The vapor-x, Direct CU, top, power edition and other similar designation are at 95% pure marketing tricks. Some limited overclocking , sometimes slightly better memory, often a specific type of cooler. On entry or mid range cards, not very relevant

"ti " versions indicate that the card uses the chip otherwise used on the superior range. 650 uses a Kepler GK 107 (entry) , 650ti and 660 use a GK 106 (mid range) and 660ti uses a GK 104 ( upper range). Meaning for instance the the number of calculation units of the 650ti is double that of the 650. The difference is a bit less significant between the 660 ti and the 660.

Well, I got my GTX 560 two years ago and it still runs everything on ultra. I might have to lower AA in some games, but textures, etc. is not a problem. Sure it won't get 120fps, but I'm happy with 50.

EDIT: http://www.nvidia.com.br/object/geforce_family_br.html

Here are the nvidia cards, from newest to oldest. You can see my card is right there at the botton, but like I said, I stand by it on how well it runs even the newest games.

Most importantly, you can click on each one to see their specs. Then you compare it to yours and see which one sounds good to you.

EDIT nº2: Wait, the link I posted was for their brazilian site, still you got the idea.

Even a basic 650 would perform better than what you have now. A 650ti delivers about twice the framerate of a 450. From what I heard or read, a 660 should perform 20 to 25% above the 650ti

The 650ti and 660 roughly correspond to the recommended setup for The Witcher 3 ( the minimum requirements : a old entry Geforce 240 ). Now, that game will also need a relatively powerful CPU and a good amount of RAM.

For DA:Inquisition, as far as I know, the predicted requirements are lower than those of The Witcher 3.

You might want to check "Best Graphics Cards For The Money: August 2013" from Toms Hardware. See this link:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107.html

Ermh, while the article seems extensive, my brains are not working right now. Are they suggesting nVidia or AMD ? Which one would you choose?

I have rather poor experiences with ATI GPU's in the past, so I'd prefer nVidia...

It doesn't matter, just avoid picking a cheap card because that is usually an expensive mistake (as they suck and then you'll have to buy another anyway unless you require neither high performance or graphics).

I don't think you said what CPU you had because it's usually recommended to buy a card equivalent to your CPU so not an unnecessary bottleneck appear, wasting money on one upgrade when you could have saved for an entire new computer.

A quick look at the site they seem to favour the GTX760 or HD7950.

If you can't afford them or you have a feeling (or found proof) that your CPU is too slow to make up for the new upgrade I would suggest GTX560/660Ti or HD7850/7870.

Athlon II X4 is my current CPU, though I am in the process of upgrading that to either intel's i5 or i7 in the not-so-distant future. Yes, that ugrade will also include motherboard too.

If you have an AMD CPU now you have to upgrade your motherboard. :P

If you plan to get an i5 or i7 then you don't need to bother with the bottleneck part I talked about. Just buy one of the GPUs I suggested, the one you think you can afford. (I highlighted you because I don't think your wife should had a say in this unless she's an economic or hardware expert ;)

I saw an earlier remark you mentioned about a GPU that will last a couple of years. I will say this about it: you can't know that in advance due to how technology changes but I would lean towards a no depending on what your requirements are for performance and graphics in general. If you have high requirements of one or even both of them then it's an absolute no, even with a high-end GPU for $500.

I found some crude ideas on some hardware forums where people calculated the best approach towards upgrading your computer, like the famous buy a high end card and wait longer or buy a low to med end card but more often. What's wiser? I don't remember any numbers really but the gist of the summary was that it's ideal to buy a medium to med/high-end card if you care about performance / cost ratio (best bang for the buck) but more often unless you don't really need the latest tech and is willing to buy an even older card because you only play less demanding games (or you don't have high requirements).

If you like to take a scientific approach to see what your needs actually are I suggest you download a framerate application like FRAPS then do systematic tests between low, medium to high demanding games with different graphics and find out how important either framerates or graphical fidelity is to you. This is good because then you might notice information that may help you in your need when you upgrade. For example, I prefer 60FPS in games but I don't value AA, shadows or the relatively new setting Ambient Occlusion enough that I'm willing to sacrifice my performance. You on the other hand might value shadow quality for immersion but at the same time is fine with 40FPS.

I used to have several nVidia (starting with the original TNT); now I own a AMD (ATI). The article just mentions several best values for several price ranges (sometimes it's an nVidia; sometimes it's an AMD). Personally, I don't really have a preference - and I don't think Toms hardware has. They just give several price ranges and give their opinion one which one is the best - and I tend to agree with them. Of course, in a market like this, things can change very quickly and often it is more a question of finding the best bargain (which can also depend on the country you're living in.

Another site which I found helpfull:
http://www.gpureview.com/
They provide specs for most cards and often have links to several reviews.

Good choice. TwinFrozr III is a great aftermarket cooler, it's also quieter than your regular stock fan.