OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v3.0

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£160VRAM:2 GBMemory bus width:192 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):134 W

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 29 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost
5.8/10

Overall score

Score
5.8/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
Score components

40%

3.6

Technical score

25%

8.3

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

3.6

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 92% of graphics cards
6.9

Value for money

Value for money
6.9/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
Score components

70%

5.8

Overall score

30%

9.7

Price

â–¼Worse than 79%
3.6

Technical score

Technical score
3.6/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 97% of models
Score components

44%

1.6

Performance

24%

2.6

Memory

12%

7.6

Power

11%

6.3

Features

5%

8.6

Design

4%

6.6

Connectivity

â–¼Worse than 97%
8.3

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.3/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 77% of models

80%

8.1

Average grade

20%

9.2

Popularity

Grades by review (29)
20 reviews: 10 with a printed score, 10 estimated from the review. 9 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–²Better than 77%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • nvidia-geforce-gtx-650-ti-boost
nvidia-geforce-gtx-650-ti-boost
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost

Based on 20 · 9

Reviewers like its memory, clock speeds and multi-GPU support, but complain about power draw and are split on gaming performance.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost

Based on 198 owners sharing their experience in online comments

72%positive11%mixed17%negative

Owners like its capable, affordable gaming performance; demanding titles and limited headroom are the main drawbacks.

What owners dislike

  • Struggles with newer demanding games, often dropping to 30 to 40fps at 720p or 1080p on medium or low settings.24
  • Some owners report white flickers, black screens, crashes in games like CS:GO and Fortnite, and occasional card failures.7
  • Owners felt it was overpriced when bought at higher prices, since newer cards offered better value for the cost.5
  • Newer or slightly pricier cards like the GTX 660 or 1050 Ti deliver noticeably better performance for a modest extra cost.5
  • The 1GB version can't handle some games at higher textures, and 2GB models are also limited in newer titles.4
  • Overclocking sometimes gives small gains, and some memory modules show artifacts even at modest overclocks.4
  • Under heavy gaming loads it can reach 85°C or more at stock fan settings, with better results after manual fan control or a water cooler.3

Points mentioned by at least 3 owners, most mentioned first.

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost

Technical score
Technical score
3.6/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 97% of models
Score components:

44%

1.6

Performance

24%

2.6

Memory

12%

7.6

Power

11%

6.3

Features

5%

8.6

Design

4%

6.6

Connectivity

3.6
Reviews score
8.3
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.9/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
Score components:

70%

5.8

Overall score

30%

9.7

Price

6.9
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
1,111 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 1,111 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 98.4% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
0 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 0 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 83.1% of graphics cards and equal to 16.9% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
3,408 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 3,408 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 95.9% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
1,621 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 1,621 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 95.8% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
1.58 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 1.58 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 95.3% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
VRAM
2 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 2 GB of VRAM, which is less than 94.3% of graphics cards and equal to 3.9% of graphics cards.
Memory type
GDDR5
This graphics card uses GDDR5 memory, which is older than on 85.4% of graphics cards and equal to 13.2% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
192 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 192 bit memory bus, which is wider than that of 31.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 18.7% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
144.2 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 144.2 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 91.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.2% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
6,008 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 6,008 MHz, which is slower than that of 93.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.9% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
PCI Express (PCIe) version
3
This graphics card supports PCIe 3, which is older than on 77.6% of graphics cards and equal to 20.1% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x16
This graphics card uses x16 PCIe lanes, which is more than 24.1% of graphics cards and equal to 75.9% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
12
This graphics card supports DirectX 12, which is older than on 81.8% of graphics cards and equal to 17% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.2
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.2, which is older than on 94.9% of graphics cards and equal to 3.9% of graphics cards.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 2% of graphics cards and equal to 98% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
Max displays supported
4
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 4 displays, which is more than 9% of graphics cards and equal to 88.2% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
4096x2160
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 4096x2160, which is lower than that of 92.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 4.6% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
1
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 1 DisplayPort outputs, which is fewer than 88.1% of graphics cards and equal to 8.7% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
1.2
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.2, which is older than on 93.9% of graphics cards and equal to 5.1% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
5.4 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 5.4 Gbps, which is slower than on 87.9% of graphics cards and equal to 6% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
134 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 134 W, which is lower than that of 78.7% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
134 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 134 W under peak load, which is lower than 80.2% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
450 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 450 W PSU, which is lower than that of 84% of graphics cards and equal to that of 6.1% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
134 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 134 W, which is lower than that of 81.4% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
134 W
Show more
What reviewers say
Size
241x 111x 38 mm
Length
241 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 241 mm long, which is shorter than 74.3% of graphics cards and equal in length to 1.7% of graphics cards.
Height
111 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 111 mm tall, which is shorter than 83.6% of graphics cards and equal in height to 5.1% of graphics cards.
Slot width
2 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 2 slot/s, which is slimmer than 52.4% of graphics cards and equal in width to 43.4% of graphics cards.
Weight
490 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 490 g, which is lighter than 91.5% of Graphics cards and equal to 0.2% of Graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 16x larger L2 cache
    This graphics card has more L2 cache than the average graphics card (384 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    384 MB vs 24 MB
  • 30.8% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (450 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    450 W vs 650 W
  • 37.7% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (134 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    134 W vs 215 W
  • 15.3% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.3/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 77% of models

