notty22
Diamond Member
- Jan 1, 2010
- 3,375
- 0
- 0
Now your burden of proof is posting a entire review. I will hold you to your criteria.
Now your burden of proof is posting a entire review. I will hold you to your criteria.
wand3r3r
Diamond Member
- May 16, 2008
- 3,180
- 0
- 0
Sites review OC'ed models which I'm fine with, just don't put graphs which have
"Overclocked model X" vs. "Stock model Y" without "Stock model X".
Big difference if they include stock vs overclocked without the stock vs stock comparison.
The other factor is if graphs only label them "Model X" vs. "Model Y" without labeling the "oc" model as OCed.
I believe I've seen Oced X vs stock Y where the graphs only said X vs Y. That is intentionally misleading.
GaiaHunter
Diamond Member
- Jul 13, 2008
- 3,732
- 432
- 126
Imagine if the 7790 review was littered with OC models of the 7850/GTX650 Ti and all you had for the 7790 was a "stock" card and not even manual overclock.
A situation similar to that was what generated protests.
The review is about the 7790 - I don't see any problem reviewing overclocked 7790, either factory or just manual overclock. That is the normal procedure (although some sites start with reviewing the "stock" card and then do other reviews for custom cards).
Don't start that crap, if you link to one chart have the decency to post the entire review that it came from. You just hotlinked some charts that suited your agenda without even linking to the entire review that concluded differently than you did.
notty22
Diamond Member
- Jan 1, 2010
- 3,375
- 0
- 0
What crap, you mean the immature style you so enjoy? The old read what you posted, armchair lawyer speak ? Sorry, reap what you sow. This is not the 7790 review thread, it's the new 650 leak discussion. Based on no reported facts. The Anand review mentioned 12% lead (conclusion)in their game suite for the 7790. TPU findings were in the picture(10%). Sorry if you need to be spoon fed.
Lol, what a clown, you are the one who brought up the 7790. You claim this isn't the 7790 thread yet you saw fit to post cherrypicked charts from the 7790 review to show it in a worse light. :whiste:
The 7790 is relevant because the 650Ti boost edition is being released as a direct consequence of the 7790. When AMD and Nvidia have to outdo each other to attract sales it is great for the consumers. If the 650Ti boost turns out faster for the same price then that is great IMHO. I care not one jot who makes the cards, as long as they keep pushing the price/perf in favour of the consumer.
Last edited:
LOL guys so much screaming for nothing. Real gamer does not look on these GPUs. Budget gamer is propably looking for his own price/performance ratio based on games he plays, and only really bussy man throwing his money out of window and also fools will buy anything just from few online recommendations. There is also local price "issue" around the world. From my perspective, I see 7790 no better than 650Ti in price/perf ratio here yet, because we don´t know real prices.
I saw local review,
(3DMark 11, Alan Wake, Anno 2070, BF3, FC 3, Hitman: Absolution, Max Payne 3, Metro 2033)
and the 7790 is just 4% faster than 650Ti in 1080p without AA overall, and 11% faster with 4xAA. While 650Ti overclocks better and I go without AA for playable results, GTX650Ti WINS over 7790 for me, because 7790 propably won´t be cheaper than GTX650Ti At my buying time.
There are some games, when 7790 dusts 650Ti really bad, especially with AA, and there are many games, when it does again, BUT game is not playable with BOTH GPUs, because 12 FPS VS 17 FPS is not relevant comparison, even if it gives nearly 50% + to AMD´s repuration in that particular test. Real world guys, not arguing about green or red graphs.
That way 7790 is really disappointment. Once you eliminate low FPS result tests and turn off AA, there is nothing special about 7790 over 650Ti.
My friend goes Ultra settings and medium AA with 1080p in Assassins Creed 2 and 3, and he likes it on Pentium G2020 + Ati 7770. What else to say? Nothing. Decide for yourself and get GPU which "suits" you. Don´t panic, dont rely on graphs and others opinions. Every guy has his own pair of ears, eyes, set of taste cells and so on. Use it!
Away from OT.
That way 650Ti boost must beat 7790 hardly, but for what price?
I saw local review,
(3DMark 11, Alan Wake, Anno 2070, BF3, FC 3, Hitman: Absolution, Max Payne 3, Metro 2033)
and the 7790 is just 4% faster than 650Ti in 1080p without AA overall, and 11% faster with 4xAA. While 650Ti overclocks better and I go without AA for playable results, GTX650Ti WINS over 7790 for me, because 7790 propably won´t be cheaper than GTX650Ti At my buying time.
