Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Thoughts on the 650 ti?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
October 10, 2012 2:52:27 AM

So what do you guys think of the new GTX 650 ti that came out today?

More about : thoughts 650

Anonymous
a c 117 U Graphics card
October 10, 2012 3:16:25 AM

BigMack70 said:
A decent option if you absolutely must have a low cost Nvidia card. Not a good option if you're open to both AMD and Nvidia... the 7850 is just much better for not much more money.

and on the other side of that, it is better than the 7770 but for too much money . . .
m
0
l
October 10, 2012 3:23:03 AM

Nvidia cards are only good X60 and above.
anything lower, you can probably get an AMD card that ourperforms it in :

-performance/watt
-performance/Buck
-raw performance
-TDP
-All of the above
m
0
l
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
October 10, 2012 3:23:06 AM

Not being bias but its all about your budget and what you can afford and which brand you like. Theres people that likes amd and theres people that likes nvidia and its best for us to give them both options of both cards witch some does but what i do see on the forum is some people trying to sick a card down someones thoat as if they have to have the card..As for me i would tell them both specs of 2 cards thats in range and let them choose because my imo if 2 cards in range they both will out preform each other..Just my 2 sense
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
October 10, 2012 3:44:10 AM

My thoughts on a 650 Ti are it's a weak card good for grandma & grandpa not for me!I suggest you get no weaker a card than a 7870.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 10, 2012 4:01:48 AM

foxnamedfox said:
So what do you guys think of the new GTX 650 ti that came out today?


Exactly what I think of the GTX 550Ti. A noob black hole.

-Noobs look to Nvidia first since they have better marketing
-They look for the cheapest card that can run x game on high.
-They assume the price is reasonable.
-THEY DON'T REALIZE that the x850 is $15 more and offers 40% more performance, and the x770 is $30 less and is only 10% weaker!!!
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
October 10, 2012 4:16:41 AM

Final Thoughts

Back in February, we were pretty disappointed with the Radeon HD 7770, as it was 18% slower than the GeForce GTX 560 while being only 15% cheaper at $159. Since then, AMD has made a various tweaks to the pricing of its Radeon HD 7000 series, including dropping the HD 7770's suggested retail rate to $139, which is where many of the cards currently sit, though it's possible to find certain models for as little as $120.

Although it's a little pricier with an MSRP of $149 (depending on memory capacity), the GTX 650 Ti is in a decent position against AMD's budget offering. Nvidia's solution costs about 7% more while averaging 25% faster than the HD 7770 in the 18 games that we tested at 1680x1050. However, value-wise, the GTX 650 Ti doesn't really overcome the HD 6870, which is slightly faster in our tests and costs about the same.Despite delivering a better value than the HD 7770, we're still a little disappointed in the GTX 650 Ti as it compares to the rest of Nvidia's current and previous-generation products. For instance, compared to the nearly two-year-old GTX 560 Ti, the GTX 650 Ti is about 7% slower on average. Granted, the GTX 560 Ti's list price is about 40% higher than the GTX 650 Ti, but it's possible to buy one for less than $200 with rebates.

Additionally, although the GTX 650 Ti brings a value boost over previous Kepler cards, it's not as large as we've seen with previous launches. For example, the new sub-$200 card is 28% slower and 35% cheaper than the GTX 660. By comparison, the GTX 660 is 14% slower and 23% cheaper than the GTX 660 Ti, while the GTX 660 Ti is 13% slower and 33% cheaper than the GTX 670. The GTX 650 Ti also falls short in terms of power efficiency. Again, it's 28% slower than last month's GTX 660, but it consumed only 4% less power.Although the GTX 650 Ti isn't a major disappointment (mostly because it's $20 cheaper than rumors said it would be), the card doesn't make great strides to improve on existing products. On the bright side, folks shopping for budget Kepler card have an affordable sub-$200 option, though at this price point, we'd recommend considering an HD 6870, which costs $145-$150 with a rebate.

Besides having a slight performance edge, it's worth noting that the HD 6870 supports Crossfire and the GTX 650 Ti doesn't support SLI, which may be of interest if you intend to add a second card at some point to boost performance (second-hand HD 6870s are cheap and plentiful on eBay). Source: http://www.techspot.com/review/583-nvidia-geforce-gtx-6...
m
0
l
Anonymous
a c 117 U Graphics card
October 10, 2012 4:41:55 AM

upon further surfing . .it does very well in a few games. .


with a close "honorable mention":

m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 10, 2012 4:59:22 AM

Throw on some MSAA and the 650 Ti lags behind badly compared to even the 7770. Some highly factory overclocked 7770s at $130-140 also beat the 650 Ti even without heavy MSAA in most games. The 650 Ti isn't a great card unless you hate MSAA, which is kinda the saving grace for low resolution gaming that the 650 Ti would excel at without, so it's a product with a poor niche except in the few games where it performs well.

576 cores with 192 bit bus would have probably been better than this 768 cores and 128 bit memory bus IMO. It's just not well balanced as it is. According to Tom's, the 650 Ti only turned out about 30% faster than the GTX 650 when you play with decent settings and I'm wiling to bet that a 576 core 192 bit 650 Ti could have gotten near the 50% mark. It would have then been fine at $150 MSRP.
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
October 10, 2012 5:02:50 AM

luciferano said:
Throw on some MSAA and the 650 Ti lags behind badly compared to even the 7770. Some highly factory overclocked 7770s at $130-140 also beat the 650 Ti even without heavy MSAA in most games. The 650 Ti isn't a great card unless you hate MSAA, which is kinda the saving grace for low resolution gaming that the 650 Ti would excel at without, so it's a product with a poor niche except in the few games where it performs well.

