GeForce GTX 650Ti "Boost" Leaked Info

[BallaTheFeared]

I expect similar updated 78xx cards to the 7790 to come out soon. All AMD needs to do is update the bios with higher clock speeds and sell the cards for the same price. Hardly in trouble.

You mean like they did with 7950 boost and GHz? Perhaps we're following different markets because last I checked this generation has been nothing but painful for AMD.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

You mean like they did with 7950 boost and GHz? Perhaps we're following different markets because last I checked this generation has been nothing but painful for AMD.

So what does that make the 650 ti boost? Your reasoning is faulty.

Yes, AMD left a silly amount of performance behind in their stock cards, and yes they have released new versions that fix this problem. Nvidia has done the same, so what's your point? Just trolling obviously.

 

[MeldarthX]

You mean like they did with 7950 boost and GHz? Perhaps we're following different markets because last I checked this generation has been nothing but painful for AMD.

Seriously how? Yes they left a lot of room for performance with their cards - and done some serious work to for game play improvements and speed things up with their cards......in fact so much...

When GE was release it was only just as fast as the 680 and sometimes slower......now where does it sit? Faster than 680......OC big time and also at times keeps up with titan......

I wouldn't say that's painful.......😉

Have they made a few missteps? yep - but so has Nvidia......now back to the topic

Its a nice card; its fast for its price range......and does beat 7790 - which I do think will drop in price *but its also a monster when OC* AMD drops 7850 down a little in price and 650 TI boost...advantage....gone....

 

[crisium]

Why not just revise the 7850 to run at 1000MHz? I'd be shocked if there was not a single 7850 model that couldn't hit this on stock volts. Now they can continue to cost the same ($10 more than the 650 Ti Boost) while being a little bit faster. It doesn't make sense that they clock it at 860MHz when it can achieve 1050-1250+ depending on your brand, luck, and willingness to overvolt. They are crippling themselves, which is puzzling.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

So what does that make the 650 ti boost? Your reasoning is faulty.

Yes, AMD left a silly amount of performance behind in their stock cards, and yes they have released new versions that fix this problem. Nvidia has done the same, so what's your point? Just trolling obviously.

650 Ti Boost is a new card, it's not the same card factory overclocked.

My point is simple, adding clocks and rereleasing the same product didn't work well at all with the 7950, or the 7970. What makes you think AMD will think it will be a good idea to release a 7850 GHz edition to counter the 650 Ti Boost?

Overclocking the memory bus starved 7790 isn't going to work either, so either they need a new SKU, or drop prices.

Just trolling obviously, or presenting real data and objective reasoning outside of "AMD bestest evar, no reason to buy Nvidia".

 

[ICDP]

650 Ti Boost is a new card, it's not the same card factory overclocked.

My point is simple, adding clocks and rereleasing the same product didn't work well at all with the 7950, or the 7970. What makes you think AMD will think it will be a good idea to release a 7850 GHz edition to counter the 650 Ti Boost?

Overclocking the memory bus starved 7790 isn't going to work either, so either they need a new SKU, or drop prices.

Just trolling obviously, or presenting real data and objective reasoning outside of "AMD bestest evar, no reason to buy Nvidia".

7870 XT or Tahiti LE was a new card in exactly the same way as the 650Ti Boost, a cut down version of a higher end card. Your idea that AMD have somehow messed up this round is not backed up by anything other than your opinion.

The 7950 boost and 7970 GE IMHO were simple PR gimmicks, but they worked. Until Titan the 7970GE was the fastest single GPU, even if it was by a small margin. The 7950 boost edition did create a gap in performance between it and the GTX660Ti for a similar price and subsequently forced the GTX660Ti price lower. So they both achieved the goal AMD set out to achieve.

After all you yourself bought a HD 7950, so even you saw decided it was worth the purchase. I have seen plenty of people claim they went AMD HD 7950 because the price/perf/bundle was simply to good to pass up.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Actually I'm basing my opinion on market share during a period when AMD had a superior price/performance ratio at nearly every bracket, if not every bracket as well as the performance lead.