There are some games, when 7790 dusts 650Ti really bad, especially with AA, and there are many games, when it does again, BUT game is not playable with BOTH GPUs, because 12 FPS VS 17 FPS is not relevant comparison, even if it gives nearly 50% + to AMD´s repuration in that particular test. Real world guys, not arguing about green or red graphs.
That way 7790 is really disappointment. Once you eliminate low FPS result tests and turn off AA, there is nothing special about 7790 over 650Ti.
My friend goes Ultra settings and medium AA with 1080p in Assassins Creed 2 and 3, and he likes it on Pentium G2020 + Ati 7770. What else to say? Nothing. Decide for yourself and get GPU which "suits" you. Don´t panic, dont rely on graphs and others opinions. Every guy has his own pair of ears, eyes, set of taste cells and so on. Use it!
Away from OT.
That way 650Ti boost must beat 7790 hardly, but for what price?
Last edited:
Basically the 7790 was a sneaky attempt to show off the balls of GCN 1.1 or what ever it is. It so happens to fill in a gap too. Nvidia, is just releasing the same kepler type variant they did a year ago??
I admit Im by no means certain but thats my understanding.
The 7790 is a new chip, probably test driveing a few architecture changes.
While the 650Ti Boost, is a cut down GTX 660, with a few parts lasered off, or however cutdown versions of chips are made.
Their likely to end up performing very simularly.
But it means Nvidia is useing a 192bit bus chip, thats 221mm^2,
to fight off a 128bit bus chip thats around 160mm^2.
Which will probably mean the 650Ti Boost will end up being priced higher than the 7790, once the dust settles. Figouring on the 39% chip size differnces, but then again chip sizes arent all that decides the price of a card.
Nvidia could cut corners on quality with the cards to make them cheaper, or AMD could over manufacture and have them end up costing too much for their own good.
Last edited:
Well, keep in mind that 221mm^2 is propably not the area of functional GPU itself (For GTX 650Ti and Ti Boost and 660 also the same square area). They sell you some useless sillicon junk around it, and it should be "free" cause it´s deffective. How can they charge you for it.....
It will be priced higher because nVidia is pricey these times, and it will be more powerfull in games (FPS). That´s the reason.
When you make chips, you take into account the "size" of the full design (defective parts of the chip or not).
The 650TI, 650Ti Boost,660 are all the same chip design (I think?).
Why are they not all made into 660 then? since its a stronger chip?
because of design faults, instead of throwing these chips away their made
into cheaper funktional cards (than the 660).
However that doesnt change the production cost of one of the "saved" chips,
its still the same size as the design that makes the 660.
Still waste not, want not.
Obviously its smarter to sell something at a small loss, than throwing it out and makeing nothing off it.
then comes volume, eventually you dont have enough "defective" chips, and you ll have to pull some perfectly fine 660 chips and laser parts off to make smaller cards to keep up with demand.
Size usually reflect price, reguardless of if part of the chip was defective or not. (point im trying to make).
The alternative is to sell something you dont profit on.
Foundries dont charge you for something that funktions. They just sell you waffers.
So a "defective" chip, still cost the same as a fully funktional chip to manufacture (as seen by nvidia).
Again Im not 100% sure this is how it works, but from what Ive read here on these forums, that is what Im lead to believe.
Im pointing this out because, it makes your intire argument flawed.
Last edited:
crisium
Platinum Member
- Aug 19, 2001
- 2,643
- 615
- 136
Fully OC'ed, will it actually be able to surpass normal 650 Ti overclocks? Aka, is the only benefit for OCers the superior memory bandwidth?
I'll be slightly surprised if this doesn't beat the 7790 with both at stock, but it's not guarenteed. But I'll eat my hat if it beats the 7850 on average. I'll record a video for you all and will dedicate it to Nvidia focus group members everywhere.
I'll be slightly surprised if this doesn't beat the 7790 with both at stock, but it's not guarenteed. But I'll eat my hat if it beats the 7850 on average. I'll record a video for you all and will dedicate it to Nvidia focus group members everywhere.
Last edited:
- Jan 16, 2003
- 21,219
- 56
- 91
Hell yeah 
Arkadrel:
On the contrary:
1) If you take one gig of RAM off the 660 and some small price for easier PCB, I doubt you get the price of 650Ti.
