Nvidia has been filling out its Kepler lineup these past few months. The first members of the GeForce 600 series were all high-end graphics cards with formidable price tags, but recently, we’ve seen the company dabble in both the very low end and the sweet spot around $200.
Screaming-fast flagship cards are interesting, of course. But not everybody can afford them. Not everybody plays the kinds of games at the kinds of resolutions that truly justify a $300 or $400 GPU, either. For many enthusiasts, getting solid performance at a reasonable price is more important than making friends green with envy.
Today’s launch addresses the last great gap in Nvidia’s 600-series lineup. The GeForce GTX 650 Ti brings us full-fledged Kepler goodness at prices ranging from $149 to $180 or so, bridging the gap between the GeForce GTX 650 and GeForce GTX 660. Nvidia tells us this is the last card it plans to introduce this year. We’re not surprised, since the company now has pretty much all its bases covered.
We’re going to be testing one of the fastest variants of the GTX 650 Ti today: a Zotac card with 2GB of memory and clock speeds substantially above reference. This bad boy will have to spar with the latest sub-$200 offerings from AMD, and we’ll be comparing it to Nvidia’s old GeForce GTX 560, for good measure. The results should be interesting, to say the least.
Introducing the GeForce GTX 650 Ti
Before we look at the amped-up Zotac card, we should probably introduce the vanilla GeForce GTX 650 Ti. Here’s a picture of the reference card in all its bland, black-clad glory:
Based on the name and the card’s stubby circuit board (which measures just 5.65″), one might think this is merely a higher-clocked version of the GeForce GTX 650. Not so fast, folks! Nvidia’s naming scheme has gotten rather confusing with this generation, so let’s clarify.
The vanilla GeForce GTX 650 is based on the same GK107 graphics processor as the $90 GeForce GT 640. The GK107 is a pretty hobbled chip that’s substantially smaller and cheaper to produce than the rest of the Kepler family. Nvidia’s new GeForce GTX 650 Ti, on the other hand, features a larger GPU: the GK106, which you can also find inside the $230 GeForce GTX 660. Incidentally, those are the only two products to feature that chip. Nvidia’s more upscale GeForce GTX 660 Ti graphics card is based on a different piece of silicon, the GK104, which is even larger and powers all other high-end Kepler offerings up to the GeForce GTX 690.
Confused? Not too much, I hope. Here’s a quick overview of how the GK104, GK106, and GK107 stack up:
The GK106 is very much the middle child of the Kepler family. It’s more fleshed-out than its smaller sibling, but it lacks some of the trappings that the eldest enjoys—like more ALUs, more texture units, a wider path to memory… and, we expect, not having to wear hand-me-downs.
Functional block diagram of the GK106 chip. Source: Nvidia.
Where the GeForce GTX 660 uses the full GK106, the new GeForce GTX 650 Ti uses a slightly scaled-back version of the same chip. Nvidia has disabled one of the five SMX engines, leaving 768 ALUs and 64 texels/clock of texture filtering capability. One ROP cluster and one memory controller were also excised, so the card can churn out only 16 pixels per clock, and its path to memory is just 128 bits wide.
Interestingly, Nvidia has two ways of retrofitting a GK106 chip for the GTX 650 Ti. It can disable one of the SMX engines from the two full-sized GPCs, or it can disable the third GPC altogether. Since that third GPC is half-sized and contains only one SMX engine, the end result is pretty much the same. Nvidia tells us there are no performance discrepancies stemming from the two different approaches.
Obviously, having this flexibility means Nvidia can repurpose GK106 chips that didn’t make the cut for the GeForce GTX 660. Flawed chips can be adapted, so long as only one of their SMX engines, ROP clusters, and/or memory controllers is faulty. The same goes for chips that are fully functional but can’t quite hit high enough clock speeds. As you can see below, the GTX 650 Ti has lower base and memory speeds than the GTX 660, and it also lacks GPU Boost, so the card doesn’t venture beyond the base clock regardless of the available thermal headroom. (SLI multi-GPU capabilities aren’t on the menu, either.)
|GTX 650||1058||N/A||8||34/34||0.8||1.1||5.0 GT/s||80||$109.99|
|GTX 650 Ti||925||N/A||15||59/59||1.4||2.1||5.4 GT/s||86||$149.99|
|GTX 660||980||1033||25||83/83||2.0||3.1||6.0 GT/s||144||$229.99|
|GTX 660 Ti||915||980||24||110/110||2.6||3.9||6.0 GT/s||144||$299.99|
In short, we invite you to think of this latest arrival as a cut-down GTX 660, because that’s essentially what it is.
