind Nvidias by much, if at all, overall and the driver used for the GTX 650 Ti Boost proves that quite exquisitely in Tom's system. Nvidia screws up too.

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.

For HPC and such, you're right that AMD pretty much sat on their ass until GCN. I'll give that much.

This card is not like the GTX 550 Ti IMO, but is instead more like the GTX 560 or at least the GTX 560 SE while the GTX 550 Ti would have been the "wingman" in this comparison. Unfortunately, the GTX 550 Ti was never priced well. It wasn't a bad card, it was simply too expensive compared to the Radeon 5770/6770.

 

[unknown9122]

How much do you wanna bet that there will be a GHz edition 7790 in a few days lol.

 

[blazorthon]

How much do you wanna bet that there will be a GHz edition 7790 in a few days lol.

The Radeon 7790 already has its GPU at 1GHz and it already has a Boost function. I don't think that there will be another card launch to counter this Nvidia card. Dropping Radeon 7850 pricing, if anything at all, seems like a better course of action.

 

[slomo4sho]

You're being over-dramatic 😉

All AMD has to do is drop prices a little and they're good to go again.

😉 That is the price you pay for keeping the same generation in play for a 2nd year.

Nvidia most certainly does not have "much" better multi-monitor support nor much better driver support. AMD is only a little behind in multi-monitor support and even then, only if you can't use Displayport. AMD's drivers aren't behind Nvidias by much, if at all, overall and the driver used for the GTX 650 Ti Boost proves that quite exquisitely in Tom's system. Nvidia screws up too.

I wasn't implying that nVidia is perfect. It is far from it. However, I would have to argue that multi-monitor support is much better at this price point. DP montiors demand a hefty premium as does the Active DP adapters. The need for a DP monitor or active DP in any 3+ display setup completely decimates the cost-effectiveness of the AMD lineup.

Nevertheless, dual display support is equal on both platforms.

The Radeon 7790 already has its GPU at 1GHz and it already has a Boost function. I don't think that there will be another card launch to counter this Nvidia card. Dropping Radeon 7850 pricing, if anything at all, seems like a better course of action.

Dropping the price of the 7850 leaves a void that would need to be filled at the $200 price point which would require the price of the 7870 to drop to this point and enabling the 7870 XT/LE to occupy the $250 niche. Lets see what AMD does.

 

[de5_Roy]

Nvidia most certainly does not have "much" better multi-monitor support nor much better driver support. AMD is only a little behind in multi-monitor support and even then, only if you can't use Displayport. AMD's drivers aren't behind Nvidias by much, if at all, overall and the driver used for the GTX 650 Ti Boost proves that quite exquisitely in Tom's system. Nvidia screws up too.

it took amd over a year to add decent gaming performance to their driver. (gtx680 support was added within days while 7970 and 78xx support took months, turning customers away. vce support was non-existent for nearly a year.) even after that they haven't added vital components for gcn support to catalyst releases. instead they rely on game-specific updates. the last bit is what gives the illusion of amd's now-better driver support because amd regularly adds specific updates for games that benchmarkers use. software support is worse for gcn-based workstation cards where older fermi cards can outperform gcn cards due to better drivers and optimizations. it seems like amd isn't even trying to tap into that high revenue market while nvidia pulls further ahead (i think they just scored yet another supercomputer deal last week).

 

[blazorthon]

it took amd over a year to add decent gaming performance to their driver. (gtx680 support was added within days while 7970 and 78xx support took months, turning customers away. vce support was non-existent for nearly a year.) even after that they haven't added vital components for gcn support to catalyst releases. instead they rely on game-specific updates. the last bit is what gives the illusion of amd's now-better driver support because amd regularly adds specific updates for games that benchmarkers use. software support is worse for gcn-based workstation cards where older fermi cards can outperform gcn cards due to better drivers and optimizations. it seems like amd isn't even trying to tap into that high revenue market while nvidia pulls further ahead (i think they just scored yet another supercomputer deal last week).

Actually, GTX 680 took a few months just to be available and by the time it and the GTX 670 were available, Nvidia too still had driver issues, especially regarding V-Sync and some of their AA technologies. Furthermore, AMD took six months to get a decent driver, not over a year. That's bad, but not nearly as bad as you're makign it out to be nor is it important right now because they already have good drivers now.

VCE was not a big deal and still isn't.

AMD adding game-specific updates is not a bad thing. Nvidia has been doing it too.

