Finally! GPU wars 2012 - GTX 650 Ti reviews


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Number crunching : Finally! GPU wars 2012 - GTX 650 Ti reviews

Previous · 1 . . . 4 · 5 · 6 · 7
Author Message
rob smithProject donor
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 7 Mar 03
Posts: 8535
Credit: 59,473,598
RAC: 86,568
United Kingdom
Message 1246558 - Posted: 15 Jun 2012, 20:19:58 UTC - in response to Message 1246475.

The figures you quote are for ONE WU at a time - my '460 achieves very similar figures, but does two at a time and uses less power than the '250 it replaced.
____________
Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

tbretProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 28 May 99
Posts: 2861
Credit: 215,691,256
RAC: 186,532
United States
Message 1246850 - Posted: 16 Jun 2012, 8:27:07 UTC - in response to Message 1246475.


Please post some more details when more tasks have finished. 30 minutes is a bit disappointing. My GT240 (GDDR5) does shorties in 5 minutes and normal units in about 20 minutes. I was considering the GT640 as an upgrade, but I guess I'll have to wait for the GTX650.



You've heard of being "touched by an angel." I haven't been that lucky, but I'm being "guided by a guru" which is almost as good.

What I am posting, below, is NOT some sort of be-all, end-all comparison or reliable report of anything at all. Do not take this as written in stone. Do not make a decision based on what you see here. Do not believe what you see with your own eyes.

I have pushed the GT640 pretty hard with a not-for-prime-time release of a Lunatics' application **and** then messed with its settings (as instructed) until I pushed it over the edge.

AND these times include the CPU times, of course, and the CPU is an AMD FX-8120 and 667MHz DDR3 RAM. So someone running DDR3 RAM at 800MHz and a 4GHz Intel processor would trim these times a little.

AND I may be able to find settings for the card that will let me apply a little overclocking, OR I might be able to underclock the card slightly and push the envelope on the process priority.

So, realize that what you are looking at is general information; a first-look; a very broad accounting.

These numbers appear in a group of tasks my 560Ti is doing in 430-450 seconds, roughly.

EVGA DDR3 GT640, Lunatics preview application:


WU true angle range is : 0.364782 - 1,959.61sec

WU true angle range is : 0.443223 - 1,436.04sec

WU true angle range is : 0.364666 - 1,960.60sec

WU true angle range is : 0.364666 - 1,960.17sec

WU true angle range is : 0.364709 - 1,963.62sec

WU true angle range is : 0.430923 - 1,507.10sec

WU true angle range is : 0.430923 - 1,508.32sec

WU true angle range is : 0.444777 - 1,429.71sec

WU true angle range is : 0.444496 - 1,432.61sec

WU true angle range is : 0.414738 - 1,522.51sec

WU true angle range is : 0.414738 - 1,522.82sec



For Comparison, ASUS GT240, Lunatics' current release, even slower Athlon II 250:

WU true angle range is : 0.410321 - 2,011.59

WU true angle range is : 0.414895 - 1,926.31

WU true angle range is : 0.423764 - 1,886.21

WU true angle range is : 0.414856 - 1,934.74

WU true angle range is : 0.414856 - 1,942.31


So... the closest I can come to a meaningful comparison is that the GT640 is in the 20% faster range. How much of that is the card? I don't know. How much of that is the application? I don't know. How much of that is the CPU or bus speed or something else? I don't know that, either.

What I think I DO know is that the GT640 will replace a GT240 "pretty evenly" and that's not too shabby when you're talking about a card that will draw power from the PCIe slot. BUT, if money is the issue and you've already got enough power supply, for $10-20 more a GTX550Ti will beat its RAC with no problem.

Yes, the 550Ti uses more power and needs more fan to stay cool. So, if it's a power issue, get a GT640. If it's a money issue, get a GTX550Ti. If it's a RAC issue, get four GTX690s.

Let me put it another way... this is the first card I've known about since the GT240 was new that would keep-up with a GT240 while only drawing power from the PCIe slot.

That makes it, in my opinion, a great choice as a video card to go into things like office computers where you don't want this great whining fan, you don't want to produce all that heat, and you don't have a whole lot of excess power supply to play-around with.

