Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

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

Tags:
  • Gaming
  • Graphics Cards
  • gtx 650 ti boost
  • price-war
  • Geforce
  • Nvidia
Last response: in Reviews comments
Share
March 26, 2013 6:00:04 AM

Less than one week after AMD's Radeon HD 7790 launch, Nvidia is ready with a GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost. Can the company parlay another GK106-based card into something more balanced than GeForce GTX 650 Ti, ousting the Radeon HD 7850 for less money?

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

More about : geforce gtx 650 boost review budget oriented gk106 based boss

a b 4 Gaming
a b U Graphics card
March 26, 2013 6:04:28 AM

Let the battle begin!
Score
6
Related resources
a b 4 Gaming
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
March 26, 2013 6:13:28 AM

This card pricing seems a little too good that it kinda makes me regret getting the GTX660 just a while ago. Damn it, I hate the Kepler series and their pricing :/ 

Although I can't say the same about the power consumption and some part in me actually hoped and expected the card would come with a game bundle.
Score
9
a b 4 Gaming
a b U Graphics card
March 26, 2013 6:17:43 AM

Souv_90anandtech 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)

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 :D .
Score
16
March 26, 2013 6:20:38 AM

It looks to me form the chart except the 7900. AMD GCN is are actually far more efficient here. Better compute + better performance/watt. So Nvidia taunting about their 'most efficient GPU' seems got defeated again. I wonder what if AMD make 7900 a 1.5x of 7800.

I still do not like the idea of Odd memory configuration. 1GB/2GB @ 192bit. The last 512MB from 2GB model is only getting 64bit memory bandwidth. Why cant they offer a a proper 1.5GB version @ middle price $159?

Tomshardware fail to bench 2GB 7850. I like to see that vs 2GB 650Ti Boost.
Score
-4
a b 4 Gaming
a b U Graphics card
March 26, 2013 6:27:49 AM

it beats the 7790, 192 bit+2gb, so awesome...
Score
2
March 26, 2013 6:40:14 AM

Watch out gtx 660!
Score
3
March 26, 2013 6:41:43 AM

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"
Score
12
a b 4 Gaming
a c 81 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
March 26, 2013 6:43:02 AM

darn it. i was enjoying reading the review considering i've been waiting to se how this card performs ever since i heard of it. 192bit interface with a cut-down gk106 under $170 and sli - makes gtx 650ti irrelevant and puts a good deal of hurt on the 128bit 7790 in terms of config. i doubt gtx650tiboost can outperform a 7790 in compute tasks but this is a gaming gfx card above all. this seems like a good proposition for budget 1080p gaming, so far.

now, if amd brings back 7850 1gb, it'd be awesome (i don't buy the 'lack of gddr5 chips' excuse for a second).

will there be gtx650tiboost sli performance analysis vs 7790 cfx and 7850 1gb cfx? hopefully nvidia has good drivers available because the sub $200 gfx card price war just got heated up.

edit: imho nvidia is late to the sub $200 gfx card price war. this card shoulda come out instead of gtx 650ti (128bit). amd should be updating with new gcn cards soon while kepler 2.0 seems nowhere in sight. better late(!) than never, i guess..
Score
3
March 26, 2013 6:43:11 AM

The 7850 has a 256-bit bus, not 128-bit. Please fix your chart on page 1.
Score
9
March 26, 2013 6:46:21 AM

Nice, I like seeing the battle begin. Just like the batter of 6850/gtx460. I am really looking forward to see what both the 7790 and 650ti boost can do on non-beta drivers.
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
March 26, 2013 6:59:54 AM

I'd say the 7850 is still more worthwhile since it should respond to overclocking better.
Score
0
March 26, 2013 7:03:37 AM

FinneousPJI'd say the 7850 is still more worthwhile since it should respond to overclocking better.
it consume less power as well, it give free AAA bundle games. So the value are still better.
Score
6
a b U Graphics card
March 26, 2013 7:17:03 AM

If it for Bandwidth and memory, still 7850 seems a better buy... I mean, comparing a 1000mhz core clock HD7850 vs a 1000mhz core clock GTX 650ti boots and we will see how the AMD card overcome and as soon as we apply antialising and stuff like that. Also When we overclock memory, the bigger bus width will help a lot on performance. But, we really need about pricing, for 150 bucks this card will have an upper hand against the HD7850 1GB...
Score
0
March 26, 2013 7:19:35 AM