Older Fermi cards almost never perform nearly as well as current GCN offerings even for workstations except for CUDA where AMD isn't capable of doing it because Nvidia made it proprietary and doesn't share in any way. Furthermore, a lot of Nvidia's Kepler cards lose to the older Fermi cards in many workloads and it's not because of a software compatibility problem either.

 

[Guest]

The sub-200$ space just got exciting again! God I'm so glad I waited for this summer to buy my GPU!

 

[de5_Roy]

Actually, GTX 680 took a few months just to be available and by the time it and the GTX 670 were available, Nvidia too still had driver issues, especially regarding V-Sync and some of their AA technologies. Furthermore, AMD took six months to get a decent driver, not over a year. That's bad, but not nearly as bad as you're makign it out to be nor is it important right now because they already have good drivers now.

VCE was not a big deal and still isn't.

AMD adding game-specific updates is not a bad thing. Nvidia has been doing it too.

Older Fermi cards almost never perform nearly as well as current GCN offerings even for workstations except for CUDA where AMD isn't capable of doing it because Nvidia made it proprietary and doesn't share in any way. Furthermore, a lot of Nvidia's Kepler cards lose to the older Fermi cards in many workloads and it's not because of a software compatibility problem either.

ah, you're adding card availability. that actually makes the case worse for amd because amd's gcn cards were available for much longer (than kepler cards) in retail before driver support was added let alone higher performing drivers. they do have competitive drivers now, but overall software support is still sub-par. i haven't even started on what they did to their mobile drivers, enduro etc.
i can't tell you how bad it was back then because the launch driver problems were enough to keep me from buying them. iirc, pitcairn based cards' release boosted gtx560ti 448 and 570 sales for 'some reason'. after a while, nvidia smugly introduced a deal on gtx480 cards to compete against 7850 cards.
vce's not a big deal? amd themselves hyped it calling it quick-sync killer. after release, nothing. i guess it's not a big thing if amd can't do it. at least nvidia's nvenc had some crappy support - better than nothing.
older fermi cards shouldn't be close to gcn cards in terms of performance. gcn has better hardware, compute-friendly architecture, everything except software optimizations and some much needed and much deserved attention. kepler is segmented for gaming and compute. nvidia still makes pro cards based on gaming asics - that way they can sell two pro cards (leveraging maximus software tech) instead of one - yet another trick that makes nvidia more money.

 

[ingtar33]

what this really does is force AMD to cut the price of the 7750, 7770, 7790, 7850 and 7870.

they all need to come down... frankly, the 7870 XT/LE (tahiti) should have drove down the price of the 7870 by itself. never happened. The 650ti boost will likely be the trigger for the $20-$40 across the board price cut that AMD will need to bring to keep their 7850/7790/7770/7750 from becoming dubbed 'overpriced.' The only reason to drop the price of the base 7870 is to fill the gap that will open in their pricing between the 7850 and 7870... with the 7870XT already filling the price point of the 7870.

simply put they can't have a new card (7790) DOA... and this pricing for the 650ti boost does just that, and at the same time threatens the 7850...

 

[Novuake]

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.

Nvidia most certainly does not have "much" better multi-monitor support nor much better driver support. AMD is only a little behind in multi-monitor support and even then, only if you can't use Displayport. AMD's drivers aren't behind Nvidias by much, if at all, overall and the driver used for the GTX 650 Ti Boost proves that quite exquisitely in Tom's system. Nvidia screws up too.

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.

For HPC and such, you're right that AMD pretty much sat on their ass until GCN. I'll give that much.

This card is not like the GTX 550 Ti IMO, but is instead more like the GTX 560 or at least the GTX 560 SE while the GTX 550 Ti would have been the "wingman" in this comparison. Unfortunately, the GTX 550 Ti was never priced well. It wasn't a bad card, it was simply too expensive compared to the Radeon 5770/6770.

Actually, GTX 680 took a few months just to be available and by the time it and the GTX 670 were available, Nvidia too still had driver issues, especially regarding V-Sync and some of their AA technologies. Furthermore, AMD took six months to get a decent driver, not over a year. That's bad, but not nearly as bad as you're makign it out to be nor is it important right now because they already have good drivers now.

VCE was not a big deal and still isn't.

AMD adding game-specific updates is not a bad thing. Nvidia has been doing it too.

