***Official Reviews Thread: Nvidia GTX650Ti***

[Olikan]

Think of it as karmic punishment for releasing iffy drivers for so many years that they got a bad reputation. In recent years AMD drivers for single-GPU have improved, but AMD is still living down its bad rep.

Moral of the story: never skimp on today's quality for the sake of today's profits. Your reputation is worth a LOT, and if you develop a good or bad rep, it will reward or haunt you for years to come.

it's kinda funny that since AMD bought ATI, theyr drivers quality improved alot

even when they killed the ati brand, the reputation stayed

 

[wand3r3r]

Another Nvidia review thread ruined by AMD fanboys. No wonder people avoid this place...

I wouldn't quite say that, the facts speak for themselves. It's simply overpriced thus only a fanboy would try to justify this cards pricing. If they dropped the price to where it is in line with the performance there would be a lot less commentary.

 

[Red Hawk]

Yeah, it's not as if Nvidia has been free of driver or hardware problems. Heck, Nvidia had a whole failed line of graphics cards (5000 series) and it didn't kill their reputation.

The real moral of the story: If you get your logo in the opening animatics for games with a slogan like "The Way It's Meant To Be Played", people will buy your products regardless of whether they're crap or actually good. It's a lesson AMD seems to have learned and is try to apply with "Gaming Evolved".

 

[96Firebird]

I wouldn't quite say that, the facts speak for themselves. It's simply overpriced thus only a fanboy would try to justify this cards pricing. If they dropped the price to where it is in line with the performance there would be a lot less commentary.

Re-read the thread, not one person defended the pricing of the card. Most said it needed to be $10-$20 cheaper. And that discussion is fine, it is the resulting discussion that stemmed from that about how only fanboys will buy the card and blah, blah, blah...

 

[AnandThenMan]

The 650Ti is a card of questionable value, even with a $20 price drop. Crank up the settings and rez and it looks even worse, yes some will argue that at this price point no one will do that, problem is you can buy a 7850 for a bit more and do exactly that. Not to mention the OC potential of the Radeon.

But despite the above, the 650 will go on to sell in huge numbers, hence my comment. I'm just stating the obvious.

 

[blastingcap]

Bumpgate, burnt cards from bad drivers, loud and incredibly hot/power hungy products, perpetually late to market, inflated pricing. None of those things matter to many, they still buy Nvidia exclusively.

Oh give me a break about "perpetually" late to market, you know full well that is not always true, or did you only follow video cards since late 2009? (And even then, remember the quick turnaround time to fix GTX4xx: only six months.) You can't be serious about the "power hungry" part. That was like one generation, and Kepler is actually winning on perf/watt.

NV's pricing used to be better but it still isn't THAT bad once launch prices fall, with the exception of the GTX680--just as I predicted, since they make so much more money with non-defective GK104 chips going into Tesla/Quadro. Let's not forget that NV pushed AMD on price/perf with their launch prices for GTX 680/670, by the way. AMD actually did worse on price/perf during their short-lived monopoly on 28nm retail consumer video cards.

As for bumpgate, most people probably blamed the laptop manufacturers and desktop users had fewer problems AFAIK. NV has had some bad drivers, but ATI had a bad rep for having more problems, and many people to this day just install CD drivers and don't ever update, so if a launch driver is bad, that is big trouble.

it's kinda funny that since AMD bought ATI, theyr drivers quality improved alot

even when they killed the ati brand, the reputation stayed

AMD has an even worse rep than ATI, I think. With few exceptions, AMD has been an also-ran budget/cheap lower-performance and higher wattage alternative to Intel. Exceptions include AMD taking it to Intel several years ago when Intel was still trying to push Netburst, and Intel has abominable policies re: ECC memory on consumer CPUs.

By the way this is regarding consumer viewpoints and reputation, NOT fairness. ... yes it was unfair for Intel to make backroom deals in the Netburst days, and without such a move, perhaps AMD would have gotten more years of profits and be more competitive today, but we will never know for sure.

Yeah, it's not as if Nvidia has been free of driver or hardware problems. Heck, Nvidia had a whole failed line of graphics cards (5000 series) and it didn't kill their reputation.

The real moral of the story: If you get your logo in the opening animatics for games with a slogan like "The Way It's Meant To Be Played", people will buy your products regardless of whether they're crap or actually good. It's a lesson AMD seems to have learned and is try to apply with "Gaming Evolved".

Oh, I'm sure marketing has a lot to do with it as well. But even there, TWIMTBP is way catchier than "Gaming Evolved," and it wasn't until recently that AMD was as competitive in terms of sponsorship of major titles. Even today, titles like Borderlands 2 are vastly more popular than Sleeping Dogs.

I mean seriously, "gaming evolved".. evolved into what? Give them ten bucks and ten minutes and most people could probably come up with better slogans. TWIMTBP kind of speaks for itself, but "gaming evolved" does not.

 

[exar333]

Re-read the thread, not one person defended the pricing of the card. Most said it needed to be $10-$20 cheaper. And that discussion is fine, it is the resulting discussion that stemmed from that about how only fanboys will buy the card and blah, blah, blah...

Pretty much this.