I figured amd would release a 7850 ghz addition considering how easily they reach 1ghz+ with out much effort.
Score
3
a b 4 Gaming
a c 87 U Graphics card
March 26, 2013 7:23:49 AM

BigMack70I feel like this has been the general theme of this 6xx/7xxx round between AMD and Nvidia... AMD releases something that's good but fairly conservative, and then Nvidia soon after comes in and just embarrasses them and makes AMD totally change up their pricing structure.I don't really mean that as a knock on AMD's cards/etc, just that I wish AMD would get a little more aggressive with their product launches... it's like they don't expect Nvidia to retaliate and they don't even try to anticipate what's coming.Great to see Nvidia getting more competitive in sub-$200 space where they are typically horrible. Now, if they could just release something to bring competition to the $80-100 space, the consumer will really have a win on their hands... competition at all price points!


Well, in the $80-100 space, Nvidia at least has GT 640 GDDR5s and probably a few GTX 650s, granted that the GTX 650 Ti's price drop makes them even less relevant.
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
a c 172 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
March 26, 2013 7:25:18 AM

This is gonna be a good old graphics battle, its a shame I already own 2 HD7950s. COul have saved some seriosu cash.
Score
-5
March 26, 2013 7:30:04 AM

CrisisCauserThe 7850 has a 256-bit bus, not 128-bit. Please fix your chart on page 1.


Doh! Fixed, thx. :) 
Score
4
March 26, 2013 7:32:04 AM

What remains of the free market is a wonderful thing.
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
a c 87 U Graphics card
March 26, 2013 7:32:50 AM

tomfreakIt looks to me form the chart except the 7900. AMD GCN is are actually far more efficient here. Better compute + better performance/watt. So Nvidia taunting about their 'most efficient GPU' seems got defeated again. I wonder what if AMD make 7900 a 1.5x of 7800. I still do not like the idea of Odd memory configuration. 1GB/2GB @ 192bit. The last 512MB from 2GB model is only getting 64bit memory bandwidth. Why cant they offer a a proper 1.5GB version @ middle price $159?Tomshardware fail to bench 2GB 7850. I like to see that vs 2GB 650Ti Boost.


The memory capacity difference really doesn't matter for this article. The 2GB version of the 7850 doesn't perform any better than the 1GB version, it simply doesn't get slammed in a few VRAM capacity-heavy situations whereas the 7850 1GB does (none of which are in this article anyway).
Score
3
March 26, 2013 7:34:42 AM

I would love to get hands on the GTX 650 Ti Boost but Newegg and Amazon does not list any...


: (

I want them NOW!!
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
a c 104 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
March 26, 2013 7:35:24 AM

though team red has generally won the last 18 months gpu war with better pricing in the 7xxx vs 6xx battle... and generally better performance for that pricing, this type of thing really warms my heart. Because NVidia hasn't been particularly competitive recently in price, you see the Radeon gpus edging up in price recently as a result. This should upset the apple cart nicely.

Price wars are great for consumers, so let this one begin!
Score
4
a b 4 Gaming
a c 87 U Graphics card
March 26, 2013 7:35:33 AM

zootedI figured amd would release a 7850 ghz addition considering how easily they reach 1ghz+ with out much effort.


I doubt it. AMD didn't release a GHz Edition of any of the other 2nd tier cards. It'd make them each too close to their first tier models such as the 7770, 7870, and 7970.
Score
0
March 26, 2013 7:36:57 AM

How will this perform in 3-way SLI? At $510, it will just have to be better than some of the flashier 680s and 7970 ghz editions to be a consideration and I suspect it will be much, much better than that.
Score
-3
a b 4 Gaming
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
March 26, 2013 7:39:37 AM

SvRommelvS said:
How will this perform in 3-way SLI? At $510, it will just have to be better than some of the flashier 680s and 7970 ghz editions to be a consideration and I suspect it will be much, much better than that.


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.
Score
3
a b U Graphics card
March 26, 2013 7:40:10 AM

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.
Score
3
a b U Graphics card
March 26, 2013 7:40:50 AM

Another GK106 based NV-card... Would be nice if they drop the price on the cash cow that is the GTX 660.
Score
1
March 26, 2013 7:46:08 AM

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.
Score
-2
a b 4 Gaming
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
March 26, 2013 7:50:14 AM

corvak said:
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.


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-...
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_6...
Score
2
a b 4 Gaming
a c 87 U Graphics card
March 26, 2013 7:52:00 AM

corvak said:
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.