Older Fermi cards almost never perform nearly as well as current GCN offerings even for workstations except for CUDA where AMD isn't capable of doing it because Nvidia made it proprietary and doesn't share in any way. Furthermore, a lot of Nvidia's Kepler cards lose to the older Fermi cards in many workloads and it's not because of a software compatibility problem either.

ah, you're adding card availability. that actually makes the case worse for amd because amd's gcn cards were available for much longer (than kepler cards) in retail before driver support was added let alone higher performing drivers. they do have competitive drivers now, but overall software support is still sub-par. i haven't even started on what they did to their mobile drivers, enduro etc.
i can't tell you how bad it was back then because the launch driver problems were enough to keep me from buying them. iirc, pitcairn based cards' release boosted gtx560ti 448 and 570 sales for 'some reason'. after a while, nvidia smugly introduced a deal on gtx480 cards to compete against 7850 cards.
vce's not a big deal? amd themselves hyped it calling it quick-sync killer. after release, nothing. i guess it's not a big thing if amd can't do it. at least nvidia's nvenc had some crappy support - better than nothing.
older fermi cards shouldn't be close to gcn cards in terms of performance. gcn has better hardware, compute-friendly architecture, everything except software optimizations and some much needed and much deserved attention. kepler is segmented for gaming and compute. nvidia still makes pro cards based on gaming asics - that way they can sell two pro cards (leveraging maximus software tech) instead of one - yet another trick that makes nvidia more money.

Starting to soudn more and more like a fanboy

 

[sarinaide]

Actually, GTX 680 took a few months just to be available and by the time it and the GTX 670 were available, Nvidia too still had driver issues, especially regarding V-Sync and some of their AA technologies. Furthermore, AMD took six months to get a decent driver, not over a year. That's bad, but not nearly as bad as you're makign it out to be nor is it important right now because they already have good drivers now.

VCE was not a big deal and still isn't.

AMD adding game-specific updates is not a bad thing. Nvidia has been doing it too.

Older Fermi cards almost never perform nearly as well as current GCN offerings even for workstations except for CUDA where AMD isn't capable of doing it because Nvidia made it proprietary and doesn't share in any way. Furthermore, a lot of Nvidia's Kepler cards lose to the older Fermi cards in many workloads and it's not because of a software compatibility problem either.

ah, you're adding card availability. that actually makes the case worse for amd because amd's gcn cards were available for much longer (than kepler cards) in retail before driver support was added let alone higher performing drivers. they do have competitive drivers now, but overall software support is still sub-par. i haven't even started on what they did to their mobile drivers, enduro etc.
i can't tell you how bad it was back then because the launch driver problems were enough to keep me from buying them. iirc, pitcairn based cards' release boosted gtx560ti 448 and 570 sales for 'some reason'. after a while, nvidia smugly introduced a deal on gtx480 cards to compete against 7850 cards.
vce's not a big deal? amd themselves hyped it calling it quick-sync killer. after release, nothing. i guess it's not a big thing if amd can't do it. at least nvidia's nvenc had some crappy support - better than nothing.
older fermi cards shouldn't be close to gcn cards in terms of performance. gcn has better hardware, compute-friendly architecture, everything except software optimizations and some much needed and much deserved attention. kepler is segmented for gaming and compute. nvidia still makes pro cards based on gaming asics - that way they can sell two pro cards (leveraging maximus software tech) instead of one - yet another trick that makes nvidia more money.

Nvidia always had the leverage over ATI in terms of resources and partners, Physx and CUDA remain the saving grace for Nvidia. Though as seen with OpenCL and Compute sources easily accessible and rising in its application for professional systems, together with AMD's good software and firmware support in this regard does show that AMD have come a long way from the "pure gamer" only perception that ATI created. As for drivers, GCN was just such a very good arch AMD were able to squeeze out free performance easily, again a farcry from ATI of old.

As to what is better, AMD or Nvidia, ultimately none are better than the other, that said AMD are starting to become a problem to Nvidia in the professional market.

 

[Vladimir83]

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.

exactly my thoughts

 

[slomo4sho]

[citation][nom]Jonathan Cyr[/nom]The sub-200$ space just got exciting again! God I'm so glad I waited for this summer to buy my GPU![/citation]