The GeForce GTX 650 Ti is going to be available in several flavors. Offerings based on Nvidia’s reference design are supposed to be priced at $149 with one gigabyte of GDDR5 memory. Reference cards have a 110W power envelope, a single six-pin PCIe power connector, and a not-quite-single-slot design with a slightly protruding cooler. (See the image above.) Nvidia’s partners are also rolling out variants with 2GB frame buffers. Those will cost a little more, and they may have an edge over their 1GB counterparts when handling higher resolutions, larger textures, and higher levels of antialiasing. However, Nvidia points out there probably won’t be much of a difference between 1GB and 2GB variants at the GTX 650 Ti’s target gaming resolution of 1920×1080.
Of course, there will be cards with higher-than-reference clock speeds and larger frame buffers—like the one we’re going to be benchmarking today.
One last thing. Some of the GTX 650 Ti cards you’ll see out there will come with a free license key for Ubisoft’s Assassin’s Creed III. The game isn’t coming out until Halloween, but when it does, it’s no doubt going to carry the same $59.99 price tag as any self-respecting triple-A title from a big publisher. Getting it for free with a $149 card sounds like a pretty sweet deal. Not all of Nvidia’s partners are participating, however, so you’ll want to double-check before making your purchase.
The star of our show
Our guinea pig for today is Zotac’s GeForce GTX 650 Ti 2GB AMP! Edition—the fastest GTX 650 Ti variant the company offers, and quite possibly the high-water mark for GTX 650 Ti cards everywhere. It feature twice as much memory as the reference design, and it pushes the GPU and the memory to a blistering 1033MHz and 6200 MT/s, respectively, quite a ways up from the reference 925MHz and 5400 MT/s. On top of that, Zotac has slapped on a meatier, dual-slot cooler and beefed up the display output configuration:
This card trades the reference offering’s Mini HDMI port for two full-sized HDMI connectors. Nvidia says all of its Kepler GPUs support up to four displays in tandem, but only custom versions of the GTX 650 Ti like this one have enough outputs to take advantage of that capability.
As you might expect, all these extras come at a price. Zotac charges a whopping $179.99 for the GTX 650 Ti 2GB AMP! Edition. That represents a $25 premium over the company’s vanilla 1GB card, and it’s also $10 above the price of Zotac’s reference-clocked 2GB card. It ain’t cheap, but then again, hot-clocked cards with extra memory rarely are.
Because of its price premium, the Zotac 2GB AMP! card is up against some pretty serious competition. AMD’s Radeon HD 7850 has come down in price since the GeForce GTX 660’s arrival last month, and 1GB versions can be had for well under $200. The XFX Core Edition variant (pictured below and featured in our testing) sells for $179.99 at Newegg right now, and that’s before a $20 mail-in rebate. It has a longer circuit board than the GTX 650 Ti, at 7.8″, but it still requires just one PCI Express power connector.
The 7850 1GB is at somewhat of a disadvantage because of its 1GB frame buffer. However, this puppy has a wider, 256-bit path to memory, which gives it roughly 55% more bandwidth than the Zotac card. That’s not the only place where the two cards’ priorities diverge, either. Take a look:
|MSI GeForce GTX 560 Twin Frozr II||870||N/A||32||49/49||1.2||4.1 GT/s||131||$169|
|Zotac GeForce GTX 650 Ti 2GB AMP!||1033||N/A||16||66/66||1.6||6.2 GT/s||99||$179|
|XFX Radeon HD 7770 Black Edition||1120||N/A||18||45/22||1.3||5.2 GT/s||83||$154|
|XFX Radeon HD 7850 1GB Core Edition||860||N/A||28||55/28||1.8||4.8 GT/s||154||$179|
|XFX Radeon HD 7850 2GB Black Edition||975||N/A||31||62/31||2.0||5.0 GT/s||160||$229|
The 7850 1GB can talk to its memory faster and churn out more pixels than the GTX 650 Ti 2GB AMP!, and its shaders are a little faster, but its texture throughput is weaker. This is going to be a hard race to call without plenty of testing.