    80%

    8.1

    Average grade

    20%

    9.2

    Popularity

    Grades by review (29)
    20 reviews: 10 with a printed score, 10 estimated from the review. 9 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    8.3 vs 7.2
  • 14 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (111 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    111 mm vs 125 mm
  • 41.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (241 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    241 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 2 more DVI outputs
    This graphics card has more DVI outputs than the average graphics card (2 vs 0). The average graphics card has 0 DVI outputs.
    2 vs 0
  • 15.3% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.3/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 77% of models

    80%

    8.1

    Average grade

    20%

    9.2

    Popularity

    Grades by review (29)
    20 reviews: 10 with a printed score, 10 estimated from the review. 9 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    8.3 vs 7.2
  • 3.25x cheaper
    NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost is cheaper than the average graphics card (£160 vs £520).
    £160 vs £520
  • More FP64 throughput
    This graphics card has a better FP64 ratio than the average graphics card (1:24 vs 1:64).
    1:24 vs 1:64
  • 16x larger L2 cache
    This graphics card has more L2 cache than the average graphics card (384 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    384 MB vs 24 MB
  • 2 more GPUs supported
    This graphics card supports more GPUs in multi-GPU mode than the average graphics card (2 vs 0). The average graphics card supports 0 GPUs in multi-GPU mode.
    2 vs 0
  • Supports multi-GPU linking
    This graphics card supports multi-GPU linking, the average graphics card does not.
  • Supports NVLink
    This graphics card supports NVLink, the average graphics card does not.
  • 2 more DVI outputs
    This graphics card has more DVI outputs than the average graphics card (2 vs 0). The average graphics card has 0 DVI outputs.
    2 vs 0
  • 30.8% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (450 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    450 W vs 650 W
  • 37.7% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (134 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    134 W vs 215 W
  • 39.1% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (134 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    134 W vs 220 W
  • 8 °C lower idle temperature
    This graphics card has a lower idle temperature than the average graphics card (29 °C vs 37 °C). The average graphics card has an idle temperature of 37 °C.
    29 °C vs 37 °C
  • 14 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (111 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    111 mm vs 125 mm
  • 41.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (241 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    241 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 51.7% lighter
    This graphics card is lighter than the average graphics card (490 g vs 1,014 g). The average graphics card weighs 1,014 g.
    490 g vs 1,014 g
  • 58.8% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,033 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,033 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 10 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (2 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    2 GB vs 12 GB
  • 36 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (4 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    4 vs 40
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 5.6x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (28 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    28 nm vs 5 nm
  • 2 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (1 vs 3).
    1 vs 3
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • 49% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (980 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    980 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 53.8% lower sentiment score
    3.6 vs 7.8
  • 6.7% worse value for money
    NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost has worse value for money than the average graphics card (6.95 vs 7.4).
    6.95 vs 7.41
  • 58.8% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,033 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,033 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 36 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (4 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    4 vs 40
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 49% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (980 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    980 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 120 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (64 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    64 vs 184
  • 82.5% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (66.1 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    66.05 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 89.8% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (16.5 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    16.51 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 40 fewer ROPs
    This graphics card has fewer ROPs than the average graphics card (24 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    24 vs 64
  • 144 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    0 vs 144
  • 93% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (1.6 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    1.58 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 10 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2013 vs 2023).
    March 2013
    2013 vs 2023
  • 84.9% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (3,408 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    3,408 points vs 22,638 points
  • 92.5% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (1,111 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    1,111 points vs 14,779 points