Lets see what deals are available. AMD providing free AAA games enabled may to pickup the current card for a very nice price after selling the games. I was able to pickup a 7850 for $80 and 7870 for $135 AR and selling the games. I personally would like to see a greater discount in price in lieu of the game packages.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]de5_Roy[/nom]ah, you're adding card availability. that actually makes the case worse for amd because amd's gcn cards were available for much longer (than kepler cards) in retail before driver support was added let alone higher performing drivers. they do have competitive drivers now, but overall software support is still sub-par. i haven't even started on what they did to their mobile drivers, enduro etc.i can't tell you how bad it was back then because the launch driver problems were enough to keep me from buying them. iirc, pitcairn based cards' release boosted gtx560ti 448 and 570 sales for 'some reason'. after a while, nvidia smugly introduced a deal on gtx480 cards to compete against 7850 cards. vce's not a big deal? amd themselves hyped it calling it quick-sync killer. after release, nothing. i guess it's not a big thing if amd can't do it. at least nvidia's nvenc had some crappy support - better than nothing.older fermi cards shouldn't be close to gcn cards in terms of performance. gcn has better hardware, compute-friendly architecture, everything except software optimizations and some much needed and much deserved attention. kepler is segmented for gaming and compute. nvidia still makes pro cards based on gaming asics - that way they can sell two pro cards (leveraging maximus software tech) instead of one - yet another trick that makes nvidia more money.[/citation]

No, it doesn't make things worse for AMD. I'm not going to just repeat myself in explaining that because that was included in the earlier post.

Enduro and such didn't take any longer to get working properly than it took AMD to get a proper driver for the desktop cards (Catalyst 12.6 and 12.7). Furthermore, the start for Nvidia's competing technologies such as Optimus was much worse.

Pitcairn was and still is priced better than Nvidia's Kepler competition up until this GTX 650 Ti Boost (even that is still debatable), so any argument about Fermi over Pitcairn works worse for Fermi. Besides, THat sort of thing is perfectly normal. Many of the older cards are usually sold at a discount around the time of the next generation and their sales often improve in the short term as a result. The same happened to Nvidia too.

My point about VCE not being a big deal is that both it and Nvidia's competitor, like Quick-Sync, were junk for quality from what I'd been reading. Some people have told me that this has been solved with Ivy Bridge and current drivers, but that's still debated online and I can't guarantee the truth of it.

Your argument about Kepler with gamign versus compute is totally irrelevant. What I said is true and making excuses for it solves nothing.

It doesn't matter that GCN has some better anything. Some workloads are simply more accustomed to a different GPU for various reasons. The same happens to Nvidia for the same reason.

This isn't even an argument against Nvidia. I've personally used even more Nvidia cards than Ati/AMD cards over the years.

 

[CheesyHotDogPuff]

Finally! This is the "Sweet Spot" card for my new build! YAYYYY! 6 months of research done.

 

[beta212]

The opencl benchmarks have mysteriously disappeared. It's available in the tomb raider benchmark page, but when I click the drop down menu, it redirects me to power consumption. Please fix it.

 

[Isaiah4110]

Wow! This is definitely exciting news for those of us planning a build in the next few months! Maybe this will even help further drop the price of a card like the 7870...

When is this card supposed to be released? Did I just miss that part of the article?

EDIT: Looks like I found the answer. nVidia announcing the cards should be available starting today.

 

[robjon70]

I see the 650Ti Boost Ed. and the regular 650Ti starting to really take over. I mean why buy a similar 7850 or 7790 if you can get these for 20$ less and get the same performance. The only reason that AMD might stay in this is because of the awesome free games they give with their cards.

I'm neither a Nvidia fan nor an AMD fan, I own a 660Ti and a 7870LE Myst Ed. I bought the 7870LE a few days ago(the downside of this card is that it runs hot, it's loud, consumes a lot of power, and is built kind of cheap, but for 239.99 plus Bioshock and Tomb Raider you can't find a better performing card. Although my 660Ti does perform better when using 2xAA or less, uses less power, and is cooler, more quiet, and built like a champ, plus drivers come out for every new game it seems). But I have different reasons for going with a 660 Ti. One reason is because my 500$ monitor supports Nvidia 3D Vision 2.

And for some of you to accuse Tom's of siding with Nvidia is absolutely crazy. Everyone knows Tom's doesn't get in bed with any name brand. They strongly support the 7970Ghz and 7870LE over similar Nvidia cards like the 680 and 660Ti. Just look at the cards they recommend every month. They even had an article entitled something like "7970Ghz GIVE ME BACK THAT CROWN!). So just because Tom's says a 650Ti w/Boost is a smidgen better than a 7850, that just means that in the benchmarks they ran, it is better. And I trust Tom's to tell me the truth and so should all of you. I have never observed any reason to not fully trust Tom's Hardware.

