Finally! GPU wars 2012 - GTX 650 Ti reviews
Finally! GPU wars 2012 - GTX 650 Ti reviews |
|
| log in |
Message boards : Number crunching : Finally! GPU wars 2012 - GTX 650 Ti reviews
Previous · 1 . . . 4 · 5 · 6 · 7
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
|
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. | |
ID: 1246558 ·  | |
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. | |
| ID: 1246850 · | |
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. ____________ | |
| ID: 1246865 · | |
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. | |
| ID: 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. | |
| ID: 1246894 · | |
Okay, like how big? 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. ____________ | |
| ID: 1246952 · | |
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. | |
| ID: 1247112 · | |
|
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. | |
| ID: 1249108 · | |
|
I'm really glad you posted this. | |
| ID: 1249130 · | |
|
AnandTech | |
| ID: 1249923 · | |
|
Have a great Summer, setizens!:D | |
| ID: 1259547 · | |
|
AMD Updates Radeon HD 7950 to Thwart GeForce GTX 660 Ti | |
| ID: 1271524 · | |
|
I just GOTTA open with this one: | |
| ID: 1271596 · | |
|
"GTX 660 drops by 12% compared to GTX 660 Ti, but this is still good enough for a 60% performance advantage over GTX 460" | |
| ID: 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? | |
| ID: 1283413 · | |
|
I have a gtx560, will I need a new motherboard if I should get a gtx660? | |
| ID: 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. | |
| ID: 1284896 · | |
|
GTX 650Ti rumors: | |
| ID: 1288035 · | |
|
The official launch date is currently set at October 9th (allegedly). | |
| ID: 1291337 · | |
|
This pretty much wraps it up for this generation of cards. Here are your reference tables:) | |
| ID: 1293418 · | |
Message boards : Number crunching : Finally! GPU wars 2012 - GTX 650 Ti reviews
| Copyright © 2013 University of California |