576 cores with 192 bit bus would have probably been better than this 768 cores and 128 bit memory bus IMO. It's just not well balanced as it is. According to Tom's, the 650 Ti only turned out about 30% faster than the GTX 650 when you play with decent settings and I'm wiling to bet that a 576 core 192 bit 650 Ti could have gotten near the 50% mark. It would have then been fine at $150 MSRP.
I don't read TH reviews but your prob right
m
0
l
Anonymous
a c 117 U Graphics card
October 10, 2012 5:09:36 AM

luciferano said:
Throw on some MSAA and the 650 Ti lags behind badly compared to even the 7770. Some highly factory overclocked 7770s at $130-140 also beat the 650 Ti even without heavy MSAA in most games. The 650 Ti isn't a great card unless you hate MSAA, which is kinda the saving grace for low resolution gaming that the 650 Ti would excel at without, so it's a product with a poor niche except in the few games where it performs well.

576 cores with 192 bit bus would have probably been better than this 768 cores and 128 bit memory bus IMO. It's just not well balanced as it is. According to Tom's, the 650 Ti only turned out about 30% faster than the GTX 650 when you play with decent settings and I'm wiling to bet that a 576 core 192 bit 650 Ti could have gotten near the 50% mark. It would have then been fine at $150 MSRP.

as far as price performance compared to the 7770 . .

yes but for the rest of that . .

get that bulls*t out of here!

. . bandwidth trumps rendering my 455!
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 10, 2012 5:11:39 AM

Anonymous said:
as far as price performance compared to the 7770 . .

yes but for the rest of that . .

get that bulls*t out of here!

. . bandwidth trumps rendering my 455!


Double the core count and higher GPU frequency, marginally higher memory bandwidth. Didn't even get a 50% performance boost. MSAA cuts its performance greatly, even moreso than the 660 Ti and 660. That's a huge memory bandwidth bottle-neck, even worse than Llano with dual-channel DDR3-1600 9-9-9-24. A 576 core, 192 bit version would undoubtedly have hit that 50% mark as well as been far more efficient with MSAA.
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
October 10, 2012 5:16:19 AM

Anonymous said:
as far as price performance compared to the 7770 . .

yes but for the rest of that . .

get that bulls*t out of here!

. . bandwidth trumps rendering my 455!
:lol:  :whistle:  :hello: 
m
0
l
a c 106 U Graphics card
October 10, 2012 5:21:11 AM

when i read the reviews on multiple sites, the only thing that came to mind was low power consumption physx card with 1 pci-e connector.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 10, 2012 5:25:16 AM

dudewitbow said:
when i read the reviews on multiple sites, the only thing that came to mind was low power consumption physx card with 1 pci-e connector.


Ohh, that's a good point.
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
October 10, 2012 5:25:53 AM

dudewitbow said:
when i read the reviews on multiple sites, the only thing that came to mind was low power consumption physx card with 1 pci-e connector.
You and i think alike my same thoughts pretty much. ;) 
m
0
l
Anonymous
a c 117 U Graphics card
October 10, 2012 5:32:10 AM

luciferano said:
Double the core count and higher GPU frequency, marginally higher memory bandwidth. Didn't even get a 50% performance boost. MSAA cuts its performance greatly, even moreso than the 660 Ti and 660. That's a huge memory bandwidth bottle-neck, even worse than Llano with dual-channel DDR3-1600 9-9-9-24. A 576 core, 192 bit version would undoubtedly have hit that 50% mark as well as been far more efficient with MSAA.

you're like a puppy with a new toy . . "oh look at the performance hit @ 8xMSAA on the 660ti!"

first of all you absolutely NO PROOF that the 650ti lags behind the 7770 in anything.

second of all, we are talking a "budget" graphics card here. of course there will be hardware limitations. but guess what? people who spend ~$150 for a card do not give a squat about high MSAA, they only care about being able to play a friggin game at usually a low resolution (under 1080). h3ll most of them probably don't even know what MSAA is!

so save your speculative blabbering to the comment section of article reviews with the rest of the amd fan boys.


cheers.
m
0
l
a c 92 U Graphics card
October 10, 2012 5:32:32 AM

dudewitbow said:
when i read the reviews on multiple sites, the only thing that came to mind was low power consumption physx card with 1 pci-e connector.

a 450 is pretty much what you described so this just a more expensive version of that.

The shader performance is pretty good. If all you want is FXAA then this isn't such a bad card. I wouldn't recommend it at this price for anyone really but it basically succeed the legacy of the 550ti. To be a horribly priced card which lots of new gamers buy because they don't know any better.
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
October 10, 2012 5:35:52 AM

luciferano there is NO DENYING your a amd fan. And pretty bias.
m
0
l
a c 106 U Graphics card
October 10, 2012 5:39:12 AM

esrever said:
a 450 is pretty much what you described so this just a more expensive version of that.