It produces a really good image (as far as I can tell), it's quiet, it's cool running, and it's available for about $110. If you're getting a 5,000 RAC now on a GT240, you might get a 6,250 RAC with a GT640.

I'm still "playing" and adjusting to the card. Things could still go either way. I might have to cripple its hardware settings with this Lunatics build to make it stable, or I might be able to squeeze another 20% out of it goosing the voltage and overclocking slightly, or by doing some combination of those things and changing process priority settings, or... who knows what else.

But I don't think we're going to turn the GT640 into a GTX550Ti no matter what we do.

And that's fine. This card has its place and can do useful SETI work.

BetelgeuseFive
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 6 Jul 99
Posts: 63
Credit: 5,634,052
RAC: 9,270
Netherlands
Message 1246865 - Posted: 16 Jun 2012, 8:59:57 UTC - in response to Message 1246850.



You've heard of being "touched by an angel." I haven't been that lucky, but I'm being "guided by a guru" which is almost as good.

What I am posting, below, is NOT some sort of be-all, end-all comparison or reliable report of anything at all. Do not take this as written in stone. Do not make a decision based on what you see here. Do not believe what you see with your own eyes.

I have pushed the GT640 pretty hard with a not-for-prime-time release of a Lunatics' application **and** then messed with its settings (as instructed) until I pushed it over the edge.

AND these times include the CPU times, of course, and the CPU is an AMD FX-8120 and 667MHz DDR3 RAM. So someone running DDR3 RAM at 800MHz and a 4GHz Intel processor would trim these times a little.

AND I may be able to find settings for the card that will let me apply a little overclocking, OR I might be able to underclock the card slightly and push the envelope on the process priority.

So, realize that what you are looking at is general information; a first-look; a very broad accounting.

These numbers appear in a group of tasks my 560Ti is doing in 430-450 seconds, roughly.

EVGA DDR3 GT640, Lunatics preview application:


WU true angle range is : 0.364782 - 1,959.61sec

WU true angle range is : 0.443223 - 1,436.04sec

WU true angle range is : 0.364666 - 1,960.60sec

WU true angle range is : 0.364666 - 1,960.17sec

WU true angle range is : 0.364709 - 1,963.62sec

WU true angle range is : 0.430923 - 1,507.10sec

WU true angle range is : 0.430923 - 1,508.32sec

WU true angle range is : 0.444777 - 1,429.71sec

WU true angle range is : 0.444496 - 1,432.61sec

WU true angle range is : 0.414738 - 1,522.51sec

WU true angle range is : 0.414738 - 1,522.82sec



For Comparison, ASUS GT240, Lunatics' current release, even slower Athlon II 250:

WU true angle range is : 0.410321 - 2,011.59

WU true angle range is : 0.414895 - 1,926.31

WU true angle range is : 0.423764 - 1,886.21

WU true angle range is : 0.414856 - 1,934.74

WU true angle range is : 0.414856 - 1,942.31


So... the closest I can come to a meaningful comparison is that the GT640 is in the 20% faster range. How much of that is the card? I don't know. How much of that is the application? I don't know. How much of that is the CPU or bus speed or something else? I don't know that, either.

What I think I DO know is that the GT640 will replace a GT240 "pretty evenly" and that's not too shabby when you're talking about a card that will draw power from the PCIe slot. BUT, if money is the issue and you've already got enough power supply, for $10-20 more a GTX550Ti will beat its RAC with no problem.

Yes, the 550Ti uses more power and needs more fan to stay cool. So, if it's a power issue, get a GT640. If it's a money issue, get a GTX550Ti. If it's a RAC issue, get four GTX690s.

Let me put it another way... this is the first card I've known about since the GT240 was new that would keep-up with a GT240 while only drawing power from the PCIe slot.

That makes it, in my opinion, a great choice as a video card to go into things like office computers where you don't want this great whining fan, you don't want to produce all that heat, and you don't have a whole lot of excess power supply to play-around with.

It produces a really good image (as far as I can tell), it's quiet, it's cool running, and it's available for about $110. If you're getting a 5,000 RAC now on a GT240, you might get a 6,250 RAC with a GT640.