Interestingly, the same can be said about the GeForce GTX 560. Although that card is nearly 18 months old now, it’s still available in roughly the same price range as our two current-gen contenders. The hot-clocked MSI GTX 560 variant we selected for our testing has specifications not dissimilar from those of the 7850 1GB.
Let’s get on to the numbers—as soon as we’ve outlined our testing methods, that is.
Our testing methods
As ever, we did our best to deliver clean benchmark numbers. Tests were run at least three times, and we reported the median results. Our test systems were configured like so:
|Processor||Intel Core i7-2600K|
|Motherboard||Asus P8Z77-V LE Plus|
|North bridge||Intel Z77 Express|
|Memory size||4GB (2 DIMMs)|
|Memory type||Kingston HyperX KHX2133C9AD3X2K2/4GX
DDR3 SDRAM at 1333MHz
|Memory timings||9-9-9-24 1T|
|Chipset drivers||INF update 22.214.171.1249
Rapid Storage Technology 126.96.36.1996
|Audio||Integrated Realtek audio
with 188.8.131.5257 drivers
|Hard drive||Crucial m4 256GB|
|Power supply||Corsair HX750W 750W|
|OS||Windows 7 Ultimate x64 Edition
Service Pack 1
|Driver revision||GPU base
|MSI GeForce GTX 560 Twin Frozr II||GeForce 306.38 beta||870||1020||1GB|
|Zotac GeForce GTX 650 Ti AMP!||GeForce 306.38 beta||1033||1550||2GB|
|XFX Radeon HD 7770 Black Edition||Catalyst 12.9 beta||1120||1300||1GB|
|XFX Radeon HD 7850 1GB Core Edition||Catalyst 12.9 beta||860||1200||1GB|
|XFX Radeon HD 7850 2GB Black Edition||Catalyst 12.9 beta||975||1250||2GB|
Thanks to Asus, Corsair, Crucial, Kingston, and Intel for helping to outfit our test rigs with some of the finest hardware available. AMD, Nvidia, and the makers of the various graphics cards we used for testing, as well.
Unless otherwise specified, image quality settings for the graphics cards were left at the control panel defaults. Vertical refresh sync (vsync) was disabled for all tests.
We used the following test applications:
- Battlefield 3
- DiRT Showdown
- Max Payne 3
- Sleeping Dogs
- The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
- Fraps 3.5.9
- GPU-Z 0.6.4
Some further notes on our methods:
- We used the Fraps utility to record frame rates while playing a 90-second sequence from the game. Although capturing frame rates while playing isn’t precisely repeatable, we tried to make each run as similar as possible to all of the others. We tested each Fraps sequence five times per video card in order to counteract any variability. We’ve included frame-by-frame results from Fraps for each game, and in those plots, you’re seeing the results from a single, representative pass through the test sequence.
We measured total system power consumption at the wall socket using a P3 Kill A Watt digital power meter. The monitor was plugged into a separate outlet, so its power draw was not part of our measurement. The cards were plugged into a motherboard on an open test bench.
The idle measurements were taken at the Windows desktop with the Aero theme enabled. The cards were tested under load running Skyrim at its High quality preset.
We measured noise levels on our test system, sitting on an open test bench, using a TES-52 digital sound level meter. The meter was held approximately 8″ from the test system at a height even with the top of the video card.
You can think of these noise level measurements much like our system power consumption tests, because the entire systems’ noise levels were measured. Of course, noise levels will vary greatly in the real world along with the acoustic properties of the PC enclosure used, whether the enclosure provides adequate cooling to avoid a card’s highest fan speeds, placement of the enclosure in the room, and a whole range of other variables. These results should give a reasonably good picture of comparative fan noise, though.
- We used GPU-Z to log GPU temperatures during our load testing.
The tests and methods we employ are generally publicly available and reproducible. If you have questions about our methods, hit our forums to talk with us about them.
We tested Battlefield 3 by playing through the start of the Kaffarov mission, right after the player lands. Our 90-second runs involved walking through the woods and getting into a firefight with a group of hostiles, who fired and lobbed grenades at us.
We tested at 1920×1080 using the game’s “High” detail preset, which offered the best compromise between image quality and smoothness on the GTX 650 Ti.