The shader performance is pretty good. If all you want is FXAA then this isn't such a bad card. I wouldn't recommend it at this price for anyone really but it basically succeed the legacy of the 550ti. To be a horribly priced card which lots of new gamers buy because they don't know any better.



of course, i agree that the card at the moment is not that great for its price. its one of those cards like the 450 that will cheapen over time and would be viable later buying it used like 1 or 2 generations later. thats about it. Not being able to SLI basically makes owners who have it when they want to upgrade to either:

A) sell it
B) use it as physx.

overtime, itll probably shift and take over the 450 spot in some distant date. As of right now, its something that definitely needs a price drop to stay a bit more competitive.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 10, 2012 5:41:26 AM

Anonymous said:
you're like a puppy with a new toy . . "oh look at the performance hit @ 8xMSAA on the 660ti!"

first of all you absolutely NO PROOF that the 650ti lags behind the 7770 in anything.

second of all, we are talking a "budget" graphics card here. of course there will be hardware limitations. but guess what? people who spend ~$150 for a card do not give a squat about high MSAA, they only care about being able to play a friggin game at usually a low resolution (under 1080). h3ll most of them probably don't even know what MSAA is!

so save your speculative blabbering to the comment section of article reviews with the rest of the amd fan boys.
cheers.


MSAA matters far more at lower resolutions than it does at higher resolutions and the 7770 can handle it, so that the 650 Ti can't is not some little, minor thing.

Like I said, that it is a budget card doesn't matter. Trading cores for a memory controller (which the GPU already supports) would have been better because it is greatly memory-bandwidth bottle-necked (hence the reason for it having twice as many cores as the 650 and higher GPU frequency, yet merely 30-35% higher average performance).

http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/grafikkarten/2012/te...

There's your proof. I can name at least three 7770s that are between 15% and 25% faster than the reference 7770, that's more than enough to pull ahead of even the 6870 in that average rating. At least the 660 is worth buying compare to the similarly priced 7850 and 7870, but this 650 Ti is not worth buying compared to the similarly priced 7770s and 7850s. Heck, even the 650 can be argued for... The 650 Ti? Not really, at least not as a single card. Heck, it doesn't even support SLI according to what I've heard (although I don't claim to know for sure), not that it'd be worth putting in SLI anyway.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 10, 2012 5:44:21 AM

bigcyco1 said:
luciferano there is NO DENYING your a amd fan. And pretty bias.


My personal preference has no impact on me saying that the 650 Ti is not what it should have been and that the 7770 and 7850 are clearly superior. It should have been a 576 core, 192 bit GDDR5 memory interface card, not this unbalanced 768 core, 128 bit GDDR5 memory interface card. That would have been a damn good competitor for the 7770. I most certainly don't consider myself biased in my recommendations. I've recommended 660s and 670s occasionally.
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
October 10, 2012 5:46:35 AM

luciferano said:
My personal preference has no impact on me saying that the 650 Ti is not what it should have been and that the 7770 and 7850 are clearly superior. It should have been a 576 core, 192 bit GDDR5 memory interface card, not this unbalanced 768 core, 128 bit GDDR5 memory interface card. That would have been a damn good competitor for the 7770.
I am just saying i NEVER seen you recommend anything but amd cards maybe i am wrong :whistle: 
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 10, 2012 5:49:12 AM

bigcyco1 said:
I am just saying i NEVER seen you recommend anything but amd cards maybe i am wrong :whistle: 


I've recommended two 660s just in the last week. Besides, you haven't known me long anyway, I only got into these forums like two weeks ago.
m
0
l
a c 92 U Graphics card
October 10, 2012 5:53:08 AM

I think nvidia would have done well to have given every one of their card at least a 25% increase in bandwidth. They would have a better line up and probably more powerful cards, the die area would be slightly bigger but they should be able to deal with that. There is really no point in having cards like the 660 ti and the 650 ti. Both of which could have had cores cut out and had basically the same performance.
m
0
l
a c 106 U Graphics card
October 10, 2012 5:57:18 AM

it isnt that iths the worst price, blame the fact that nvidia was way to sluggish with the release of these cards. if the 650ti was released shortly after the 7770 was at original msrp price, then it would have stood a fighting chance, the sub 200 cards are simply getting decimated by aggressive pricing.
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
October 10, 2012 6:09:06 AM

Price and performance wise i would only recommend a 660 and 670 i really can't say to much for NV this year kinda disappointing
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
October 10, 2012 6:12:21 AM

luciferano said:
I've recommended two 660s just in the last week. Besides, you haven't known me long anyway, I only got into these forums like two weeks ago.
True i have not known you very long ;) 
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
October 10, 2012 6:15:30 AM

For me they messed up with the voltage lock big no no and i won't be buying any NV cards in the future if they keep their power tripping ways up lol.The voltage unlocked is a must for me.
m
0
l
Anonymous
a c 117 U Graphics card
October 10, 2012 6:28:29 AM

luciferano said:
MSAA matters far more at lower resolutions than it does at higher resolutions and the 7770 can handle it, so that the 650 Ti can't is not some little, minor thing.

Like I said, that it is a budget card doesn't matter. Trading cores for a memory controller (which the GPU already supports) would have been better because it is greatly memory-bandwidth bottle-necked (hence the reason for it having twice as many cores as the 650 and higher GPU frequency, yet merely 30-35% higher average performance).

http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/grafikkarten/2012/te...