I'm still "playing" and adjusting to the card. Things could still go either way. I might have to cripple its hardware settings with this Lunatics build to make it stable, or I might be able to squeeze another 20% out of it goosing the voltage and overclocking slightly, or by doing some combination of those things and changing process priority settings, or... who knows what else.

But I don't think we're going to turn the GT640 into a GTX550Ti no matter what we do.

And that's fine. This card has its place and can do useful SETI work.


Thanks for the extra info. I'm fully aware that I should not base my conclusions on the results from a single machine. I have one other question though: is your GT240 a DDR3 version or a GDDR5 version ? I checked some of your results but it only contains the GPU clock and not the memory clock. I have noticed in the past that this makes quite a big difference. I get the impression that none of the GT .40 models have been able to perform as well as the GT240 GDDR5. Shame the GT640 is (currently ?) available only with DDR3 memory.

____________

tbretProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 28 May 99
Posts: 2861
Credit: 215,691,256
RAC: 186,532
United States
Message 1246886 - Posted: 16 Jun 2012, 11:26:44 UTC - in response to Message 1246865.


Thanks for the extra info. I'm fully aware that I should not base my conclusions on the results from a single machine. I have one other question though: is your GT240 a DDR3 version or a GDDR5 version ? I checked some of your results but it only contains the GPU clock and not the memory clock. I have noticed in the past that this makes quite a big difference. I get the impression that none of the GT .40 models have been able to perform as well as the GT240 GDDR5. Shame the GT640 is (currently ?) available only with DDR3 memory.


You're welcome. I'm glad it was useful.

My GT240 is definitely a DDR3 version.

You aren't the first person to say that the DDR3 vs DDR5 issue makes a big difference.

Okay, like how big?

I just wonder why, in this day and age of DDR5 everywhere, if the use of DDR3 was going to cripple the performance (and therefore the competitive advantage) of their card, why would anyone use it?

My guess is that the difference DDR5 makes over DDR3 is more evident as the whole device gets faster so the more RAM-speed restricted it is. Usually it takes Gigabyte about 48 hours to bring-out a newer, better, faster, Super Over-Clock, monster-goosed, hot-plate of a component, but I haven't seen it with the GT640... although I read a rumor.

What do you suppose DDR5 would do for it? 20% boost? So a 20% boost to a 20% advantage is a 4% addition to a real advantage. How much would that "additional" 20% cost?

I'm not arguing. You make a good and valid point. It's one I did take into consideration when I ordered my GT640. I looked for a DDR5 model and it apparently doesn't exist.

I'm thinkin' if it got any closer to the GTX550Ti's price (only another $10-15), it had better perform almost twice as well as it does. I just don't believe the addition of DDR5 and boosting the clock 20% would result in GTX550Ti performance, but it likely would result in the GT640s being less price competitive.

Kind of like the ATI HD 6450 I got with DDR3. There's a DDR5 version that's better. But it is within pocket-change difference in the price of a DDR5 6670. So why would I buy that souped-up 6450?

The 6670 with DDR3 (if such a thing exists) would probably still whip the 6450 with DDR5.

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8686
Credit: 25,040,652
RAC: 30,155
United Kingdom
Message 1246894 - Posted: 16 Jun 2012, 12:03:03 UTC - in response to Message 1246886.

Okay, like how big?


About 20% in most cases, but the DDR5 version is limited to 512k and it cannot be overclocked. In fact it maybe underclocked.

The reason why is that it is limited to 75W of power.

Mine is also a DDR3, but I don't care as it was a leftover component after I upgraded a computer for someone who doesn't know how easy it is. So cost to me about 30 mins work.

BetelgeuseFive
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 6 Jul 99
Posts: 63
Credit: 5,634,052
RAC: 9,270
Netherlands
Message 1246952 - Posted: 16 Jun 2012, 15:04:15 UTC - in response to Message 1246894.

Okay, like how big?


About 20% in most cases, but the DDR5 version is limited to 512k and it cannot be overclocked. In fact it maybe underclocked.

The reason why is that it is limited to 75W of power.