  • 86.6% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (1,621 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    1,621 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 87.5% lower FP64 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP64 performance than the average graphics card (0.1 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP64 performance of 0.48 TFLOPS.
    0.06 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS
  • 3,584 fewer FP32 units
    This graphics card has fewer FP32 units than the average graphics card (768 vs 4,352). The average graphics card has 4,352 FP32 units.
    768 vs 4,352
  • 10 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (2 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    2 GB vs 12 GB
  • 67.8% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (144.2 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    144.2 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 68.4% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (6,008 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    6,008 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 87.5% smaller L1 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L1 cache than the average graphics card (16 KB vs 128 KB). The average graphics card has 128 KB L1 cache.
    16 KB vs 128 KB
  • 14.2% slower VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a lower VRAM clock than the average graphics card (1,502 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    1,502 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 5.6x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (28 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    28 nm vs 5 nm
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No ray tracing
    This graphics card does not support ray tracing, the average graphics card does.
  • Older PCIe version
    This graphics card supports an older PCIe version than the average graphics card (3 vs 4).
    3 vs 4
  • No AI upscalers
    This graphics card does not support AI upscalers, the average graphics card does.
  • No XeSS support
    This graphics card does not support XeSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No mesh shaders
    This graphics card does not support mesh shaders, the average graphics card does.
  • Older Vulkan version
    This graphics card supports an older Vulkan version than the average graphics card (1.2 vs 1.4).
    1.2 vs 1.4
  • No DirectStorage support
    This graphics card does not support DirectStorage, the average graphics card does.
  • No Resizable BAR
    This graphics card does not support Resizable BAR, while the average graphics card does. 76.4% of Graphics cards support it.
  • Older DirectX version
    This graphics card supports an older DirectX version than the average graphics card (12 vs 12 Ultimate).
    12 vs 12 Ultimate
  • Older OpenCL version
    This graphics card supports an older OpenCL version than the average graphics card (1.2 vs 3).
    1.2 vs 3
  • Older shader model
    This graphics card supports an older shader model than the average graphics card (5 vs 6.8).
    5 vs 6.8
  • No sampler feedback
    This graphics card does not support sampler feedback, the average graphics card does.
  • 88.9% fewer transistors
    This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (2,540 million vs 22,900 million). The average graphics card has 22,900 million transistors.
    2,540 million vs 22,900 million
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (1.4a vs 2.1a).
    1.4a vs 2.1a
  • 2 fewer DisplayPort outputs
    This graphics card has fewer DisplayPort outputs than the average graphics card (1 vs 3). The average graphics card has 3 DisplayPort outputs.
    1 vs 3
  • No AV1 encoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
  • No AV1 decoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 decoding, the average graphics card does.
  • No DSC support
    This graphics card does not support DSC, the average graphics card does.
  • More basic codec support
    This graphics card encodes more basic formats than the average graphics card (H.264 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9).
    H.264 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9
  • Older DisplayPort version
    This graphics card supports an older DisplayPort version than the average graphics card (1.2 vs 1.4a).
    1.2 vs 1.4a
  • Older HDCP version
    This graphics card supports an older HDCP version than the average graphics card (1.4 vs 2.3).
    1.4 vs 2.3
  • Older NVDEC generation
    This graphics card has a lower NVDEC generation than the average graphics card (1 vs 6). The average graphics card offers NVDEC generation 6.
    1 vs 6
  • Lower display resolution
    This graphics card supports a lower maximum digital resolution than the average graphics card (4096x2160 vs 7680x4320). The average graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320.
    4096x2160 vs 7680x4320
  • Not VR ready
    This graphics card is not VR ready, while the average graphics card is.
  • 75% lower DisplayPort bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower DisplayPort bandwidth than the average graphics card (5.4 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps). The average graphics card has DisplayPort bandwidth of 21.6 Gbps.
    5.4 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps
  • 2 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (1 vs 3).
    1 vs 3
  • No dual BIOS
    This graphics card does not include dual BIOS, the average graphics card does.
  • No fan stop
    This graphics card does not support fan stop, the average graphics card does.
  • 24 dB noisier at idle
    This graphics card has a higher idle noise level than the average graphics card (24 dB vs 0 dB). The average graphics card has an idle noise level of 0 dB.
    24 dB vs 0 dB
  • 4.7 dB noisier under load
    This graphics card has a higher load noise level than the average graphics card (40.1 dB vs 35.4 dB). The average graphics card has a load noise level of 35.4 dB.
    40.1 dB vs 35.4 dB
  • No backplate
    This graphics card does not include a backplate, the average graphics card does.
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