There's your proof. I can name at least three 7770s that are between 15% and 25% faster than the reference 7770, that's more than enough to pull ahead of even the 6870 in that average rating. At least the 660 is worth buying compare to the similarly priced 7850 and 7870, but this 650 Ti is not worth buying compared to the similarly priced 7770s and 7850s. Heck, even the 650 can be argued for... The 650 Ti? Not really, at least not as a single card. Heck, it doesn't even support SLI according to what I've heard (although I don't claim to know for sure), not that it'd be worth putting in SLI anyway.

this is your PROOF of a 650ti lagging behind a 7770 with the MSAA cranked up?

:lol:  yes the 7770 made a gain from a lower MSAA but that is far from the 650ti "can't handle it".

and you're still on that bandwidth trumps shaders, eh? i''l be blunt; that thinking is nothing but pure ignorance, sorry.

dude maybe you need to teach reputable review sites that they have it all wrong and aren't testing cards properly with only using 4xMSAA (the most common on steam) you can babble all night long about circumstances, which you will and i don't care because its bed time for bonzo, about this and that.

but what really matters are proven facts, not speculation. just spin it how you want then i'll just put forth that a non referenced 650ti will beat a non referenced 7770. how about keeping it an apples to apples comparison? or would that not be pleasing to your unadulterated love for amd?

again and to clarify: a stock 560ti will not lag behind a 7770. if you want to compare other non reference models, when then wouldn't it be fair that some time pass so vendors can tweak the 650ti if they care to as they had time to tweak the 7770 also? (remember the performance gain amd had after a few driver releases?)

i am not disputing the card needs to drop 10-15% in price (and i stated that in the beginning) but the rest is just poop.

i can continue finding flaws . .but its nighty night.
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
October 10, 2012 6:38:08 AM

o.k. fellas time to change the subject look here something funny and true

Uploaded with ImageShack.us
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 10, 2012 7:03:33 AM

Anonymous said:
this is your PROOF of a 650ti lagging behind a 7770 with the MSAA cranked up?
http://imageshack.us/a/img155/1090/capture1tv.jpg
:lol:  yes the 7770 made a gain from a lower MSAA but that is far from the 650ti "can't handle it".

and you're still on that bandwidth trumps shaders, eh? i''l be blunt; that thinking is nothing but pure ignorance, sorry.

dude maybe you need to teach reputable review sites that they have it all wrong and aren't testing cards properly with only using 4xMSAA (the most common on steam) you can babble all night long about circumstances, which you will and i don't care because its bed time for bonzo, about this and that.

but what really matters are proven facts, not speculation. just spin it how you want then i'll just put forth that a non referenced 650ti will beat a non referenced 7770. how about keeping it an apples to apples comparison? or would that not be pleasing to your unadulterated love for amd?

again and to clarify: a stock 560ti will not lag behind a 7770. if you want to compare other non reference models, when then wouldn't it be fair that some time pass so vendors can tweak the 650ti if they care to as they had time to tweak the 7770 also? (remember the performance gain amd had after a few driver releases?)

i am not disputing the card needs to drop 10-15% in price (and i stated that in the beginning) but the rest is just poop.

i can continue finding flaws . .but its nighty night.


The 650 Tis don't have cards that are nearly as much better than reference as the 7770 does, so bring them in all you want. The top 7770s will beat the top 650 Tis.

I never said that sites testing without heavy MSAA are wrong, so IDK where you got that idea, I simply said that MSAA is a saving grace for lower resolutions that need it more than higher resolutions do.

Bandwidth is far more important when it is the bottle-neck. The memory bandwidth is what is holding the 650 Ti back from being right behind the 660. What's your explanation for double the core count and a higher GPU frequency than the 650, yet only about a +1/3 performance boost? My explanation is proven time and time again with AMD's APUs, DDR3 cards, and slim memory interface cards.

Bandwidth is not less important than core performance, the two are a balance. They are a balance that Nvidia screwed up with most of the GTX 600 cards. The closest card to being balanced is either the GTX 660 or the GTX 670, IDK which I'd say is more balanced, yet they both show great performance improvements from memory overclocking.

Heck, the only difference between the 660 Ti and the 670 are the memory bandwidth drop and the ROP count drop, look at the performance difference there.

Another great example is that overclocking an A8's GPU by over 50-60% is well-known to have a roughly 30% performance increase with dual-channel DDR3-1333 9-9-9-24 memory, yet getting dual-channel DDR3-1866 9-9-9-24 or dual-channel DDR3-2133 10-10-10-whatever and then comparing stock GPU to overclock improves its performance scaling, especially in MSAA, an obvious sign of a memory bandwidth bottle-neck.

EDIT: Correction, the 650 Ti has a slightly lower GPU frequency than the 650, not higher.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 10, 2012 7:06:01 AM

esrever said:
I think nvidia would have done well to have given every one of their card at least a 25% increase in bandwidth. They would have a better line up and probably more powerful cards, the die area would be slightly bigger but they should be able to deal with that. There is really no point in having cards like the 660 ti and the 650 ti. Both of which could have had cores cut out and had basically the same performance.


Yeah... 670 ~=680 (usually no more than 8% slower) despite having a nearly 14% higher GPU core count and a 9% lower base clock (8% slower Boost clock). 660 ~= 660 Ti (a little better difference at something like 14% slower on average IIRC, but still too close) despite a far greater GPU performance disadvantage than even the 670 versus the 680.

