Discussion in 'News' started by btarunr, Oct 4, 2012.
the GTX 650 ti is a disappointment
Looks like it performs right between 7850 and 7770, and if priced at $149, also perfectly priced between the two (before the price cut obviously). Nothing so disappointing about it, especially 3 months from now when the price wars start in earnest.
or you can get a HD 7850 1GB for $159.99 which would perform better and oc great for $10 more hmmmm
I peruse all types of reviews and will be un-fettered by bias, while just because they’re limited in scope, there can be good info to extrapolate. I don’t say W1zzard is the end-all, I believe some of his practices are far from absolute impartiality, like the Summary including synthetic B-M scores. Dirt Showdown vs. BF3... we know games play different for different hardware, the reason I went to that is it's one of the newest reviews on the 1Gb so there's merit. You might not like the results, but your opinion to completely discount them is your problem.
A reference GTX660 one-ups a 7850 (1Gb or 2Gb doesn't really matter) bettering it in gaming titles like 8-10%. Most GTX660 factory OC’s provide between 5-8% improvement over reference speeds. So $230 dollars gets let say 15% performance over a card that costs $170... that no value you're outlaying 35% more money for 15% performance? While I don’t see the GTX660 (non Ti) as any great value for 1920x, it gives the impression of inconsistency, overall FpS in titles disagrees widely against Pitcairn, as though a GK106 doesn’t scale as well as big brother GK104 and why I think this GTX650Ti will wander even more. Nvidia looks to reestablish their "laser targeted for 1680x resolution" stance with the GTX650Ti.
I'm an avid gamer and (as I already wrote this in some other thread) currently Kepler offers more value for me than AMD does, so perhaps not everybody shares your opinion (not talking about 660 here, just generally Nvidia vs Amd). I'm not an Nvidia fanboy, I would buy AMD cards as well, but I don't want to lose things like ambient occlusion and physx, because those are great features.
Playing games (like Blackmesa for example) without registry tweaked high quality AO is like jumping back in time to 2007, well, no thanks, I would rather sacrifice 15% of my (already high) performance for that, any day.
Kepler is Nvidia... ^^
heh, fixed it thanks.
Well you being a versed enthusiast you accept in awarding $30 for the added value, then 15% performance it provides to keep competitive in FPS. You resign to the expenditure to have it, and need performance to run it… as favorable.
To the folks that are just stepping onboard, or never actually played with and without ambient occlusion or PhysX, most won’t hit upon they’re foregoing any enhancement of the actual play/story being presented by the title. Till someone truly experiences for themselves on identical hardware and truly perceives what such sensations of such games offer, it’s hard to quantify. Like between say a 7850 1Gb and a GTX660 with those feature running, they might or might not identify or cherish it as a $30 feature in the few games that take full advantage of it.
An analogy – X brand truck includes water injection and misting in front of the radiator (none do but popular for folk to add it on in aftermarket) for increasing HP and cooling the motor as they pull a hill with a heavy trailer. Is it something every truck owner will necessarily value?
I agree of course, we are all different, and we all value different things and that's what makes the world a really great place, me thinks. I just replied to the "no value" part.
And just a note: I actually play competitive fps, but my configs are look like something from the last century, everything dumbed-down to gain maximum visibility and performance (playing on a 144Hz CRT too), so competitive fps have very little to do with my enthusiasm and graphics-whoring
Separate names with a comma.