8.0
zWORMz Gaming
≈ estimated
13/03/2022
Hands-on review · 14 game benchmarks, mostly 1080p
Verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost is worth buying for older and esports titles, but not for demanding modern games.
7.0
Timmy Joe PC Tech
≈ estimated
10/10/2018
Hands-on review · 1080p game benchmarks
Verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost is playable at 1080p with lower settings, a surprisingly decent budget option for cheap builds, though 1GB of VRAM limits it.
9.0
Linus Tech Tips
≈ estimated
26/03/2013
Hands-on review · benchmarks, memory test and 1080p gaming
Verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost offers strong 1080p value with 2GB of memory, but triple-monitor gaming isn't realistic in demanding titles.
9.0
HiTechLegion
≈ estimated
26/03/2013
Hands-on review · benchmarks and comparison with older cards
Verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost 2GB is a clear upgrade over older mainstream cards and a strong buy at this price.
9.0
OC3D TV
≈ estimated
26/03/2013
Hands-on review · clocks, benchmarks and noise
Verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost doesn't set the world on fire, but it's a very strong budget 1080p card in its standard form, especially for first builds.
9.0
Tech of Tomorrow
≈ estimated
26/03/2013
Hands-on review · benchmarks and card measurements
Verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost is positioned as the fastest card in its price class, with 2GB of memory.
6.0
Nicolas11x12 English
≈ estimated
25/04/2018
Hands-on review · 2018 gaming tests at lower settings
Verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost is still usable for budget gaming at lower settings, but only worth buying used at a good price.
8.0
NCIX Tech Tips
≈ estimated
29/03/2013
First look · hardware details, features and target audience
Verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost is a solid option for 1080p gamers who skip heavy anti-aliasing, and a good fit for multi-monitor setups.
Hands-on video, no verdict
Overview video
Not graded
Hands-on video, no verdict