Unless AMD's goal is to not sell as many GPU's, I don't believe they achieved the goal they set out to achieve with those "gimmicks" as you so put it.

As far as Thaiti LE, the problem there of coruse is the lack of a name change. 7870, 7870 XT, it's just poor marketing, but better than 7950 Boost, or 7970 GHz which are just overclocked versions of the same card.

All I'm saying is AMD needs to create product separation, that means new names, and new products. Not same name new product, or same product new name.

Now this isn't to say Nvidia did right by the 650 Ti Boost, in fact I think it was just as silly as AMD. The only real difference is product recognition for Nvidia seems to be considerably higher, meaning all things consider AMD needs to go the extra mile compared to Nvidia.


Again, I should state it plainly, my only contention was that a 7850 GHz or Boost would not work in AMD's favor imo, based on past events.

 

[ICDP]

Again, I should state it plainly, my only contention was that a 7850 GHz or Boost would not work in AMD's favor imo, based on past events.

So you obviously think AMD doing nothing would have been a better strategy. How much market share would AMD have lost if they had not released boost editions of the 7950, 7970, released the Tahiti LE, or the excellent games bundles? AMD maintained a price/perf lead over Nvidia at most levels for quite a large portion of the year. All of these actions are designed to keep the consumers interested.

AMD didn't stagnate over the past year, or to use your phrase "they went the extra mile". Sometimes you have to fight to hold on to what you have, failing to do so could mean you lose everything.

Don't think in pure black and white.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Tom and TPU both have the 650 Ti Boost being faster than the 7850 on average at 1920 res.

It's really a draw overall though.

Tom's only uses a handful of games. 7850 is faster in 3 out of 5, though, and has better frame time variance in 4 out of the 5 games. 650 wins bigger in the 2 out of 5, although its minimum in Crysis is disturbing.

TPU isn't using the latest drivers for AMD cards.

Stock vs stock, the cards are close. Overclocked, and the 7850 is the clear winner.

 

[RaistlinZ]

I wonder how well they'll perform in SLI. It should be quite a bit faster than a 670 while costing less.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

So you obviously think AMD doing nothing would have been a better strategy.

That's not what I said at all, but if it makes it easier for you to believe you're arguing against something you're not by all means continue.

 

[ICDP]

That's not what I said at all, but if it makes it easier for you to believe you're arguing against something you're not by all means continue.

Your point was that the boost editions of 7950, 7970 and price/perf lead didn't help AMD gain market-share. Hence AMD failed to achieve their goal. My counterpoint is that we shouldn't be thinking in pure black and white terms as, "AMD failed because they didn't gain market-share". Sometimes strategies are designed to simply keep consumers interested and sales ticking over. Had AMD not taken these steps they would have lost even more market-share.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

You're arguing an angle that has no proof for or against, what am I supposed to say?

The only thing we know for sure is even with the boost and GHz models AMD slipped in market share. It seems almost implausible that given past generations AMD shouldn't have actually made gains, instead of losing ground. Keep in mind that AMD was running never settle at this time as well, giving a performance boost and free games.

I can only assume the reason for this is because of poor marketing with boost and ghz, because there wasn't any separation between never settle boost/ghz and the initial reviews when Nvidia came out with Kepler.

You could say people are ignorant/bias, and to a point that could very well be a bulk of the issue. However with 5xxx series AMD gained considerable market share on Nvidia, so given the market has shown to go AMD when products warrant it, and in this case, I believe AMD's products warrant more share than they have. I can only assume something else is at play, and my thought is poor marketing after Nvidia changed the landscape with their Kepler release and AMD failed to create the buzz and attention necessary to shed more light on that fact to people who don't live, breathe, and die by reviews.

 

[Rvenger]

Sigh. Rvenger can you possibly try any harder?
It is 2GB any way you slice it.

Let me quote Ryan's review of the 660ti

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6159/the-geforce-gtx-660-ti-review/2

The best case scenario is always going to be that the entire 192bit bus is in use by interleaving a memory operation across all 3 controllers, giving the card 144GB/sec of memory bandwidth (192bit * 6GHz / 8). But that can only be done at up to 1.5GB of memory; the final 512MB of memory is attached to a single memory controller. This invokes the worst case scenario, where only 1 64-bit memory controller is in use and thereby reducing memory bandwidth to a much more modest 48GB/sec.