2) Who cares about manufacturers problems? It needs to be sold for real market prices. I believe you pay more money for bad yield even on good 660 cards. It must be more spread than just selling bad products for price of good products. This would be really nonsense.
3) The 650Ti boost is practically the same as GTX660 by hardware side of this problematics. How can it be NOT cheaper (for customer) than 660?
You have to develope and engineer just one product, that will be assembled on just one line and setup. Everything else is nearly just SW issue. That Explains why nVidia is typically more expensive in every case possible? No. You have great point which makes sense and some effect, because 650Ti Boost is propably as expensive as 660 is for nVidia, but I doubt it´s so huge on customers side.
The "enaugh deffective chips" Ooou, this is The Tough One. I believe there is more 650Ti´s sold than 660s. How can they possibly get over 50% deffective chips? How can they sell it for affordable price?
Well, there must be great mixture of saving chips from bad yield situation and use it later, some of yours idea, and also spreading losses for the wholemodel line from 650Ti to 660. But I guess that AMD is partially doing the same (obviously not by 7790), so we don´t see great difference.
P.S.: How come that Intel is not selling three core chips? The company is in the same situation and it looks like they just throw deffective chips away or they lock two cores at once even if three are OK. Maybe They´re doing just one i7 chip dowgrading it accordingly to the damages on the die to i5 (without HT) i3 (2core with HT) and Pentium (2core, no HT) and celeron (pentium - some cache). That would be funny to know. That way Celeron cannot be as pricey as i7 K/Extreme are...
And Yes, I think it will go over 7850, but not really anywhere far. With OC, It can be on par or 7850 better.
Arkadrel:
On the contrary:
1) If you take one gig of RAM off the 660 and some small price for easier PCB, I doubt you get the price of 650Ti.
2) Who cares about manufacturers problems? It needs to be sold for real market prices. I believe you pay more money for bad yield even on good 660 cards. It must be more spread than just selling bad products for price of good products. This would be really nonsense.
3) The 650Ti boost is practically the same as GTX660 by hardware side of this problematics. How can it be NOT cheaper (for customer) than 660?
You have to develope and engineer just one product, that will be assembled on just one line and setup. Everything else is nearly just SW issue. That Explains why nVidia is typically more expensive in every case possible? No. You have great point which makes sense and some effect, because 650Ti Boost is propably as expensive as 660 is for nVidia, but I doubt it´s so huge on customers side.
The "enaugh deffective chips" Ooou, this is The Tough One.
I believe there is more 650Ti´s sold than 660s. How can they possibly get over 50% deffective chips? How can they sell it for affordable price?Well, there must be great mixture of saving chips from bad yield situation and use it later, some of yours idea, and also spreading losses for the wholemodel line from 650Ti to 660. But I guess that AMD is partially doing the same (obviously not by 7790), so we don´t see great difference.
P.S.: How come that Intel is not selling three core chips? The company is in the same situation and it looks like they just throw deffective chips away or they lock two cores at once even if three are OK. Maybe They´re doing just one i7 chip dowgrading it accordingly to the damages on the die to i5 (without HT) i3 (2core with HT) and Pentium (2core, no HT) and celeron (pentium - some cache). That would be funny to know. That way Celeron cannot be as pricey as i7 K/Extreme are...
And Yes, I think it will go over 7850, but not really anywhere far. With OC, It can be on par or 7850 better.
Last edited:
crisium
Platinum Member
- Aug 19, 2001
- 2,643
- 615
- 136
No Keysplayr, because you can never predict how massive increases in memory bandwidth can affect a card. Perhaps the 650 Ti is really limited in this regard, and the boost will unleash the true power of a 16 ROP GK106.
Interesting to note is the Zotac 650 Ti AMP. It has a base clock equivalent to the Boost. Now it can't the memory, but look at this OC:
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Zotac/GeForce_GTX_650_Ti_Amp_Edition/31.html
That gives it about a ~6% faster core clock than the Boost. But the Boost has ~20% more memory bandwidth. Let's just say these even out in many situations. It is actually nipping at the heals of the 7850! If the memory bandwidth turns out to matter more than we think, then it could sucker punch the 7850 in a close race (at stock only, of course). Can it do it?
I may have to pull a Pachter and eat a cookie hat. But perhaps not.