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

10
techpowerup.com
✓ explicit
26/03/2013
Reference card review · Kepler mid-range
Verdict
The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost fills the gap between the GTX 650 Ti and GTX 660, with a wider 192-bit memory bus and automatic clock boosting.
8.0
hothardware.com
✓ explicit
26/03/2013
Feature overview · Kepler mid-range
Verdict
The GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost combines GTX 660 memory and cache with GTX 650 Ti cores, a decent mid-range card that trails the GTX 660 in compute.
6.0
digitalfoundry.net
≈ estimated
21/04/2013
Gameplay test · Kepler mid-range
Verdict
The GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost runs Crysis 3 at 60 fps on medium settings at 1080p, but its cut-down shader count trails the GTX 660 on max settings.
8.0
techspot.com
✓ explicit
22/04/2013
Benchmark review · SLI frame latency
Verdict
The GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost gets 67% more memory bandwidth from its wider bus, and this review checks whether two cards in SLI deliver smoother frames.
8.0
uk.pcmag.com
✓ explicit
16/06/2014
Benchmark review · Mainstream graphics card
Verdict
The GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost borrows much of the GTX 660's performance, making it a fast 1080p mid-range card despite its confusing name.
8.0
pcmag.com
✓ explicit
26/03/2013
Editors' Choice review · Mid-range card
Verdict
The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost beats the Radeon HD 7790 in most tests, making it a strong 1080p mid-range pick despite its confusing name.
8.0
au.pcmag.com
✓ explicit
27/03/2013
Benchmark review · Mid-range graphics card
Verdict
The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost suits 1080p gamers wanting a mid-range upgrade, with GTX 660-style boost behaviour and beats the Radeon HD 7790 in several tests.
9.5
hardwarezone.com.sg
≈ estimated
26/03/2013
Benchmark review · GK106 mid-range
Verdict
The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost is nearly a GTX 660 with 192 fewer CUDA cores, so it stays close to that card in most games.
overclockers.com
04/04/2013
Not graded yet
overclockers.com
26/03/2013
Not graded yet
6.0
computerbase.de
≈ estimated
26/03/2013
Lab test · Mid-range card
Verdict
The GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost mixes a GTX 650 Ti chip with a GTX 660-style wide memory bus, but it draws more power and falls short of Nvidia's goals.
7.0
pcgameshardware.de
≈ estimated
26/03/2013
Lab test · Radeon 7790 rival
Verdict
The GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost is a faster GTX 650 Ti with a GTX 660-style bus and 2 GB, but it draws more power and slows past 1.5 GB.
9.0
computerbild.de
≈ estimated
28/03/2013
Short test · Compact gaming card
Verdict
The Zotac GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost gives high frame rates in a short board, but it draws a lot of power under load.
7.0
pcwelt.de
≈ estimated
17/06/2013
Lab test · Quiet overclocked card
Verdict
The Palit GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost OC plays Battlefield 3 at about 40 fps in Full HD and stays quiet, but ships with almost nothing in the box.
7.8
gamestar.de
✓ explicit
26/03/2013
Benchmark test · Mid-range card
Verdict
The GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost runs about 40 percent faster than a standard GTX 650 Ti, performing closer to a GTX 660, though its name is misleading.
8.0
pcwelt.de
≈ estimated
03/04/2013
Lab test · Mid-range gaming card
Verdict
The Zotac GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost is about 10 frames per second faster than the Radeon HD 7790 in games, but it draws close to 250 watts under load.
8.0
geeknetic.es
≈ estimated
29/03/2013
Hands-on test · Real-use gaming
Verdict
The GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost holds around 60 fps in Diablo 3 at 2560x1440 with top settings, but newer DirectX 11 games need reduced settings even at 1920x1080.
8.0
tech.everyeye.it
≈ estimated
13/04/2013
Hands-on test · Full HD gaming card
Verdict
The GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost handles recent games at high detail and 1680x1050, though its stock cooler gets loud under load.
10
nexthardware.com
✓ explicit
04/05/2013
Hands-on test · Reference card review
Verdict
The GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost is a compact card sharing the GK106 chip and 192-bit memory of the GTX 660 Ti, with SLI support for a second card.
10
nexthardware.com
✓ explicit
04/05/2013
Hands-on test · Two memory versions
Verdict
The GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost fills the gap between the GTX 650 Ti and GTX 660, and the 2 GB version is the better choice for 1920x1080 gaming.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost

  • Excellent price-to-performance ratio at launch, often beating the Radeon HD 7790 and trading blows with the HD 7850
  • Significant performance leap (approx. 25%) over the standard GTX 650 Ti due to the 'Boost' clock and 192-bit memory bus
  • Includes SLI support for multi-GPU configurations, a feature missing from the base 650 Ti
  • Power efficient for its time, typically requiring only a single 6-pin power connector
  • Remains relatively quiet and cool under load, especially with partner-designed cooling solutions like MSI's TwinFrozr
  • Strong 1080p performance in classic titles and eSports games like CS:GO or Dota 2

What customers don't like about NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost

  • Obsolete for modern AAA gaming; driver support for the Kepler architecture has ended
  • Limited feature set; supports DirectX 12 but only at feature level 11_0, preventing many modern games from launching
  • 2GB VRAM is insufficient for contemporary high-resolution textures and modern gaming standards
  • Confusing product naming within the GTX 650 lineup, which included the 650, 650 Ti, and 650 Ti Boost
  • Reference blower-style coolers can be audible and run warmer than custom partner cards
  • Average overclocking potential since the card already operates near its silicon's maximum limits out of the box

Verdict

The Nvidia GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost is a mid-range graphics card based on the 28nm Kepler architecture, featuring 768 CUDA cores, 64 texture mapping units, and an upgraded 24 ROPs. It operates at a base clock of 980 MHz with a boost clock of 1033 MHz and is typically equipped with 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 192-bit interface, delivering a substantial 144.2 GB/s bandwidth. Main pros include its support for 2-way SLI, significantly improved performance over the standard GTX 650 Ti, and a more aggressive memory configuration that competes well in the budget segment. However, its main cons include a relatively high power consumption of 134W TDP for its performance tier and a limited DirectX 12 feature level (11_0), which hinders its compatibility with modern API-intensive titles.

Compare NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost with other products in the Graphics cards category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found