I think it's a tad over-priced, but rebates will be had likely around the time the AC3 deal is done. The 7850 is a better card, but is more expensive.

For a great many people who are running sun 1080p configurations, this would be a great card for them. 10-20% performance difference (either way) probably will not determine if the game is 'playable' or not. All the cards between the 7770 and the 7850 would likely pretty much give the same experience overall without a lot of difference.

 

[SPBHM]

pretty decent card, just needs to be some $20-30 cheaper to be a great choice, performance looks around a GTX 460 OC level, which is pretty decent for most games.

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/879-19/recapitulatif-performances.html

 

[tviceman]

If your comment was only in relation to Fermi vs. Kepler, then I apologize. Not sure how it's a surprise to you though that a 28nm GPU that's slower than a 40nm GTX560Ti would use substantially less power.

I did not compare the 650ti to the 560ti. Why is it 80% of the time when you respond to anything I say lately you bring up 7 other topics unrelated to what I said OR you put words into my posts which I did not say and completely change what I am trying to convey? It is so absurdly difficult to make general statements in this forum. I compared the Kepler family to Fermi family - and how much Nvidia was able to improve their perf/watt metric, which is, in my opinion, a substantial turn around.

My original post:

As is, it should be $10-15 cheaper. But as a product, disregarding price for a moment, power draw and perf/watt is really, really excellent. Nvidia may not be hitting homeruns with introductory prices since GK104's initial two products, but the perf/watt improvement over Fermi has been absolutely tremendous. Prices will come down when supply outstrips demand.

Notice how I said nothing about the hd7850, hd7770. I made only vague references in comparisons to AMD products by saying the gtx650ti was $10-15 too much at MSRP - which is a negative view of the gtx650ti. I then said another slightly negative comment towards Nvidia with respect to their introductory MSRP prices since after the gtx670. I made quick observation about how well Nvidia has improved it's performance per watt metric (because, generally speaking, Nvidia was significantly behind in this metric at 40nm), and finally noted that if Nvidia is pricing their products out of demand, then prices will fall. At no point did I recommend the gtx650ti, or compare it's perf/$ or power draw to AMD

 

[AnandThenMan]

Oh give me a break about "perpetually" late to market, you know full well that is not always true, or did you only follow video cards since late 2009?

AMD is very likely going to bring out Sea Islands before a Kepler refresh, that is 3 cycles where Nvidia is behind, enough to say they are perpetually late.

You can't be serious about the "power hungry" part. That was like one generation, and Kepler is actually winning on perf/watt.

Fermi was insanely inefficient, Kepler vs. GCN is nearly the same. But people bought Fermi in droves anyway, with the argument that yes the power draw is higher, but the wider memory bus/higher performance/more robust design is worth it and is more future proof. This generation, GCN is nearly the same perf/watt as Kepler, but performance scales better, has more memory, likely more future proof. So where Nvidia gave you better performance but at a tremendous cost in power, AMD gives more performance without the heavy power draw penalty.

...and many people to this day just install CD drivers and don't ever update, so if a launch driver is bad, that is big trouble.

Got anything to back that up? Either way you get prompts all the time telling you to update, if you don't that is user error.

I mean seriously, "gaming evolved".. evolved into what? Give them ten bucks and ten minutes and most people could probably come up with better slogans. TWIMTBP kind of speaks for itself, but "gaming evolved" does not.

I agree Nvidia is much better at marketing, exactly why people will buy Nvidia cards regardless of the actual merits.

 

[blastingcap]

AMD is very likely going to bring out Sea Islands before a Kepler refresh, that is 3 cycles where Nvidia is behind, enough to say they are perpetually late.

Lmao I stopped reading after that sentence. No wonder people claim there are AMD fanboys here.

per·pet·u·al (pr-pch-l)
adj.
1. Lasting for eternity.
2. Continuing or lasting for an indefinitely long time.
3. Instituted to be in effect or have tenure for an unlimited duration: a treaty of perpetual friendship.
4. Continuing without interruption. See Synonyms at continual.
5. Flowering throughout the growing season.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/perpetually

Btw you are forgetting that NV beat AMD to a refresh; the high end GTX 5xx (580/570) series rolled out before HD 69xx. Not by much, only a month or so, but it's enough to make it impossible for you to use definitions 1-4 above. So I guess you are saying that AMD is "Flowering throughout the growing season" unlike NV. I guess I'll give you that one. Lol.

Fair = remembering both sides of the story, such as ATI's HD 29xx coming out late and uncompetitive.

 

[AnandThenMan]

Once links/quotes to dictionary defs come out, yea things have gone downhill. Fine I retract the "perpetually" if it bothers you so much, fair?

Either way, for me if said vendor is late with a product, I do expect it to be worth it. But I don't see that here, it is a status quo card, nothing more. And again, that is all Nvidia needs, which is why I think it will sell in droves. It's not a BAD card, but it's nothing special either, people would be smart to pay a few more dollars and get a 7850 IMO.

 

[SolMiester]

You can always get a better card for a few more dollars!

 

[Red Hawk]

That's not the only issue. The best question to be asked is if, regardless of how much money you spend total, are you getting your money's worth? With the GTX 650 Ti, the answer is "no".