We should preface the results below with a little primer on our testing methodology. Along with measuring average frames per second, we delve inside the second to look at frame rendering times. Studying the time taken to render each frame gives us a better sense of playability, because it highlights issues like stuttering that can occur—and be felt by the player—within the span of one second. Charting frame times shows these issues clear as day, while charting average frames per second obscures them.
To get a sense of how frame times correspond to FPS rates, check the table on the right.
We’re going to start by charting frame times over the totality of a representative run for each system. (That run is usually the middle one out of the five we ran for each card.) These plots should give us an at-a-glance impression of overall playability, warts and all. You can click the buttons below the graph to compare our protagonist to its different competitors.
The GTX 650 Ti AMP! is off to a somewhat rocky start in Battlefield 3. While it suffers from fewer latency spikes than the GeForce GTX 560, it still doesn’t achieve terribly great consistency. Our two Radeon HD 7850 variants both produced thinner plots, with fewer high-latency frame times and thus greater perceived smoothness in-game. Only the Radeon HD 7770 Black Edition seems to be markedly worse than the GTX 650 Ti AMP!.
We can slice and dice our raw frame-time data in other ways to show different facets of the performance picture. Let’s start with something we’re all familiar with: average frames per second. While this metric doesn’t account for irregularities in frame latencies, it does give us some sense of typical performance. We can also demarcate the threshold below which 99% of frames are rendered, which offers a sense of overall frame latency, excluding fringe cases. (The lower the threshold, the more fluid the game.)
Looking at average FPS alone, you might think the GTX 650 Ti AMP! and the Radeon HD 7850 1GB are about neck and neck. As the 99th-percentile results demonstrate, however, that’s not quite the case. 99% of the 7850 1GB’s frames are rendered in less than 22.8 ms, which works out to a threshold of 44 FPS—very reasonable, in other words. On the Zotac card, the threshold is 31.5 ms, equivalent to only 32 FPS.
Now, the 99th percentile result only captures a single point along the latency curve. We can show you that whole curve, as well. With single-GPU configs like these, the right hand-side of the graph—and especially the last 5% or so—is where you’ll want to look. That section tends to be where the best and worst solutions diverge.
Graphing percentile data makes it pretty obvious that the two 7850 variants maintain the lowest and most consistent latencies of the bunch. The GTX 560 starts to spike around the 95% mark, and the GTX 650 Ti AMP! keeps steady until about 97%, but the 7850s manage consistently low frame times until they get right up to the 99% mark.
Finally, we can rank solutions based on how long they spent working on frames that took longer than a certain number of milliseconds to render. Simply put, this metric is a measure of “badness.” It tells us about the scope of delays in frame delivery during the test scenario. Here, you can click the buttons below the graph to switch between different milisecond thresholds.
The GTX 650 Ti AMP! doesn’t spend much time beyond 50 ms, which means the latency spikes from which it suffers aren’t too dramatic. It does, however, spend more time above 33 ms than we’d like, especially compared to the two 7850 cards.
Codemasters’ DiRT: Showdown encourages you to drive other cars off the road, which is a lot more fun than typical racing games. Just as importantly, it has gorgeous graphics that can stress even high-end GPUs. We tested this game in the Miami track. We pushed our way ahead of the pack and spent the second half of our 90-second run maintaining our lead.
We tested at 1920×1080 with 4X multisampled antialiasing using a customized version of the “Ultra” preset, which had advanced lighting effects disabled. The performance cost of those effects was too high for our taste on these cards.
The GTX 650 Ti AMP! pretty much mirrors the old GTX 560 in our latency plot. Unfortunately, that means it again suffers from more long frame times than the Radeons—even the 7770 Black Edition.
Our average FPS chart suggests parity between the GTX 650 Ti and the 7770 Black, but again, our percentile data highlights the latency problems of the Nvidia cards.
The same goes for our measure of “badness.” The 7850s barely spend any time above 16.7 ms, but the other cards aren’t so lucky.
Max Payne 3
The latest chapter in the Max Payne series wasn’t made by the same developers as the first two games, but it follows the formula to a tee. Max still takes on hordes of heavily armed baddies with akimbo pistols and copious amounts of slow-motion dodges. There’s still plenty of cheesy, film noir-style narration, too.
We tested Max Payne 3 at the end of the second chapter, where Max guns down masked kidnappers on the roof of a São Paulo skyscraper. We used the same sequence of bullet-time dodges and surgical headshots each time in order to minimize variability between runs.
Testing was conducted at 1920×1080. Detail settings were maxed out everywhere except for multisampled antialiasing and tessellation. As Scott has pointed out in the past, enabling MSAA disables FXAA in Max Payne 3, and FXAA produces better results with fewer jagged edges here.
Yet again, the GTX 650 Ti AMP! roughly mirrors the GTX 560—except it doesn’t display the same see-saw pattern between short and long frame times toward the beginning and end of the run.
Compared to the Radeons, the GTX 650 Ti AMP! card fares much better this time. It’s quicker than the Radeon HD 7770, and while its frame latencies are clearly a little higher than those of the 7850 1GB and 7850 2GB Black Edition, the difference is small, and frame-time consistency is excellent.
That 99th-percentile frame time of 18.5 ms works out to 54 FPS, which is pretty close to the 60 Hz refresh rate of most LCD monitors. Sure, the 7850 cards are even faster, but exceeding the display’s refresh rate doesn’t normally yield palpable benefits.
Our percentile graph shows the GTX 650 Ti AMP! avoids longer frame times in the last 5% or frames, where latencies for the GTX 560 begin to rise. The GTX 650 Ti card’s frame times are higher than the Radeons’, but they’re still quite low throughout.
As for our measure of badness, it shows none of the cards exhibit substantial latency spikes. Our first-hand impressions corroborate this. Max Payne 3 feels silky smooth overall, even on the Radeon HD 7770 Black Edition.
I haven’t had a chance to get very far into Sleeping Dogs myself, but TR’s Geoff Gasior did, and he got hooked. From the small glimpse I’ve received of the game’s open-world environment and martial-arts-style combat, I think I can see why.
The game’s version of Hong Kong seems to be its most demanding area from a performance standpoint, so that’s what we benchmarked. We took Wei Shen on a motorcyle joyride through the city, trying our best to remember we were supposed to ride on the left side of the street.
We benchmarked Sleeping Dogs at 1920×1080 using a tweaked version of the “High” quality preset, where we disabled vsync and knocked SSAO down to “Normal.” We had the high-resolution texture pack installed, too.
None of our cards display consistently low frame times here, probably because they have to stream data from the huge open-world map constantly. The patterns of inconsistency are different, though. The Radeons seem to exhibit more of a continuous see-saw pattern, while the GeForces offer somewhat more generally consistent frame times punctuated by taller spikes at random intervals.
In any case, the GTX 650 Ti AMP! seems to fare no worse than the 7850s here, and it’s clearly ahead of the 7770 Black Edition.
The 99th-percentile figures suggest that, with the exception of the old GeForce GTX 560, there isn’t a huge difference in smoothness between the various contenders here. We’ll have to look at fringe cases to see if there’s a clear winner.
As we noticed in the latency plot, the GeForce GTX 650 Ti AMP! keeps frame times consistent throughout a greater percentage of the run, but it suffers from higher spikes than the Radeons. Graphing percentiles confirms this fact…
…and so does tallying up the amount of time spent above 50 ms. 168 milliseconds may not amount to much out of a 90-second run, but it’s clear the Radeons do a better job of avoiding huge spikes. The 7850 1GB stays ahead of the GTX 650 Ti AMP! even when we lower the threshold to 33.3 ms and 16.7 ms, too.
By the way, note that larger frame buffers don’t seem to have much of an impact here, even though we’re running through a huge open world covered with high-resolution textures. The Radeon HD 7850 1GB shadows the 7850 2GB Black Edition despite the latter’s higher clock speeds and extra memory, and the GTX 650 Ti AMP! doesn’t seem to gain an edge over the 7850 1GB. Is a gig of memory really all you need at 1080p?
The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
Our Skyrim test involved running around the town of Whiterun, starting from the city gates, all the way up to Dragonsreach, and then trotting back down again.
The game was run at 1920×1080 using the “Ultra” detail preset. The high-resolution texture pack was installed, as well.
We noticed something strange during our testing. Two of the Radeons, the 7770 Black Edition and 7850 1GB, suffered from hitching and general sluggishness during the first couple of test runs, but they performed smoothly during the other three runs. We normally base our latency plots on the third run from each card, but in the interest of highlighting the phenomenon, the plots below all show the first runs:
Ooh. We may have finally found a situation where 1GB frame buffers hinder performance at 1080p.
Perhaps that’s a hasty connection to make, though. The GeForce GTX 560 has the exact same amount of RAM as the misbehaving Radeons—and lower memory bandwidth than the 7850 1GB—yet it doesn’t suffer nearly to the same extent. The GTX 560 only exhibits a single big spike, toward the beginning of the run, and maintains largely consistent latencies the rest of the time. By contrast, the 7850 1GB and the 7770 both see multiple spikes and a general degradation of performance.
The average FPS rankings don’t really reflect the problem, but the 99th-percentile numbers do. That said, we should note that these charts are based on data collected from all runs, not just the initial ones. Since hitching wasn’t a problem in later runs, the differences here don’t appear as stark as in the plots above.
Not even the slower Radeons spend much time above 50 ms. Lowering the “badness” threshold to 33 ms puts the Radeon HD 7700 Black Edition and 7850 1GB at a clear disadvantage, though. The GeForce GTX 650 Ti 2GB AMP! and Radeon HD 7850 2GB Black Edition are undoubtedly the better performers here.
The Radeons switch to an ultra-low-power state when the display goes to sleep, which explains the first round of numbers. Under load, though, the GeForce GTX 650 Ti 2GB AMP! demonstrates excellent power efficiency, drawing only 10W more than the 7770 Black Edition.
Noise levels and GPU temperatures
The GTX 650 Ti AMP! is a smidgen louder than the rest of the pack at idle, but it’s quiet under load—certainly quieter than the Radeon HD 7850 1GB.
Despite its low noise levels under load, the Zotac card’s cooler works very well, keeping the GPU temperature at just 60°C. The power-hungrier Radeons run hotter, which is no surprise.
It may be fair to say Zotac is overcharging a little for the GeForce GTX 650 Ti 2GB AMP! Edition. The card trails the Radeon HD 7850 1GB more often than not, and while our 7850 1GB carries the same $179.99 price tag, other 7850 1GB models priced as low as $164.99 are available right now.
Recommending the Radeon 7850 1GB over the GTX 650 Ti 2GB would be pretty sensible… if it weren’t for the issues we encountered in Skyrim. Considering the 7850 2GB exhibited no problems, it’s likely the 7850 1GB’s smaller frame buffer is proving to be a handicap in that game. And the severity of the hitching we detected (even when re-testing) makes it hard to shrug off this particular problem.
Ultimately, I don’t think the GTX 650 Ti 2GB AMP! Edition is worth the $180 price tag, and I don’t think the 7850 1GB is a good substitute for it, either. If you’re looking for the best deal in this price range, my advice would be to set aside a little extra cash and spring for either a GeForce GTX 660 or a Radeon HD 7850 2GB. You’ll get guaranteed higher performance without memory bottlenecks at 1080p, and you’ll be able to drive a larger monitor with a higher resolution if you need.
Now, what if your budget is pulling you closer to the $150 mark? There will surely be one-gig GTX 650 Ti variants with similar or slightly lower clocks than the Zotac card we tested, and they may be available for well under $180. Odds are they’ll perform similarly in most situations—Skyrim at “Ultra” settings with high-res textures excepted. When considering such cards, then, your choice is going to be between them, cheaper 7850 1GB offerings from AMD, and hot-clocked versions of the Radeon HD 7770, like the $155 Black Edition model we tested.
We can disqualify the 7770 right off the bat, because we know it’s the slowest of the bunch. The 7850 1GB can deliver better overall performance than even a GTX 650 Ti 1GB with higher-than-reference clock speeds, but that performance edge will come at the cost of higher power consumption—and potentially higher noise levels, as well. The GTX 650 Ti should be slightly slower, but cooler-running, quieter, and easier to squeeze into a cramped build.
Then there’s the fact that some GTX 650 Ti cards, including the Zotac model we tested, ship with a free copy of Assassin’s Creed III. That can upset the value equation quite a bit, provided you’re planning on purchasing the game anyway. A $165 Radeon plus a copy of ACIII will set you back around $225, after all, which is quite a bit more than even the Zotac card’s $180 asking price. That said, AMD has a bundled game deal of its own. Some Radeon HD 7850 1GB models come with a free copy of Sleeping Dogs, which is only a couple of months old and sells for $49.99 on Steam right now. In the end, gamers with particularly tight budgets may care less about performance and more about which game they can get for free.