 

[Isaiah4110]

I see the 650Ti Boost Ed. and the regular 650Ti starting to really take over. I mean why buy a similar 7850 or 7790 if you can get these for 20$ less and get the same performance. The only reason that AMD might stay in this is because of the awesome free games they give with their cards.

I'm neither a Nvidia fan nor an AMD fan, I own a 660Ti and a 7870LE Myst Ed. I bought the 7870LE a few days ago(the downside of this card is that it runs hot, it's loud, consumes a lot of power, and is built kind of cheap, but for 239.99 plus Bioshock and Tomb Raider you can't find a better performing card. Although my 660Ti does perform better when using 2xAA or less, uses less power, and is cooler, more quiet, and built like a champ, plus drivers come out for every new game it seems). But I have different reasons for going with a 660 Ti. One reason is because my 500$ monitor supports Nvidia 3D Vision 2.

And for some of you to accuse Tom's of siding with Nvidia is absolutely crazy. Everyone knows Tom's doesn't get in bed with any name brand. They strongly support the 7970Ghz and 7870LE over similar Nvidia cards like the 680 and 660Ti. Just look at the cards they recommend every month. They even had an article entitled something like "7970Ghz GIVE ME BACK THAT CROWN!). So just because Tom's says a 650Ti w/Boost is a smidgen better than a 7850, that just means that in the benchmarks they ran, it is better. And I trust Tom's to tell me the truth and so should all of you. I have never observed any reason to not fully trust Tom's Hardware.

I was actually going to say something similar. TH has been recommending a lot of AMD cards over nVidia lately because they have had the better price-performance ratio. With the release of this card and the subsequent price changes nVidia is making to some of its other cards it definitely looks like nVidia is going to own the $100-200 price range unless/until AMD drops their prices to match.

 

[Novuake]

I see the 650Ti Boost Ed. and the regular 650Ti starting to really take over. I mean why buy a similar 7850 or 7790 if you can get these for 20$ less and get the same performance. The only reason that AMD might stay in this is because of the awesome free games they give with their cards.

I'm neither a Nvidia fan nor an AMD fan, I own a 660Ti and a 7870LE Myst Ed. I bought the 7870LE a few days ago(the downside of this card is that it runs hot, it's loud, consumes a lot of power, and is built kind of cheap, but for 239.99 plus Bioshock and Tomb Raider you can't find a better performing card. Although my 660Ti does perform better when using 2xAA or less, uses less power, and is cooler, more quiet, and built like a champ, plus drivers come out for every new game it seems). But I have different reasons for going with a 660 Ti. One reason is because my 500$ monitor supports Nvidia 3D Vision 2.

And for some of you to accuse Tom's of siding with Nvidia is absolutely crazy. Everyone knows Tom's doesn't get in bed with any name brand. They strongly support the 7970Ghz and 7870LE over similar Nvidia cards like the 680 and 660Ti. Just look at the cards they recommend every month. They even had an article entitled something like "7970Ghz GIVE ME BACK THAT CROWN!). So just because Tom's says a 650Ti w/Boost is a smidgen better than a 7850, that just means that in the benchmarks they ran, it is better. And I trust Tom's to tell me the truth and so should all of you. I have never observed any reason to not fully trust Tom's Hardware.

You clearly bought cheapshit then. XFX let me guess???

 

[blazorthon]

You clearly bought cheapshit then. XFX let me guess???

XFX actually has some pretty good coolers. It's probably Powercolor's Myst Edition. I don't think there even is an XFX 7870 LE/XT card.

 

[westbrookdrew]

Personally I would like to see a comparison of 2,3 and 4 X 650Ti Boosts againsts the rest of Nvidia's lineup (670, 680, 690), as well as a comparison of 2.0 vs 3.0 PCIe

Thanks =)

 

[blazorthon]

Personally I would like to see a comparison of 2,3 and 4 X 650Ti Boosts againsts the rest of Nvidia's lineup (670, 680, 690), as well as a comparison of 2.0 vs 3.0 PCIe

Thanks =)

It doesn't support three-way nor four-way SLI. IDK if it even supports SLI.

 

[tomfreak]

I am not going to change my plan, GCN win the war in this whole generation. Except the 7870LE/XT +7900 series, the entire line up is more power efficient. Then the whole GCN line up is better price/performance + free AAA games even u dont like the games, u can always sell the keys to get ur card cheaper. There is simply no reason to opt Nvidia now.

I have been using exclusively Nvidia cards from TNT2 all the way to Fermi. It looks like Kepler is going to be a miss for me.