Here's what I think that Nvidia* should have done:
680 = 1536 cores @ 1.006GHz base, 384 bit GDDR5 bus @ 1.500GHz 3GB
670 = 1344 cores @ 0.920GHz base, 320 bit GDDR5 bus @ 1.440GHz 2.5GB
660 Ti = 1152 cores @ 0.860GHz base, 256 bit GDDR5 bus @ 1.440GHz 2GB
660 = 960 cores @ 0.825GHz base, 256 bit GDDR5 bus @ 1.115GHz 2GB
650 Ti = 768 cores @ 0.825GHz base, 192 bit GDDR5 bus @ 1.220GHz 1.500GB
650 = 576 cores @ 0.825GHz base, 128 bit GDDR5 bus @ 1.370GHz 1GB
640 = 384 cores @ 0.930GHz base, 128 bit GDDR5 bus @ 1.030GHz 1GB
630 = 384 cores @ 0.700GHz base, 128 bit DDR3 bus @ 1.500GHz 1GB
620 = 192 cores @ 1.050GHz base, 128 bit DDR3 bus @ 1.125GHz 1GB
610 = 192 cores @ 0.700GHz base, 64 bit DDR3 bus @ 1.501GHz

Up until the 650, that's an ~20% GPU performance and memory bandwidth drop per card and the 650 is a 25% drop in each from the 650 Ti and that rend continues with the 640 through the 620 and ends with the 610 having ~33% drops in GPU performance and memory bandwidth. This would have kept a decent balance of GPU and memory performance. ROP count would be tied to the memory controllers and ROP performance is greatly dependent on memory bandwidth, so they'd be fairly balanced across this too.

*that was a horrible typo.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 10, 2012 8:18:53 AM

My thing is this yall stay battling every time theres a card vs card i understand that its good to share opinions but yall take it way over the head. Yall almost go off as if one of the companys pissed yall off or something at the end of the day we all gaming as one happy family no matter if one has nvidia or ati..I see to much bias comments and me personally BOTH ati and nvidia is good so why complain
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
October 10, 2012 8:30:25 AM

determinologyz said:
My thing is this yall stay battling every time theres a card vs card i understand that its good to share opinions but yall take it way over the head. Yall almost go off as if one of the companys pissed yall off or something at the end of the day we all gaming as one happy family no matter if one has nvidia or ati..I see to much bias comments and me personally BOTH ati and nvidia is good so why complain
We have nothing better to do how about that :kaola:  kidding.I agree both are good ;) 
m
0
l
October 10, 2012 9:03:36 AM

bigcyco1 said:
We have nothing better to do how about that :kaola:  kidding.I agree both are good ;) 


Intel is better :p 
m
0
l
Anonymous
a c 117 U Graphics card
October 10, 2012 9:40:00 AM

luciferano said:
The 650 Tis don't have cards that are nearly as much better than reference as the 7770 does, so bring them in all you want. The top 7770s will beat the top 650 Tis.

I never said that sites testing without heavy MSAA are wrong, so IDK where you got that idea, I simply said that MSAA is a saving grace for lower resolutions that need it more than higher resolutions do.

Bandwidth is far more important when it is the bottle-neck. The memory bandwidth is what is holding the 650 Ti back from being right behind the 660. What's your explanation for double the core count and a higher GPU frequency than the 650, yet only about a +1/3 performance boost? My explanation is proven time and time again with AMD's APUs, DDR3 cards, and slim memory interface cards.

Bandwidth is not less important than core performance, the two are a balance. They are a balance that Nvidia screwed up with most of the GTX 600 cards. The closest card to being balanced is either the GTX 660 or the GTX 670, IDK which I'd say is more balanced, yet they both show great performance improvements from memory overclocking.

Heck, the only difference between the 660 Ti and the 670 are the memory bandwidth drop and the ROP count drop, look at the performance difference there.

Another great example is that overclocking an A8's GPU by over 50-60% is well-known to have a roughly 30% performance increase with dual-channel DDR3-1333 9-9-9-24 memory, yet getting dual-channel DDR3-1866 9-9-9-24 or dual-channel DDR3-2133 10-10-10-whatever and then comparing stock GPU to overclock improves its performance scaling, especially in MSAA, an obvious sign of a memory bandwidth bottle-neck.

EDIT: Correction, the 650 Ti has a slightly lower GPU frequency than the 650, not higher.

you want to keep bring the point of MSAA being more important or "the saving grace" at lower resolutions?

ok, and at lower resolutions the frame rate increases and the performance hit from cranking up the MSAA isn't as pronounced. the average user of a budget card isn't going to go into the game settings and cranking up to 8xMSAA. they'll be more than happy to accept whatever default settings they get as long as it "looks nice enough to play"

you keep harping on the memory bandwidth whenever a nvidia card is mentioned, over and over and over again. great glad you learned something while being on tom's (actually from just one article) but you wore it into the ground, esp when you bring it up whether it is relavant to the topic or not. you'll keep stating "its been proven time and time again" when it has just been one article.funny thing is there have been cards with 128 and even 64 memory bit busses for a very long time and it didn't seem to be a problem back then for a budget card.

so the 650ti, as disappointing that it is 128 bit bus, really is not an outragous or death provoking crippling for its price point.

does bandwidth makes a difference? well yes but it isn't nearly a predominate as you like to state. so lets take a look at the 660ti and 670 comparison you are claiming is such a big difference. where does the bandwidth difference rear its "ugly head" at?