Once you hit that 1.5gb ceiling your performance could possibly tank. :hmm: Is the 650ti setup the same way? ...that is my question.

 

[Keysplayr]

Let me quote Ryan's review of the 660ti

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6159/the-geforce-gtx-660-ti-review/2




Once you hit that 1.5gb ceiling your performance could possibly tank. :hmm: Is the 650ti setup the same way? ...that is my question.

Does it?

 

[DooKey]

Serious question. Why is this thread still going when there is a 650Ti Boost review thread? Is it because the video card company defenders just can't help themselves?

 

[Rvenger]

Does it?

I am asking you!! Your the Nvidia pro for crying out loud.


When I had my GTX 660 in BF3 and when I would crank all the settings to ultra with 4x MSAA my screen would start to flicker black. I took off the MSAA and it stopped. Could be an indication of a memory ceiling perhaps??

 

[BallaTheFeared]

I am asking you!! Your the Nvidia pro for crying out loud.


When I had my GTX 660 in BF3 and when I would crank all the settings to ultra with 4x MSAA my screen would start to flicker black. I took off the MSAA and it stopped. Could be an indication of a memory ceiling perhaps??

No, flickering from AA would be a problem with the driver or game patch with deferred AA.

 

[Keysplayr]

I am asking you!! Your the Nvidia pro for crying out loud.


When I had my GTX 660 in BF3 and when I would crank all the settings to ultra with 4x MSAA my screen would start to flicker black. I took off the MSAA and it stopped. Could be an indication of a memory ceiling perhaps??

How convenient. Memory ceiling huh? Flickering black? I'll try that on my 660. Post the settings you used and I'll give it a go.

 

[Rvenger]

How convenient. Memory ceiling huh? Flickering black? I'll try that on my 660. Post the settings you used and I'll give it a go.

Ultra everything, Motion blur disabled, AA Deferred - 4X, AA Post - High, AO - HBAO, VSync on. Very noticeable on Armored Kill 64 player maps in high traffic areas. The whole screen flickers black.

It should run around ~ 30-40 fps on those settings at 1080p.

 

[ICDP]

You're arguing an angle that has no proof for or against, what am I supposed to say?

The only thing we know for sure is even with the boost and GHz models AMD slipped in market share. It seems almost implausible that given past generations AMD shouldn't have actually made gains, instead of losing ground. Keep in mind that AMD was running never settle at this time as well, giving a performance boost and free games.

I can only assume the reason for this is because of poor marketing with boost and ghz, because there wasn't any separation between never settle boost/ghz and the initial reviews when Nvidia came out with Kepler.

You could say people are ignorant/bias, and to a point that could very well be a bulk of the issue. However with 5xxx series AMD gained considerable market share on Nvidia, so given the market has shown to go AMD when products warrant it, and in this case, I believe AMD's products warrant more share than they have. I can only assume something else is at play, and my thought is poor marketing after Nvidia changed the landscape with their Kepler release and AMD failed to create the buzz and attention necessary to shed more light on that fact to people who don't live, breathe, and die by reviews.

All of these are good points but again only if taken at absolute face value. Ultimately both Nvidia and AMD want to sell GPUs. If either company rests on their laurels they would lose market-share. Simply stating AMDs marketing has failed based on the fact they lost 2% market-share is being simplistic. How much market-share did they retain due to these deals?

 

[Keysplayr]

Ultra everything, Motion blur disabled, AA Deferred - 4X, AA Post - High, AO - HBAO, VSync on. Very noticeable on Armored Kill 64 player maps in high traffic areas. The whole screen flickers black.

It should run around ~ 30-40 fps on those settings at 1080p.

Ok. Now does it do this throughout any part of the game or are there certain places/situations? Will I have trouble replicating you're issue? Do you have any patches installed? Texture packs? I ask because I rarely play BF3. Oh and sorry if I missed it, but what driver version were you using at the time?