GeForce GTX 650Ti "Boost" Leaked Info

[Crashpc]

Well, I´m not really into GPU details, but wanting to buy new machines, so searching HARDLY for info and leaks also Hope you don´t feel dishonored by newbie talking...

If the 650 Ti Boost is really the same as 660, but without 25% of its cores, it leads me to conclusion, that it will be around 20-25% slower (some space plus for special occasions (games and apps) which are more demanding on parts of the GPU where 650 Ti Boost is the same as 660 is, or on par/minus when the game is not...).

So I guess about 10600 pts in Vantage (Ex), 1800 points in 3D Mark 2011 (Ex), 3300 points in Firestrike, and 50 FPS at Crysis 2 on "ultra", 1920x1080 without AA. Will bet on that.

The most torturing thing about all this is waiting for reviews, and then waiting again for local prices, and again - for arrival if everything goes smoothly. Once I find the price is too high, I cut my willy of and throw it behind fence for turkeys
Because that day all 7850s 1GB will be propably sold, and there will be no product in this price and performance category.

 

[railven]

Once I find the price is too high, I cut my willy of and throw it behind fence for turkeys

That escalated quickly.

And welcome to ATF!

 

[Keysplayr]

@Keysplayr

I agree the GTX 660 (non ti) is side by side,
or sometimes tiny bit ahead of the 7870 (stock).

My point was....

the new 650ti, *if* it really is 13% faster than the 7850.
It will have performance that MATCHES the GTX 660 (or 7870).

why make a new card that lands right smack ontop of a excisting (nvidia) card?
Does it make sense to have a 660 compete with a 650 card nameing wise?

To me it doesnt, same generation of cards, Id expect the card with the highest number to be the faster of the two.

Ah, I see what you're saying. Maybe the 13% number is generous. but isn't the 7870 more than 13% faster than 7850? Or is that right where 7870 is?

 

[Keysplayr]

GTX 660 is already selling for 200-220, if this nips it's heels and sells for $200 it's a product overlap failure.

They need a 160-180 product not another $200 chip.

Exactly. My GTX660 was 209.00 when I bought it. There are many to be had for around that now. If GTX650Ti Boost is 200.00, it makes no sense to buy it when you can get a uncrippled 660 for almost the same money.
GTX 650Ti Boost (Jeez what a mouthful) would need to be proportionately less than a 660. E.G. If it's 15% slower, it needs to be 170.00 ish, Etc. etc.

 

[raghu78]

If the GTX 650 Ti boost sells at USD 170 then the HD 7790 needs to move to USD 130. the USD 130 - 200 space is going to get crowded.

I think AMD will cut prices to clear inventory on HD 7850 and HD 7870. I think a Pitcairn update with 1792 (1536 for the Pro version) stream processors is due soon. the core seems to have the codename Hainan. its a perfect doubling of Bonaire specs just like Pitcairn doubled up on Cape Verde.

http://videocardz.com/39041/meet-ar...d-bonaire-the-codenames-radeon-hd-8000-series

http://videocardz.com/amd/radeon-8000/radeon-hd-8870

q2 should be a good time to buy a graphics card.

 

[Crashpc]

Well all that is propably not true. Seems to be mid to late q3 from some sources...

//edit: http://gpuboss.com/graphics-card/Nvidia-GeForce-GTX-650-Ti-Boost Does not look any good. Oh poor marketing. Hope this is not true.

 

[The Alias]

note the 7850 is horribly down clocked . I bet whatever difference there is could be made up with a 7850 ghz or boost edition

 

[Arkadrel]

Well all that is propably not true. Seems to be mid to late q3 from some sources...

//edit: http://gpuboss.com/graphics-card/Nvidia-GeForce-GTX-650-Ti-Boost Does not look any good. Oh poor marketing. Hope this is not true.

That doesnt look good for the 650ti boost.

650ti boost :
46% slower than GTX 660 in BF3.
56% slower than GTX 660 in Batman: Arkanum city
57% slower than GTX 660 in Crysis : warhead


7790:
40% slower than GTX 660 in BF3.
51% slower than GTX 660 in Batman: Arkanum city
21% slower than GTX 660 in Crysis : warhead

Does not look any good. Oh poor marketing. Hope this is not true.

From that site's benchmarks, it does look like its slower than the 7790.
Not by much though.

How trusted is a site like that? "http://gpuboss.com" ?

