Synthetics

As always we’ll also take a quick look at synthetic performance to get a better look at our video cards' underpinnings. These tests are mostly for comparing cards from within a manufacturer, as opposed to directly comparing AMD and NVIDIA cards.

We’ll start with 3DMark Vantage’s Pixel Fill test, a mix of a ROP test and a bandwidth test to see if you have enough bandwidth to feed those ROPs.

Synthetic: 3DMark Vantage Pixel Fill

3DMark Vantage’s pixel fill test confirms what we know from the specs of the GTX 650 Ti Boost: that it has received a massive boost in ROP performance and memory bandwidth. The 45% greater pixel throughput rate here doesn’t reach the kind of lofty goals that the theoreticals would put it at, but it’s clearly quite an improvement. Interestingly despite the equal ROP throughput and memory bandwidth of the GTX 660 and GTX 650 Ti Boost, the GTX 660 is still clearly in the lead here. We’ve never looked at the impact of GPCs here, so if our card is a 2 GPC model then this might explain what we’re seeing.

Moving on, we have our 3DMark Vantage texture fillrate test, which does for texels and texture mapping units what the previous test does for ROPs.

Synthetic: 3DMark Vantage Texel Fill

Texture fillrates on the other hand are really only benefitting from the higher clockspeeds of the GTX 650 Ti Boost over the GTX 650 Ti, and memory bandwidth to a much lesser extent. This is why despite the similarities between the GTX 650 Ti Boost and the GTX 660, the latter is still quite safe from the GTX 650 Ti Boost.

Finally we’ll take a quick look at tessellation performance with TessMark. We have everything turned up to maximum here, which means we're looking at roughly 11 million polygons per frame.

Synthetic: TessMark, Image Set 4, 64x Tessellation

NVIDIA has always had a fairly ridiculous geometry throughput rate, and that doesn’t change on the GTX 650 Ti Boost. A score of 753 is second only to the GTX 660, and well ahead of the 7850, which is an interesting confluence of a 2 primative/clock rate, and its lower clockspeeds relative to the 7790 and GTX 650 Ti Boost.

Compute Performance Power, Temperature, & Noise
POST A COMMENT

78 Comments

View All Comments

  • piroroadkill - Tuesday, March 26, 2013 - link

    1GiB 7790s are about the same price here as 1GiB 7850s - no joke, for example:
    http://www.ebuyer.com/492110-asus-hd-radeon-hd-779...
    http://www.ebuyer.com/393396-asus-hd-7850-1gb-gddr...

    So what's the point? Save a bit more money, get a 7850 2GB and overclock the balls off it...
    Reply
  • HighTech4US - Tuesday, March 26, 2013 - link

    7850's 1GB are going EOL so if you want one better grab it quick.

    http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/30865-radeon-hd-...
    Reply
  • piroroadkill - Tuesday, March 26, 2013 - link

    That makes sense, it replaces that part. In that case, you're getting screwed at that price point, and you should pick up a 7850 instead as soon as possible.

    Myself, I don't need an upgrade yet, my 6950 2GiB with unlocked shaders is fine..
    Reply
  • chizow - Tuesday, March 26, 2013 - link

    This is probably the first Kepler part Nvidia has launched so far that actually comes off looking like a good value. It's probably where price:performance should've been a year ago, but it has taken nearly a full year for 28nm prices to trickle down to this point. Still, it's pretty amazing how much Nvidia has milked Kepler. They now have 7-8 SKUs (not counting OC variants) in this sub-$300 market based off of 3 ASICs (GK104, GK106, GK107). Reminds me of that Mickey Mouse cartoon where they keep slicing off razor thin pieces of bean. At least this part makes sense however and fills a pretty cavernous void in that $150-$200 range between the 660 and old 650Ti.

    Valid point to be made however about the huge disparity in gaming bundles. AMD really is kicking Nvidia's teeth in with their gaming bundles of late. Nvidia's F2P bundle stinks compared to AMD's recent offerings of Crysis 3, Bioshock Infinity, Tomb Raider etc. In a $150-200 market where one can easily account for 1/3 to 1/4th of the sticker price as a hot AAA game, the perceived bundle value does matter. I'm sure it helped the 650Ti with AC3, but that card was a bit underperforming relative to even last-gen cards. The cards in the $150+ range are much better performers, actually providing tangible upgrades from most last-gen parts in this range (GTX 560, 6850 etc).
    Reply
  • Bob Todd - Tuesday, March 26, 2013 - link

    Spot on about the huge disparity in the game bundles. In the last two months I've picked up a 2GB 7850 and two 7870s. Without Never Settle Reloaded I honestly probably wouldn't have bought any of them. Sold two of the bundles and kept one. Reply
  • HighTech4US - Tuesday, March 26, 2013 - link

    A number of problems with this review.

    #1 The latest Nvidia VHQL driver is 3.14.22 and was released yesterday. It shows improvements in Sleeping Dogs. So why is this review using an older 314.21 driver set?

    http://techreport.com/news/24560/new-geforce-drive...

    #2 Also the HD 7850 1GB is going EOL so why even do comparisons with a card that won't exist very soon.

    http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/30865-radeon-hd-...
    Reply
  • tfranzese - Tuesday, March 26, 2013 - link

    Concerning #1, are all fanboys this stupid? You do realize that a lot of work goes into these reviews and they're not done in a < 24 hour turnaround. Reply
  • DanNeely - Tuesday, March 26, 2013 - link

    Re #2; even after being EOLed by the manufacturer the old models tend to linger in the channel for a while. Reply
  • whyso - Tuesday, March 26, 2013 - link

    Good card compared to the 7790 but the 7850 2 gb is still a better buy. The two games you get with it and the fact that if you overclock the 7850 is going to eat the 650 ti boost (the 650 ti boost does not have much overclocking room at over 1050 mhz vs the 860 of the 7850). Competes much better in the low end (1 gb) than with the higher end. Reply
  • Hrel - Tuesday, March 26, 2013 - link

    Ok, instead of just assuming Nvidia is evil.

    WHY didn't they just drop the price of the GTX660 to like 170 MSRP? I mean, if they're just fusing off part of the card, their cost is the same, if not higher due to whatever labor is involved in fusing off that SMX. This, IMO is a card that shouldn't even exist. The GTX660 is priced far too high for the performance offered. Random FPS hickups or no, all my recommendations are AMD until Nvidia stops pricing themselves out of competition. This, coming from someone who was, for a long time, Nvidia only ever since I had 3 horrid experiences with ATI in a row, back in the day.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now