 

[SPBHM]

is it possible to identify if the card you have is the version with 3 or 2 GPCs?

 

[Blitzvogel]

Long live the 5850!

So say we all! What a legend of a video card!

I have mine at 900/1100 when I play BF3. As enticing as a 7850 is, it's not enough of an improvement to make me want to upgrade. Perhaps Sea Islands will change my disposition? :whiste:

 

[toyota]

So say we all! What a legend of a video card!

I have mine at 900/1100 when I play BF3. As enticing as a 7850 is, it's not enough of an improvement to make me want to upgrade. Perhaps Sea Islands will change my disposition? :whiste:

well 5850 was the second fastest single gpu card from AMD then so a 7950 is what is comparable now and its a huge upgrade.

 

[Blitzvogel]

well 5850 was the second fastest single gpu card from AMD then so a 7950 is what is comparable now and its a huge upgrade.

True, but more or else I'm just partying on about how awesome the 5850 has been for me and how much longevity it's had.

 

[SolMiester]

That's not the only issue. The best question to be asked is if, regardless of how much money you spend total, are you getting your money's worth? With the GTX 650 Ti, the answer is "no".

I dont think there is any GPU worth its money?, as worth is an opinion..If you have only $$$, whether the fact $$$$ is better or not is irrelevant, as you haven't got that money....

 

[blastingcap]

True, but more or else I'm just partying on about how awesome the 5850 has been for me and how much longevity it's had.

Ugh enough already, I have already kicked myself often for selling my 5850 a couple of years ago that I bought 2 weeks after the 5850 launched, for like $255. I had no idea at the time that 2010-2011 would be such a small jump... stupid TSMC failing at 32nm ugh.

 

[Red Hawk]

I dont think there is any GPU worth its money?, as worth is an opinion..If you have only $$$, whether the fact $$$$ is better or not is irrelevant, as you haven't got that money....

Whether or not GPUs are worth their cost at all is another matter. The question is specifically if this GPU is worth its cost; we can evaluate that by comparing the performance to price ratio of other GPUs. If its performance to price ratio is lower than its nearest competitors or the market on average, then we can determine that no, it is not worth its cost. That is not an opinion, it is the reality of market standards.

 

[RussianSensation]

For a great many people who are running sun 1080p configurations, this would be a great card for them. 10-20% performance difference (either way) probably will not determine if the game is 'playable' or not. All the cards between the 7770 and the 7850 would likely pretty much give the same experience overall without a lot of difference.

If only that were the case but it's not even remotely true. HD7850 is a good 30-40% faster than GTX650Ti is depending on the website. 30-40% difference is a lot when you are talking about $20 difference and that's not even considering 7850's great overclocking scaling/headroom. HD7770 itself is barely as fast as HD6850. HD7850 OC is faster than HD6970. Are you saying HD6970/GTX580 are nearly as fast as an HD6850 then?

Take a look at the benchmarks. Do you actually believe HD7850 and GTX650Ti provide a similar level of gaming experience when the minimum framerates of HD7850 = average frame rates for GTX650Ti in so many games?
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=34075354&postcount=113

GTX650Ti is a lot closer to HD7770 than it is to HD7850. Using your train of thought that 7850 isn't "much faster", then why even waste $150 on a GTX650Ti when HD7770 is only $105-110?

pretty decent card, just needs to be some $20-30 cheaper to be a great choice, performance looks around a GTX 460 OC level, which is pretty decent for most games.

Why link Crysis 2 only?

How about the average from that website?

GTX650Ti is 12% faster than HD7770 for $40-45 more.
HD7850 1GB is 37.5% faster than GTX650Ti for $20 more.

GTX650Ti should be around $119-129 based on its performance level against HD7770/7850. GTX650Ti 2GB goes for $170-180 on Newegg which is shockingly bad value.

Bonus points: If you take overclocking into account where 7850 can equal HD7870, the performance grows to 50-60% faster for $20 more. When was the last time $20 more bought 30-40% higher stock GPU performance and 50% more peformance w/ overclocking? Never in the history of GPUs has $20 extra spent in retail bought any gamer this much performance and overclocking advantage.

 

[SPBHM]

Why link Crysis 2 only?

why not?
their normal tests had far less VGAs, this graphic includes a lot of older cards, and helps to show how it compares to a HD4890 or GTX 285, 5850 and others...

but now I noticed something "interesting", it says Crysis DX11, while it's probably DX9 (old cards are running)

 

[AnonymouseUser]

but now I noticed something "interesting", it says Crysis DX11, while it's probably DX9 (old cards are running)

Look at the graphic again. The lighter colored bars represent the DX10 cards, so my guess would be that those are running DX9, hence the color distinction.

 

[SolMiester]

Whether or not GPUs are worth their cost at all is another matter. The question is specifically if this GPU is worth its cost; we can evaluate that by comparing the performance to price ratio of other GPUs. If its performance to price ratio is lower than its nearest competitors or the market on average, then we can determine that no, it is not worth its cost. That is not an opinion, it is the reality of market standards.

Price/perf is only one value, there are several other factors that make up worth!