 

[Crashpc]

From that site's benchmarks, it does look like its slower than the 7790.
Not by much though.

It looks more like they mixed non Boost benchmark measurements with Boost specs instead of real measurements. Hope they are wrong.
I think they are not very trusted. Just like wiki :-D

 

[Keysplayr]

It looks more like they mixed non Boost benchmark measurements with Boost specs instead of real measurements. Hope they are wrong.
I think they are not very trusted. Just like wiki :-D

Actually it looks like GTX650Ti (not Boost) numbers they used.

 

[iMacmatician]

That doesnt look good for the 650ti boost.

650ti boost :
46% slower than GTX 660 in BF3.
56% slower than GTX 660 in Batman: Arkanum city
57% slower than GTX 660 in Crysis : warhead

To my understanding, the 650 Ti BOOST is essentially a (GK106) 660 with 1 SMX disabled, so I would presume it would be at least 80% of a 660 in performance. Those numbers don't make any sense. I agree with Crashpc that they probably used regular 650 Ti numbers.

 

[notty22]

Quite a few reviews even used o/c 7790's, usually read protests about that? The 650ti performed well, never mind the new model. Which will be probably be double digit % faster.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

As always one cherry picked benchmark decides the performance of all GPU's.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

I see one game with MSAA and FXAA and two overall charts at logical resolutions for low end cards, what's the problem Vulgar?

 

[ICDP]

As always one cherry picked benchmark decides the performance of all GPU's.

I see one game with MSAA and FXAA and two overall charts at logical resolutions for low end cards, what's the problem Vulgar?

Would it be because he took the charts from one single game rather than the entire review. He then proclaims the 650Ti did well, despite not linking to the entire review. The same review shows the 7790 stock beating the 650Ti in every other game apart from the one Notty linked to.

So yeah, one cherrypicked benchmark. He then linked to some charts that show 7790 being 10% faster overall. So he ended up contradicting himself, because at that price point 10% is a massive difference in speed.

The entire review if you are interested.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6837/...w-feat-sapphire-the-first-desktop-sea-islands

For the record, I think the only thing 7790 brings to the party is an AMD card in that price range. The best thing coming out of this is more competition that results in Nvidia responding with the new 650Ti boost at a similar price point. Nvidia only responded with 650Ti boost because AMD have released a card faster than Nvidia current card at the same level. The same thing happned with HD 7950 boost editions, they were introduced to combat the 660Ti. Booth AMD and Nvidia happily let progress stagnate when there is no reason to progress. This demonstrates why competition is good and why anyone who wishes either company to fail is an idiot.

As the new Sea Islands range is scaled up until finally we get a card that competes with Titan, we will see realistic prices for GPUs again.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

The 7790 is also replacing the 7850 1gb version because they can't buy the ram to build that card anymore.

 

[3DVagabond]

FWIW, I wish people wouldn't list WCCFTECH as a source for anything. That site simply reposts info from other sites, which he editorializes on. It's best to give proper credit to the original source(s).

 

[Will Robinson]

VulgarDisplayAs always one cherry picked benchmark decides the performance of all GPU's.

Agreed.....we should just use this one to point out the weak performance of the 650ti.:whiste:

Sure gets pounded by the HD7790^_^

 

[Keysplayr]

Agreed.....we should just use this one to point out the weak performance of the 650ti.:whiste:

Sure gets pounded by the HD7790^_^

It sure does.

 

[Keysplayr]

FWIW, I wish people wouldn't list WCCFTECH as a source for anything. That site simply reposts info from other sites, which he editorializes on. It's best to give proper credit to the original source(s).

Isn't worth much. Unless you catch them lying, or glorifying and the like, no reason to discount the information, reposted or not.

 

[ICDP]

Isn't worth much. Unless you catch them lying, or glorifying and the like, no reason to discount the information, reposted or not.

He didn't say discount the information, he said give credit to the original source.

There is a difference

 

[3DVagabond]

He didn't say discount the information, he said give credit to the original source.

There is a difference

He always finds some other meaning to what I say than what I meant. You got the correct meaning. Credit the source. :thumbsup:

 

[Keysplayr]

My point is, how is the information any less reliable? It just doesn't matter. Unless the site changes that info. Savvy?

 

[3DVagabond]

Point is, how is the information any less reliable? It just doesn't matter. Unless the site changes that info. Savvy?

No, that wasn't the point.

 

[Keysplayr]

No, that wasn't the point.

It was my point.