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.
Score
6
March 26, 2013 7:55:02 AM

Seriously, nVidia, why did it have to be rebates?
Score
1
March 26, 2013 7:59:36 AM

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.

Score
-4
March 26, 2013 8:01:03 AM

Souv_90anandtech 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)


So basically Toms is wrong and Anand is correct based of of your uninformed observation?
Score
0
March 26, 2013 8:02:41 AM

Maxx_PowerAnother GK106 based NV-card... Would be nice if they drop the price on the cash cow that is the GTX 660.


Yeah, we can read AnandTech also... So original. ;-)
Score
-3
a b 4 Gaming
a c 87 U Graphics card
March 26, 2013 8:06:03 AM

de5_Roy said:
darn it. i was enjoying reading the review considering i've been waiting to se how this card performs ever since i heard of it. 192bit interface with a cut-down gk106 under $170 and sli - makes gtx 650ti irrelevant and puts a good deal of hurt on the 128bit 7790 in terms of config. i doubt gtx650tiboost can outperform a 7790 in compute tasks but this is a gaming gfx card above all. this seems like a good proposition for budget 1080p gaming, so far.

now, if amd brings back 7850 1gb, it'd be awesome (i don't buy the 'lack of gddr5 chips' excuse for a second).

will there be gtx650tiboost sli performance analysis vs 7790 cfx and 7850 1gb cfx? hopefully nvidia has good drivers available because the sub $200 gfx card price war just got heated up.

edit: imho nvidia is late to the sub $200 gfx card price war. this card shoulda come out instead of gtx 650ti (128bit). amd should be updating with new gcn cards soon while kepler 2.0 seems nowhere in sight. better late(!) than never, i guess..


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.
Score
-1
a b 4 Gaming
a c 87 U Graphics card
March 26, 2013 8:11:29 AM

In the power consumption graph, the 7870 is said to use less power than the 7850. I don't remember that being true. Is that a typo, or am I wrong?
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
March 26, 2013 8:14:02 AM

blazorthon said:
In the power consumption graph, the 7870 is said to use less power than the 7850. I don't remember that being true. Is that a typo, or am I wrong?


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.
Score
1
a b U Graphics card
March 26, 2013 8:17:37 AM

blazorthonAre 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.


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.
Score
-4
a b 4 Gaming
a c 87 U Graphics card
March 26, 2013 8:19:11 AM

mayankleoboy1In 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.


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.
Score
4
a b 4 Gaming
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
March 26, 2013 8:20:59 AM

blazorthon said:
mayankleoboy1In 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.


40nm had Radeons doing better than Fermi in gaming performance per watt.


True. Fermi was a power hog compared to Evergreen and Northern Islands.
Score
2
March 26, 2013 8:31:14 AM

Quote:
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.

A shame. I was hopeful since at least the 660 Ti does.
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
a c 87 U Graphics card
March 26, 2013 8:34:48 AM

SvRommelvSA shame. I was hopeful since at least the 660 Ti does.


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.
Score
0
March 26, 2013 8:38:52 AM

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


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
Score
-4
March 26, 2013 8:39:39 AM

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?
Score
-2
a b 4 Gaming
a c 182 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
March 26, 2013 8:43:18 AM

nice!!! competitor of hd 7850 has arrieved!
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
a c 87 U Graphics card
March 26, 2013 8:46:49 AM

Souv_90 said:
arcticleYeah, we can read AnandTech also... So original. ;-)


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


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.
Score
1
March 26, 2013 8:49:22 AM

how many casual gamers will go out a buy this card on the store shelves without catching the 128 192 bit difference/? Just like the 7790 was introduced to stop the slide of the 7850 Nvida is dong the same thing with the 192 bit gtx 650ti to stop the slide of the gtx 660. The only difference is nvida's choice to cut down a 660 as opposed to AMD bringing us a a whole new gcn 2.0 card. Cleeve is spot on with his comment on nvidia assaulting the 100-200 price range, where amd makes the bulk of there graphics card money

Score
1
a b 4 Gaming
a c 87 U Graphics card
March 26, 2013 8:52:22 AM

sarinaide said:
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?


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.
Score
-2
a b U Graphics card
March 26, 2013 8:59:54 AM

MemnarchonTechpowerup 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 .

Tech Report: http://techreport.com/review/24562/nvidia-geforce-gtx-6...
Score
0
      • 1 / 3
      • 2
      • 3
      • Newest
!