I think their naming scheme on this one is OK but it may cause confusion for some. GTX 655 Ti may have been a better fit considering its performance and whatnot but from my understanding, NVIDIA wanted to play up the "Boost" feature.
I think their naming scheme on this one is OK but it may cause confusion for some. GTX 655 Ti may have been a better fit considering its performance and whatnot but from my understanding, NVIDIA wanted to play up the "Boost" feature.
Looks pretty good for a $169 MSRP card (the 2GB version). At the very least it's a credible option for those who want a sub-$200 NVIDIA card that's capable of 1080p gaming with some eye-candy.
For what it's worth, the chip's number is GK106-240-A1. The original 650 Ti was -220-, and the 660 was -400-. And really, they should've named it the 660 SE, as it derives most of its features and physical size from the 660. Hell, it's even got SLI functionality!
According to TPU, the 650 Ti Boost is ~33% faster than the original 650 Ti, and 25% faster than the new 7790. However, the one caveat in their comparison between the 7790 to the 650 Ti Boost is that the 7790 they tested was a 1GB model, whereas the 650 Ti Boost was a 2GB model.
GTX 660 SE/ LE name would fit this card more than GTX 650 Ti Boost. As the only difference between it an the regular GTX 660 is the shader count.
GTX 650 Ti Boost is very confusing with the regular GTX 650 Ti.
You are talking about clock for clock comparisons for an accurate representation of architectural differences and in that, you are correct. However, comparing a constantly moving target like overclock frequencies is nearly impossible due to sample variance.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was of the impression that the lower down the food chain a card is, the less likely the end-user is to overclock it.
I know it sounds like a paradox since lower-end cards need all the help they can get, but aren't the buyers of sub-$200 cards as a whole typically less-inclined to that kind of thing?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was of the impression that the lower down the food chain a card is, the less likely the end-user is to overclock it.
I know it sounds like a paradox since lower-end cards need all the help they can get, but aren't the buyers of sub-$200 cards as a whole typically less-inclined to that kind of thing?
Why?I have plenty of low end cards. And when i was younger 12-14 i didint have enough money to buy something high-end. But that didint stop me from overclocking. I actually enjoy more to oc mid range cards
Well, that was surprising, great price / performance ratio. Nvidia has winner on its hands. AMD will now have to do three things:
1. Lower the price of the Radeon HD 7790 immediately;
2. Discontinue the Radeon HD 7850 1 GB and lower the price of the HD 7850;
3. Introduce a faster clocked Radeon HD 7850 2 GB or possibly even a 1156 shaders card (which is the amount of shaders the PS4 has, although going this route may put the HD 7870 in a difficult position, so just a higher clocked Radeon HD 7850 is preferable).
On a personal note.. this card is faster than the GTX 480.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Ask a question
Ask a question
Overclock.net
27.8M posts
541.5K members
Since 2004
A forum community dedicated to overclocking enthusiasts and testing the limits of computing. Come join the discussion about computing, builds, collections, displays, models, styles, scales, specifications, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!