NVIDIA SLI: GeForce GTX 660 Ti vs GTX 670

Quote:
The GeForce GTX 660 Ti is nearly identical to GTX 670 in every way except for the number of memory controllers, and performance in most games was just as similar when tested in a single card configuration.

Aside from Crysis Warhead, almost every SLI benchmark favored GeForce GTX 670 by a significant margin. Our test results illustrated enough data to confirm that two GTX 670's are far more capable of generating high frame rate performance than two GTX 660 Ti video cards... but still not by enough to justify the $100 difference per card. If you're planning on building a single-card system and deciding between these two cards, it's my opinion that an overclocked GeForce GTX 660 Ti is the way to go. However, if that plan is for a SLI computer system with multiple monitors, it may be worth the extra money to run a pair of GeForce GTX 670's.

big difference in the head to head performance? there is none but SLI is a different story and that makes sense. there is not reason or logic to cut shaders and then increase the bandwidth, granted the point was brought up that with the limitation of the bandwidth, it may not hurt the performance to cut some shaders. but that is a ration speculation.

and since i at least gave one crediable, relavant, apples to apples citation; can i now say "its been proven over and over again?" :sarcastic: 

so methinks you are making a mountain out of a mole hill. oh, there is a molehill but it is not a mountain.
m
0
l
October 10, 2012 9:53:52 AM

The card is meh in terms of price/performance, but I LOVE the form factor (reference design) If I was building a small form factor HTPC I'd definitely put one in. It's adorable :3
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
October 10, 2012 9:54:13 AM

greghome said:
Intel is better :p 
we are not talking about cpu though :lol: 
m
0
l
October 10, 2012 10:52:25 AM

bigcyco1 said:
we are not talking about cpu though :lol: 


I wasn't either, which makes it funnier :p 
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 10, 2012 1:21:32 PM

Anonymous said:
you want to keep bring the point of MSAA being more important or "the saving grace" at lower resolutions?

ok, and at lower resolutions the frame rate increases and the performance hit from cranking up the MSAA isn't as pronounced. the average user of a budget card isn't going to go into the game settings and cranking up to 8xMSAA. they'll be more than happy to accept whatever default settings they get as long as it "looks nice enough to play"

you keep harping on the memory bandwidth whenever a nvidia card is mentioned, over and over and over again. great glad you learned something while being on tom's (actually from just one article) but you wore it into the ground, esp when you bring it up whether it is relavant to the topic or not. you'll keep stating "its been proven time and time again" when it has just been one article.funny thing is there have been cards with 128 and even 64 memory bit busses for a very long time and it didn't seem to be a problem back then for a budget card.

so the 650ti, as disappointing that it is 128 bit bus, really is not an outragous or death provoking crippling for its price point.

does bandwidth makes a difference? well yes but it isn't nearly a predominate as you like to state. so lets take a look at the 660ti and 670 comparison you are claiming is such a big difference. where does the bandwidth difference rear its "ugly head" at?

NVIDIA SLI: GeForce GTX 660 Ti vs GTX 670

Finally someone said it..
Quote:
The GeForce GTX 660 Ti is nearly identical to GTX 670 in every way except for the number of memory controllers, and performance in most games was just as similar when tested in a single card configuration.

Aside from Crysis Warhead, almost every SLI benchmark favored GeForce GTX 670 by a significant margin. Our test results illustrated enough data to confirm that two GTX 670's are far more capable of generating high frame rate performance than two GTX 660 Ti video cards... but still not by enough to justify the $100 difference per card. If you're planning on building a single-card system and deciding between these two cards, it's my opinion that an overclocked GeForce GTX 660 Ti is the way to go. However, if that plan is for a SLI computer system with multiple monitors, it may be worth the extra money to run a pair of GeForce GTX 670's.

big difference in the head to head performance? there is none but SLI is a different story and that makes sense. there is not reason or logic to cut shaders and then increase the bandwidth, granted the point was brought up that with the limitation of the bandwidth, it may not hurt the performance to cut some shaders. but that is a ration speculation.

and since i at least gave one crediable, relavant, apples to apples citation; can i now say "its been proven over and over again?" :sarcastic: 

so methinks you are making a mountain out of a mole hill. oh, there is a molehill but it is not a mountain.


Finally, as ive been said all along and i will still say the extra 100 isnt really worth from the 660 Ti to the 670 and the memory bandwidth isnt bad as people make it out to be.. luciferano mentions it as if he just point blank hates nvidia to the ground not saying he doesnt know his gpu but dang dude my thing is yes the 670 has a bit more bandwidth actually 48 Gb/s can go threw per second and has 8 more rops then the 660 Ti but i dont think its crippling as he makes it out to be. I game on the 660 Ti and i dont see to where i NEED to get the 670 for 100 extra but thats just me and i do perfectly fine at 1080p
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 10, 2012 2:09:48 PM

Anonymous said:
you want to keep bring the point of MSAA being more important or "the saving grace" at lower resolutions?

ok, and at lower resolutions the frame rate increases and the performance hit from cranking up the MSAA isn't as pronounced. the average user of a budget card isn't going to go into the game settings and cranking up to 8xMSAA. they'll be more than happy to accept whatever default settings they get as long as it "looks nice enough to play"

you keep harping on the memory bandwidth whenever a nvidia card is mentioned, over and over and over again. great glad you learned something while being on tom's (actually from just one article) but you wore it into the ground, esp when you bring it up whether it is relavant to the topic or not. you'll keep stating "its been proven time and time again" when it has just been one article.funny thing is there have been cards with 128 and even 64 memory bit busses for a very long time and it didn't seem to be a problem back then for a budget card.

so the 650ti, as disappointing that it is 128 bit bus, really is not an outragous or death provoking crippling for its price point.

does bandwidth makes a difference? well yes but it isn't nearly a predominate as you like to state. so lets take a look at the 660ti and 670 comparison you are claiming is such a big difference. where does the bandwidth difference rear its "ugly head" at?