Mine is also a DDR3, but I don't care as it was a leftover component after I upgraded a computer for someone who doesn't know how easy it is. So cost to me about 30 mins work.


The GT240 GDDR5 can be overclocked. I'm running it at 594 MHz core clock and 1446.4 MHz shader clock. Memory was running at 1802 MHz until I upgraded to 301.42 driver. With that version I have problems with EVGA Precision at startup (it will downclock memory until I restart BOINC for some weird reason).
I think it is fair to say that it is 20 to 25 percent faster compared to the DDR3 version. Check my results (only one computer, all GT240 results) if you want to compare them.
____________

tbretProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 28 May 99
Posts: 2861
Credit: 215,691,256
RAC: 186,532
United States
Message 1247112 - Posted: 16 Jun 2012, 21:11:37 UTC - in response to Message 1246952.
Last modified: 16 Jun 2012, 21:13:18 UTC


I think it is fair to say that it is 20 to 25 percent faster compared to the DDR3 version. Check my results (only one computer, all GT240 results) if you want to compare them.



I looked.

It is as you say.

I think that's the fastest GT240 I've ever seen. You obviously have adjusted well.

"To buy, or not-to-buy; that is the question."

Okay, so by overclocking, fiddling-with, and otherwise practicing voodoo, you can get a GT240 or a GT640 to perform much better than the manufacturer intended. It's much more likely to be successfully done with faster RAM and extreme cooling.

Of course you can.

That was never the question.

You can do the same thing with a 550Ti, or a 560, or a 580, or a 690, or a 520 (good luck with that). We can always push the cards. The wizards can always push the programs.

My interest isn't the same as you might find on an overclocking forum or in a contest; although I am able to appreciate what others do.

I really don't have a month to spend tweaking video cards. (that's why my overclocked cards are factory overclocks and I don't push them beyond that, and the only CPU/motherboard overclocks I've used are the "push a button" types which get one chance to be stable) The only fiddling I do is when I'm asked.

I know that makes me boring.

I'm just assessing if the GT640 is "a worthy cruncher" at its price-point compared with the alternatives, and thus-far I'm thinking "probably not."

Could that dynamic change with a DDR5 version overclocked to heck and back?

I doubt it.

You can get so much better performance from a standard, boring, 550Ti right out of the box for just a very little more money. Even if the GT640 could be "forced" to perform all the way up-to the standards of a 550Ti with endless tweaking and ragged-edge adjusting, why bother?

You could always get the 550Ti and do the same thing.

I am rapidly concluding that the GT640 is the first, good, GT240 substitute if that's exactly what you need. Otherwise, pass-it-by.

Of course, that's just one man's opinion and I'm really not personally invested in it, so it's fine with me if others draw a different conclusion. You'll get no argument from me.

Profile Alex Storey
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 14 Jun 04
Posts: 553
Credit: 1,667,638
RAC: 575
Greece
Message 1249108 - Posted: 21 Jun 2012, 6:35:12 UTC
Last modified: 21 Jun 2012, 6:49:21 UTC

We’re expecting NVIDIA will launch a GDDR5 variant at some point, but, for the first round of cards, GT 640 is exclusively DDR3. This has important performance repercussions... NVIDIA is launching with DDR3 here, which means that even with the 128-bit memory bus this card is extremely memory bandwidth starved. At just shy of 1.8GHz it only has 28.5GB/sec of memory bandwidth. DDR3 versus GDDR5 has been a recurring issue in this market segment, and as both GPU performance and GDDR5 performance have increased over time the gap between DDR3 and GDDR5 card variants has continued to grow. By the time we’re up to this many ROPs and shaders the memory bandwidth requirements are simply enormous. In traditional fashion these DDR3 cards are outfitted with more memory overall – the DDR3 GT 640 ships with 2GB – so it has a memory pool every bit as large as the GTX 680’s but lacks the memory bandwidth to make effective use of it. So expect the obligatory 1GB GDDR5 version to be much faster here.