Interesting to note is the Zotac 650 Ti AMP. It has a base clock equivalent to the Boost. Now it can't the memory, but look at this OC:
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Zotac/GeForce_GTX_650_Ti_Amp_Edition/31.html
That gives it about a ~6% faster core clock than the Boost. But the Boost has ~20% more memory bandwidth. Let's just say these even out in many situations. It is actually nipping at the heals of the 7850! If the memory bandwidth turns out to matter more than we think, then it could sucker punch the 7850 in a close race (at stock only, of course). Can it do it?
I may have to pull a Pachter and eat a cookie hat. But perhaps not.
Last edited:
FalseChristian
Diamond Member
- Jan 7, 2002
- 3,322
- 0
- 71
Right now the GTX 650 Ti is a tad faster than the GTX 460 1GB. It's dead in the water no matter what they do with it because it doesn't support SLI.
No SLi isn't that big of a deal on a $150 card. Even though the 7790 supports crossfire it's basically a useless bullet point on the side of the box unless they release a 2gb version.
alexruiz
Platinum Member
- Sep 21, 2001
- 2,836
- 556
- 126
Come on, just because you get free GeForces doesn't mean you have to spread exaggeration.
The GTX660 is indeed faster all around than the HD7850, but against the HD7870, it is clearly slower. Only in some specific games like borderlands 2 and AC3 (which is very different from "many cases") it beats the HD7870. The HD7870 real competitor is the GTX660 Ti, unlike what the nvidia propaganda machine would tell of gtx660 vs hd7870 and 660 ti vs hd7950.
They're listed pretty neck and neck with a slight advantage (and I mean slight) to the 7870.
Assuming they're like ever other AMD vs Nvidia lineup, the 660 should come out on top almost as much as the 7870 does, hence they're close in performance but each camp does better in some games than others.
No reason to attack his focus group status, as if you wouldn't take free hardware to discuss it in social media.
- Jan 16, 2003
- 21,219
- 56
- 91
It's cool Balla. It's a beautiful "tell" when they do this. I know all I need to know about them. I just sip my morning coffee and smile.
HD 7870 is faster than GTX 660 on average. depending on the review and the game suite the gap could be 5 - 10% on average.
http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/grafikkarten/2013/amd-radeon-hd-7790-im-test/2/
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/890-24/recapitulatif-performances.html
http://ht4u.net/reviews/2013/sapphire_radeon_hd_7870_xt_with_boost_im_test/index45.php
also the perf scaling of HD 7870 from 1 to 1.3 ghz is brilliant. the 256 bit memory and 32 ROPs make it a scaling beast. the GTX 660 gets left behind in the dust once both chips are overclocked.
here is a ocn user scoring 7000 graphics score in firestrike 3d mark 2013 with a HD 7870 Hawk at 1325 mhz putting it on par with GTX 680. only a GTX 660 Ti overclocked to 1.2+ ghz can think of matching that score
http://www.overclock.net/t/1345122/sapphire-hd-7870-xt-based-on-amd-tahiti-le-chip/110#post_19435849
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Genera...phones-Multi-GPU-Gaming-PCs/Fire-Strike-Stand
- Jan 16, 2003
- 21,219
- 56
- 91
Imouto
Golden Member
- Jul 6, 2011
- 1,241
- 2
- 81
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_650_Ti_Boost/
http://anandtech.com/show/6838/nvidia-geforce-gtx-650-ti-boost-review-
http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/grafikkarten/2013/nvidia-geforce-gtx-650-ti-boost-im-test/
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/geforce_gtx_650_ti_boost_review,1.html
A GTX 650Ti on steroids. I wonder how many that blamed the HD 7970Ghz for its power consumption are going to do the same with this card.
Anyway it's an awesome purchase, beats everything at its price range.
http://anandtech.com/show/6838/nvidia-geforce-gtx-650-ti-boost-review-
http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/grafikkarten/2013/nvidia-geforce-gtx-650-ti-boost-im-test/
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/geforce_gtx_650_ti_boost_review,1.html
A GTX 650Ti on steroids. I wonder how many that blamed the HD 7970Ghz for its power consumption are going to do the same with this card.
Anyway it's an awesome purchase, beats everything at its price range.
Last edited:
Cool buckets
A real review this time, from a trusted site.
So its about ~3% faster than a 7850 (stock).
Damn thing is like ~25%+ faster than a 7790 (stock).
Pretty decent card, faster than I thought it would end up.
AMD should have clocked the 7790 abit higher on the GPU side, that card is so powereffecient, it probably could have been acceptable by consumers and it d have been a slight bit faster.
7790 takes a serious beating by this 650ti boost.
Last edited:
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter