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

Page 2 - 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.

EzioAs

Distinguished


It doesn't support 3-Way SLI. See the pictures of the card. And it makes sense since most mid-range card at this price range doesn't.
 

UltimateDeep

Distinguished
Oct 29, 2011
127
0
18,710
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.
 

corvak

Honorable
Jan 31, 2013
58
0
10,630
Always surprised that nvidia aims for performance/watt so often, when price is what sells cards. Most people don't care about power usage unless they are going SLI/CF and those people probably have a decent PSU, since theyre spending hundreds on GPUs.
 

EzioAs

Distinguished


Didn't see Nvidia aiming for performance/watt since this card offers less performance than the HD7850 while using more power. It's performance/watt is not even better than the GTX660.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-650-ti-boost-gk106-benchmark,3463-8.html
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_650_Ti_Boost/26.html
 


Are you joking? This card has inferior performance per watt compared to its competitors and Nvidia hasn't aimed for performance per watt much, if at all, before that, at least except for mobile cards. Fermi was a big mess in that that people dealt with for several years now and it's not like the previous generations were incredible either IIRC.
 
I have read the review and to say I am perplexed is an understatement of note.

1) I didn't see any of the tests where the 650ti Boost beating a 1G HD7850, I did se that most test showed AMD's latencies are better and in Crysis 3 the 650ti had min FPS spickes of over 12-14 FPS lower than the HD7850

2) Power numbers the 650ti boost is far more power hungry and also quite a lot hotter to.

This is a GTX660 in disguise, pandering around under the guise of a 650.

 

arcticle

Guest
Jul 29, 2012
114
0
10,680
[citation][nom]Souv_90[/nom]anandtech review is out for 650 ti boost...just faster than 7790 and slower than 7850 in every games tested only except bf3 and Shogunhttp://www.anandtech.com/show/6838 [...] st-review-(wonder why tom's review is swaying more in favour of kepler everytime I see)[/citation]

So basically Toms is wrong and Anand is correct based of of your uninformed observation?
 

arcticle

Guest
Jul 29, 2012
114
0
10,680
[citation][nom]Maxx_Power[/nom]Another GK106 based NV-card... Would be nice if they drop the price on the cash cow that is the GTX 660.[/citation]

Yeah, we can read AnandTech also... So original. ;-)
 


1GB on a 256 bit bus would usually require eight 128MiB chips (2Gb) (no way they'd use sixteen 1Gb chips for GDDR5) and we've been mostly manufacturing 4Gb and 8Gb chips lately, so the lack of GDDR5 chips for the Radeon 7850 1GB excuse may be valid.
 

EzioAs

Distinguished


Seems like it should be the other way around, don't you think? I remember the HD7870 power consumption is much closer to the GTX660 as well.
 

mayankleoboy1

Distinguished
Aug 11, 2010
2,497
0
19,810
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]Are you joking? This card has inferior performance per watt compared to its competitors and Nvidia hasn't aimed for performance per watt much, if at all, before that, at least except for mobile cards. Fermi was a big mess in that that people dealt with for several years now and it's not like the previous generations were incredible either IIRC.[/citation]

In the 40nm era, Regarding Fermi, it was better than the Radeons in perf/watt in games+compute.

In the 28nm era, Radeons have greater perf/watt in compute+games.
Nvidia has better perf/watt in games only.

Bottom line : compute is expensive in power. You have to choose your priorities.
 
[citation][nom]mayankleoboy1[/nom]In the 40nm era, Regarding Fermi, it was better than the Radeons in perf/watt in games+compute.In the 28nm era, Radeons have greater perf/watt in compute+games.Nvidia has better perf/watt in games only.Bottom line : compute is expensive in power. You have to choose your priorities.[/citation]

40nm had almost all Radeons doing better than Fermi in gaming performance per watt. The Radeon 5830 and Radeon 6790 may be the only two examples of otherwise and even then, they may have still only been competitive rather than worse than Fermi.

28nm has AMD and Nvidia trading blows in efficiency in gaming with AMD's only major loss being the Radeon 7870 LE/XT. The GTX 650 Ti Boost is an excellent example of that because like the GTX 560 compared to the GTX 560 Ti, it consumes about the same amount of power as the GTX 660, meaning that it's more power hungry than the Radeon 7850 that it competes with in performance.
 

EzioAs

Distinguished


True. Fermi was a power hog compared to Evergreen and Northern Islands.
 
[citation][nom]SvRommelvS[/nom]A shame. I was hopeful since at least the 660 Ti does.[/citation]

I'm pretty sure that the GTX 660 doesn't, so it wouldn't surprise me that this GTX 650 Ti Boost doesn't. I think that the 660 Ti is the lowest end card from the GTX 600 series that supports three-way SLI.
 

Souv_90

Honorable
Feb 12, 2013
25
0
10,540
[citation][nom]arcticle[/nom]Yeah, we can read AnandTech also... So original. ;-)[/citation]

no i mean anand has tested with more games than toms
and i have benches where 7900 series is performing better than 680/670 at much lesser price ,but when I see tom's and some others as techpowerup,etc they are too busy displaying Kepler on top of the chart vs GCN ...I would have liked to see their benchmarking procedure personally
 
Power consumption (idle/load)

HD7870 - 3/168
HD7850(1GB) - 9/184
650Ti(boost) - 1/196

Temperature (idle/load)

HD7870 - 3/44
HD7850 - 11/43
650 ti boost - 7/68

Gaming:

BL2

7850 - 58/78(0.5/0.6/1.6)
650ti Boost - 71/82(1.6/2/5.5)

Physx probably the frame rate determinant but in frame transistions the 650ti boost is a little gimpy on its way.

Crysis 3

7850 - 32/53 (1.8/1.6/5)
650ti - 20/51.5(3/1.8/11.7)

Mininum of 20FPS is quite alarming, when this card stutters it stutters hard, also higher frame transition times, sometimes it must feel like you playing on powerpoint slideshow.

F1 2012

7850 - 63/72(0.1/0.1/0.2)
650ti - 56/66.7(0.5/0.6/2)

Interestingly my A10 5800K's iGPU can play this title on Ultra settings @ 1080 and maintain very close to 7790 performance. But on these cards again the Radeon is the smoother experience and F1 2012 is very sensitive to lags.

Far Cry 3

7850 - 47/52(1.3/0.8/6.7)
650ti - 45/52(0.8/0.8/2.3)

FarCry3 seems to like the GK106 a little more than the Pitcairn though in total experience the differential is closer.

Tomb Raider

HD7850 - 48/54(0.2/0.2/0.6)
650ti - 52/58(0.9/1.6/1.9)

I assume the higher clocks here again aid the 650ti boost but again lower frame transition times

All and all the 650ti is better than the 7850 in two tests on FPS, and only beats the 7850 in one test on the frame times. On power usage it consumes more than the HD7870 and HD7850's(Vanilla 1/2GB) to produce what is in my opinion less performance than the 7850(1GB Vanilla) for the same price tag. How on earth is this taking the sub $200 by force?
 


Tom's has the Radeon 7970 GHz Edition as above Nvidia's GTX 680, so Tom's has the top card as an AMD card for single GPU, that is ignoring Titan. Tom's also tested the 7990/7970X2 cards as a little faster than the GTX 690, on average, but didn't recommend them for various reasons, not the least of which probably being the ridiculously high power consumption and difficult availability.
 


Keep in mind that the GTX 650 Ti Boost had to use a gimpy driver for Tom's system (which is stated in the article), that the Radeon 7850 1GB is being phased out, and that the Radeon 7850 2GB is currently much more expensive on average than the GTX 650 Ti Boost's supposed $150 MSRP.

I'd still put the Radeon 7850 2GB as a better value when the free games are considered and for those who care, also for the MIRs and undoubtedly better overclocking performance as well as better thermals/power consumption, but the 650 Ti Boost is probably going to be a very decent competitor.
 

ojas

Distinguished
Feb 25, 2011
2,924
0
20,810
[citation][nom]Memnarchon[/nom]Techpowerup said also that 650ti boost is faster than 7850.edit: hardwarecanucks / PCPerspective. A lot of sites agree with Tom's, 7850 and 650ti boost are about the same in performance.But the point is that is similar to 7850 while its cheaper. Now that's what I wanted to see when I was saying we need better performance for $$$. Now lets see AMD dropping its prices too so we can have a sweat war between them that profits our wallet .[/citation]
Tech Report: http://techreport.com/review/24562/nvidia-geforce-gtx-650-ti-boost-graphics-card-reviewed
 
I agree with [someone's] sentiment that this rather makes the GTX650Ti non-boost irrelevant. This is the card that the GTX650Ti "should have been" all along. With a MSRP of $150, this will be compelling if the street price is around $135. Board partners will of course have better / quieter coolers and other tweaks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.