AnandTech - GeForce GT 640 DDR3 Review: Glacial Gaming & Heavenly HTPC

...the massive increase in ROPs coming from GT 440 to GT 640 doesn’t help the GT 640, which means the GT 640 is relying on the smaller increase in shader performance. The end result is that the GT 640 neither greatly improves on the GT 440 nor is it competitive with the 7750. Compared to the GT 440 compute shader performance only improved by 28%...

Anandtech GeForce GT 640 DDR3 Review - Compute and Synthetics

...Our final benchmark is a look at CUDA performance, based on a special benchmarkable version of the CUDA Folding@Home client that NVIDIA and the Folding@Home group have sent over. Folding@Home and similar initiatives are still one of the most popular consumer compute workloads, so it’s something NVIDIA wants their GPUs to do well at.



Folding@Home has historically pushed both shader performance and memory bandwidth, so it’s not particularly surprising that the GT 640 splits the difference. It’s faster than the GT 440 by 32%, but the GTS 450 still has a 25% lead in spite of the fact that the GT 640 has the greater theoretical compute performance. This is another test that will be interesting to revisit once GDDR5 cards hit the market.

Edit: GTX 660 rumors
More Details Surface On Nvidia’s Upcoming GeForce GTX 660 Graphics Card

tbretProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 28 May 99
Posts: 2861
Credit: 215,691,256
RAC: 186,532
United States
Message 1249130 - Posted: 21 Jun 2012, 8:21:23 UTC - in response to Message 1249108.

I'm really glad you posted this.

I was wondering about the GTS 450. I can't buy 'em all to try, but I think we've got our answer about the GT640 in this excellent explanation.

And I just saw a GTS 450 on newegg.com for $70 after rebate.

Profile Alex Storey
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 14 Jun 04
Posts: 553
Credit: 1,667,638
RAC: 575
Greece
Message 1249923 - Posted: 22 Jun 2012, 13:14:41 UTC
Last modified: 22 Jun 2012, 13:15:16 UTC

AnandTech
AMD Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition Review: Battling For The Performance Crown

Tom's Hardware
AMD Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition 3 GB

Profile Alex Storey
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 14 Jun 04
Posts: 553
Credit: 1,667,638
RAC: 575
Greece
Message 1259547 - Posted: 12 Jul 2012, 18:37:20 UTC
Last modified: 12 Jul 2012, 18:38:49 UTC

Have a great Summer, setizens!:D

I'm gonna be pretty much offline 'till September so feel free to hijack this thread! Especially if a 660 (and 650) or 7990 comes out.

Wish ya all the best!

Profile Alex Storey
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 14 Jun 04
Posts: 553
Credit: 1,667,638
RAC: 575
Greece
Message 1271524 - Posted: 14 Aug 2012, 15:12:50 UTC
Last modified: 14 Aug 2012, 15:13:35 UTC

AMD Updates Radeon HD 7950 to Thwart GeForce GTX 660 Ti

GTX 660 and/or 660ti could show up today or Thursday...

Profile Alex Storey
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 14 Jun 04
Posts: 553
Credit: 1,667,638
RAC: 575
Greece
Message 1271596 - Posted: 16 Aug 2012, 17:05:08 UTC
Last modified: 16 Aug 2012, 17:11:27 UTC

I just GOTTA open with this one:



Good news for Seti crunchers?:)



AnandTech
"Compared to the GTX 670 it’s a bit slower, a lot cheaper, and still brutally efficient. For buyers who have wanted to pick up a Kepler card but have found the high-end GTX 670 and GTX 680 out of their price range, at $300 the GTX 660 Ti is at a much more approachable point on the price-performance curve, offering about 88% of the GTX 670’s performance for 75% of the price. Given the price of Kepler cards so far this is definitely a better deal, though it’s still by no means cheap"
The GeForce GTX 660 Ti Review, Feat. EVGA, Zotac, and Gigabyte



tom's hardware
GeForce GTX 660 Ti Review: Nvidia's Trickle-Down Keplernomics

OverclockersClub
NVIDIA GTX 660Ti Roundup with ASUS, Galaxy, MSI Review

Xbit laboratories
Kepler for the Masses: Nvidia GeForce GTX 660 Ti from Zotac Review

VR-ZONE
Nvidia GeForce GTX 660 Ti Review (Part 1/3) - Gigabyte's Windforce OC Edition

Nvidia GeForce GTX 660 Ti Review (Part 3/3) - Synthetic Benchmarks, GPGPU and Power Consumption








fudzilla
"If you're lookign for a new graphics card, the GTX 660 Ti will provide all the benefits of the Kepler architecture. We've seen in our tests that the GTX 660 Ti outran the last year's top card the GTX 580, which really says enough."
Nvidia officially launches GTX 660 Ti
EVGA GTX 660 Ti Superclocked 2GB reviewed

engadget
NVIDIA announces $299 GeForce GTX 660 Ti, lets Kepler walk among the people

Profile Alex Storey
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 14 Jun 04
Posts: 553
Credit: 1,667,638
RAC: 575
Greece
Message 1283405 - Posted: 14 Sep 2012, 0:59:04 UTC
Last modified: 14 Sep 2012, 0:59:56 UTC

"GTX 660 drops by 12% compared to GTX 660 Ti, but this is still good enough for a 60% performance advantage over GTX 460"
-AnandTech on F@H performance


http://www.anandtech.com/show/6276/nvidia-geforce-gtx-660-review-gk106-rounds-out-the-kepler-family

Profile Wiggo
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 24 Jan 00
Posts: 7358
Credit: 96,921,160
RAC: 66,599
Australia
Message 1283413 - Posted: 14 Sep 2012, 1:20:56 UTC - in response to Message 1283405.

Now if they would just come out with something to fill the gap between the GTX 650 and the GTX 660, hopefully a GTX 650 Ti maybe?

Cheers.
____________

JohnDKProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 28 May 00
Posts: 862
Credit: 46,828,361
RAC: 75,869
Denmark
Message 1284885 - Posted: 17 Sep 2012, 17:56:55 UTC

I have a gtx560, will I need a new motherboard if I should get a gtx660?

Grant (SSSF)
Send message
Joined: 19 Aug 99
Posts: 5868
Credit: 60,610,037
RAC: 47,413
Australia
Message 1284896 - Posted: 17 Sep 2012, 18:20:34 UTC - in response to Message 1284885.

I have a gtx560, will I need a new motherboard if I should get a gtx660?

No, they are both PCIe cards.
____________
Grant
Darwin NT.

Profile Alex Storey
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 14 Jun 04
Posts: 553
Credit: 1,667,638
RAC: 575
Greece
Message 1288035 - Posted: 26 Sep 2012, 13:45:58 UTC

GTX 650Ti rumors:

Nvidia GeForce GTX 650 Ti to launch on October 9

Nvidia GeForce GTX 650 Ti Specifications Leaked

Profile Alex Storey
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 14 Jun 04
Posts: 553
Credit: 1,667,638
RAC: 575
Greece
Message 1291337 - Posted: 4 Oct 2012, 18:52:30 UTC
Last modified: 4 Oct 2012, 18:53:58 UTC

The official launch date is currently set at October 9th (allegedly).

Nvidia GTX 650 Ti detailed

Profile Alex Storey
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 14 Jun 04
Posts: 553
Credit: 1,667,638
RAC: 575
Greece
Message 1293418 - Posted: 10 Oct 2012, 9:20:03 UTC
Last modified: 10 Oct 2012, 9:21:37 UTC

This pretty much wraps it up for this generation of cards. Here are your reference tables:)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units#GeForce_600_Series
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_AMD_graphics_processing_units#Southern_Islands_.28HD_7xxx.29_series

650Ti Reviews:
AnandTech The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Review, Feat. Gigabyte, Zotac, & EVGA
TechPowerUp ASUS GeForce GTX 650 Ti Direct Cu II 1 GB
TechPowerUp MSI GeForce GTX 650 Ti Power Edition 1 GB
Guru3D GeForce GTX 650 Ti review reference model
OCC NVIDIA Geforce GTX 650 Ti Review reference model
OCC ASUS GTX 650 Ti DirectCU II TOP Review

Previous · 1 . . . 4 · 5 · 6 · 7

Message boards : Number crunching : Finally! GPU wars 2012 - GTX 650 Ti reviews

Copyright © 2014 University of California