NVIDIA SLI: GeForce GTX 660 Ti vs GTX 670

Quote:
The GeForce GTX 660 Ti is nearly identical to GTX 670 in every way except for the number of memory controllers, and performance in most games was just as similar when tested in a single card configuration.

Aside from Crysis Warhead, almost every SLI benchmark favored GeForce GTX 670 by a significant margin. Our test results illustrated enough data to confirm that two GTX 670's are far more capable of generating high frame rate performance than two GTX 660 Ti video cards... but still not by enough to justify the $100 difference per card. If you're planning on building a single-card system and deciding between these two cards, it's my opinion that an overclocked GeForce GTX 660 Ti is the way to go. However, if that plan is for a SLI computer system with multiple monitors, it may be worth the extra money to run a pair of GeForce GTX 670's.

big difference in the head to head performance? there is none but SLI is a different story and that makes sense. there is not reason or logic to cut shaders and then increase the bandwidth, granted the point was brought up that with the limitation of the bandwidth, it may not hurt the performance to cut some shaders. but that is a ration speculation.

and since i at least gave one crediable, relavant, apples to apples citation; can i now say "its been proven over and over again?" :sarcastic: 

so methinks you are making a mountain out of a mole hill. oh, there is a molehill but it is not a mountain.


I like to play with heavy MSAA because lower resolutions aren't smooth enough without it. The 660 Ti has been shown to not handle it well at all. In fact, the entire Kepler line except maybe the GTX 650 is memory-bandwith bottle-necked. They'd all do much better with more memory bandwidth.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-660-ti-...


http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-660-ti-...

That's up to a 17% drop on the 660 Ti from the 670 in efficiency. The performance drop is higher than this at almsot exactly 25% for average frame rate and almost 26% in minimum frame rate. Even x4 MSAA had a nearly 25% drop in both and 2x MSAA had a roughly 20% drop in average frame rate. That's quite significant considering that the only difference is that it has 25% fewer ROPs and 25% lower memory bandwidth. Granted, the 670 itself is already doing poorly, but that's beside the point. For perspective, Radeon 7750 Crossfire managed to edge out the 660 Ti in this test, two cards that can each be had for less than $100. You can say that you don't care about 8xMSAA, but the minimum frame rates were all above 50 and the averages were all above 60, so it's clearly playable in this example and should not be dismissed.

That's no small difference between the 660 Ti and the 670 when you play with enough MSAA to justify a lower resolution. The 670 also overclocks much better than the 660 Ti does too. The 660 Ti's consistently lower minimum frame rates most certainly don't do it justice. The 670 is most certainly worth the price hike over the 660 Ti. However, you are right in that it is a poor value. The 660 is right behind the 660 Ti despite being about $100 cheaper and using considerably less power, so 660 SLI can be had for about the same price as most 670s and that's much better than the 670. However, we've got 670s that drop as low as $340 and $350 very often, so some of them are still worth the money.

I'd prefer to just get a 7950 at this price because some of the 7950 models are known to consistently overclock better than any 670 can, but I'd most certainly not take a 660 Ti over a 670.

determinologyz said:
Finally, as ive been said all along and i will still say the extra 100 isnt really worth from the 660 Ti to the 670 and the memory bandwidth isnt bad as people make it out to be.. luciferano mentions it as if he just point blank hates nvidia to the ground not saying he doesnt know his gpu but dang dude my thing is yes the 670 has a bit more bandwidth actually 48 Gb/s can go threw per second and has 8 more rops then the 660 Ti but i dont think its crippling as he makes it out to be. I game on the 660 Ti and i dont see to where i NEED to get the 670 for 100 extra but thats just me and i do perfectly fine at 1080p


I do not hate Nvidia, although I despise some things that they've done (and respect some other things that they've done) just like any other company. I've already proven the impact of memory bandwidth and explained it. Just because you game on a 660 Ti and don't mind it doesn't mean that other people would want to compromise as much. You forget that opinion is subjective. Facts such as that the 660 Ti is weaker than the 670 are not subjective.

