Dedicated PhyX PPU / GPU Shoot Out: GT 640, GTX 650, GTX 650 Ti, and GTX 680 – paired with a GTX 690.
Test Rig Details:
i7 3820 @ 4.5 GHz (1.40v) / EVGA GTX 690 (1148 MHz boost, +400 Memory, 135% Power) / 32GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3 1600 MHz / 512GB Samsung 830 SSD / Seasonic X-1250 / CM Scout 2 Case
Windows 7 Ultimate with SP1 and latest patches (10/15/12) – x64
NVIDIA GeForce WHQL drivers 306.97
Game / Benchmark Details:
Borderlands 2 / Steam / Updated on 10/15/12
All graphics details maxed (PhysX: High) – 1080p (1920×1080), 120hz monitor
EVGA GTX 690
EVGA GTX 690 + EVGA GT 640 (dedicated PhysX PPU)
EVGA GTX 690 + EVGA GTX 650 SC (dedicated PhysX PPU)
EVGA GTX 690 + EVGA GTX 650 Ti SSC (dedicated PhysX PPU)
EVGA GTX 690 + GTX 680 (dedicated PhysX PPU)
Game / Benchmark Scenario:
Borderlands 2: Bloodshot Stronghold – first 3 waves of enemies (each configuration tested 3 times, results averaged).
FluidMark: PhysX Benchmark Preset: 1080p (each configuration tested 1 time). NOTE: FluidMark is not SLI aware.
|GTX 650 Ti||4711||77|
|Borderlands 2||Average FPS||Avg. FPS Gain||Minimum FPS||Maximum FPS|
|GTX 650 Ti||106.82||11%||69.67||239.33|
Borderlands 2 continues to be a bit baffling. Throwing a GTX 680 at it as a PPU does not yield crazy results – but a GTX 650 does surprisingly well. My hypothesis? Clocks matter. The GTX 650 SC from EVGA that I used is clocked at 1202 MHz whereas the GTX 680 was at it’s default clock of 1006 MHz. Even with that said – then why doesn’t the 650 Ti beat the GTX 680 since it is clocked at 1071 MHz? The only data that makes sense from these tests are the results from Fluidmark. The cards improve in a linear fashion based on how they are positioned by NVIDIA. Interesting results…but overall I’m sticking with the 650 Ti in my system – as it is the best all-around performer: value, efficiency, and performance.
As always, the full logs from my benchmarks are available to download by clicking here.