I don't like the 660 Ti because Nvidia cut its performance the wrong way. Cutting memory bandwidth like that decreases consistency of performance and hurts performance too much in some memory-bandwidth games to be able to run much if at all MSAA even at 1080p. A smaller memory bandwidth drop with a core count or at least a core frequency drop would have been better. Like I said, There should be a balance of memory bandwidth to GPU performance and this balance is not right on the Kepler cards, the GTX 650 Ti is simply one of the worst offenders. It's undeniable proof. A doubling of core count, even with a slight frequency drop, should be over 75% faster in this context, yet it scaled less than half that because memory bandwidth and ROP performance weren't changed much.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 10, 2012 2:38:35 PM

MSAA ? what the hell is MSAA ? and someone tell me why does it matter to casual gamers gaming at lower resolutions who only look for playability and not for fancy quality settings . next i believe the 650ti is nvidia's most desirable card in terms of pure value.. assassins creed 3 ? who doesnt want to play AC3 when it comes out ? everyone wanta to play it. and its download code is included free with the $149 gtx650 ti which makes it an amazing value.. even if you somehow dont want to play AC3 149$ is still very good pricing ..you dont to get $170 variants..get stock 650ti and overclock it a good bit and you have a very good card for $149. 7850 is a great card as well at its $180 price point but it sits comfortably out of reach of 650ti. overall 650ti a better value than 650, 660 and 660ti as well..
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 10, 2012 2:44:55 PM

mohit9206 said:
MSAA ? what the hell is MSAA ? and someone tell me why does it matter to casual gamers gaming at lower resolutions who only look for playability and not for fancy quality settings . next i believe the 650ti is nvidia's most desirable card in terms of pure value.. assassins creed 3 ? who doesnt want to play AC3 when it comes out ? everyone wanta to play it. and its download code is included free with the $149 gtx650 ti which makes it an amazing value.. even if you somehow dont want to play AC3 149$ is still very good pricing ..you dont to get $170 variants..get stock 650ti and overclock it a good bit and you have a very good card for $149. 7850 is a great card as well at its $180 price point but it sits comfortably out of reach of 650ti. overall 650ti a better value than 650, 660 and 660ti as well..


The 650 Ti is very bad at overclocking, so that's not much of an option. The 7850 is far superior. The 660 is Nvidia's best value, not the 650 Ti. I'll concede that the 650 Ti tops the 660 Ti in value, but that card is a bad value anyway.

MSAA is the best type of AA that most systems can handle good levels of. It smooths out jaggies very well.

It doesn't need to matter to everyone. It's not going to impact playing capability in most cases unless you go overboard, so it's a perfectly valid setting to make note of, especially since it alleviates one of the greatest issues with low resolution gaming. jaggies. The only better form of AA in its class is TXAA, but that's Nvidia-only, hardly supported by any games (last I checked, only one game supported it, IDK if that's been improved), and is needed by Nvidia just to combat AMD's MSAA performance, so it goes fro man advantage to an equalizer.
m
0
l
October 10, 2012 3:08:11 PM

mohit9206 said:
.. assassins creed 3 ? who doesnt want to play AC3 when it comes out ?


I don't. :/ 
It feels like nothing more than a stinking console port, the game still feels the same as the first Assasin's Creed and the story still is IMO not interesting enough to lure me into playing it.
Every new assasin's Creed game that has came out, I've tried and honestly almost all of them makes me feel it's just a reskinned version of it's predecessor.

Now........if They're giving away Arkham City or Heart of the Swarm, I might consider.
If they're giving away Half Life 3, I'd throw my 6950 outta the window and replace it with a 650Ti :p 
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 10, 2012 3:09:00 PM

luciferano said:
MSAA matters far more at lower resolutions than it does at higher resolutions and the 7770 can handle it, so that the 650 Ti can't is not some little, minor thing.

Like I said, that it is a budget card doesn't matter. Trading cores for a memory controller (which the GPU already supports) would have been better because it is greatly memory-bandwidth bottle-necked (hence the reason for it having twice as many cores as the 650 and higher GPU frequency, yet merely 30-35% higher average performance).

http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/grafikkarten/2012/te...

There's your proof. I can name at least three 7770s that are between 15% and 25% faster than the reference 7770, that's more than enough to pull ahead of even the 6870 in that average rating. At least the 660 is worth buying compare to the similarly priced 7850 and 7870, but this 650 Ti is not worth buying compared to the similarly priced 7770s and 7850s. Heck, even the 650 can be argued for... The 650 Ti? Not really, at least not as a single card. Heck, it doesn't even support SLI according to what I've heard (although I don't claim to know for sure), not that it'd be worth putting in SLI anyway.


I am not an AMD fanboy but I am going to second his claim that MSAA matter's more at low resolutions. When I had a sh##ty PC, I had to turn AA on all the time due to the crazy amount of jaggies at low rez. But now I have 2 x 6950's and I can say that at 1080p+ adding MSAA x2 is all that really makes a difference in a few games, and in most I just leave it off.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 10, 2012 3:11:31 PM

CaptainTom said:
I am not an AMD fanboy but I am going to second his claim that MSAA matter's more at low resolutions. When I had a sh##ty PC, I had to turn AA on all the time due to the crazy amount of jaggies at low rez. But now I have 2 x 6950's and I can say that at 1080p+ adding MSAA x2 is all that really makes a difference in a few games, and in most I just leave it off.


I agree at 1080p i really wouldnt care if its on or off in batman arkham city i dont have it on and some people cringe when aa isnt applied. If im getting 50-60 frames i can deal without it
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 10, 2012 3:12:24 PM

bigcyco1 said:
Price and performance wise i would only recommend a 660 and 670 i really can't say to much for NV this year kinda disappointing


I agree. I think the 500 series beat the 6000 just because of its shear performance advantage, but this year AMD came out first and yet still managed to keep their cards overall stronger or equal while also trouncing NV in price/performance.

Example: A $290 660Ti or a $215 7870 GHz? Don't make me laugh!
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 10, 2012 3:14:11 PM

what is FXAA then ?
m
0
l
!