Review EVGA GeForce GTX 1650 GDDR6 Review: Boosted Performance in a Crowded Market

[Admin]

The EVGA GeForce GTX 1650 GDDR6 is faster than the GDDR5 variant, but the GTX 1650 Super is 20% faster for basically the same price.

EVGA GeForce GTX 1650 GDDR6 Review: Boosted Performance in a Crowded Market : Read more

 

[NightHawkRMX]

Cool, maybe Nvidia's new card is now only a few percent behind a 3-year-old RX570 that costs $40 less.

Hey at least it's not 20-25% slower and $40 more than the 3-year-old RX570this time around.

Not impressed at all. My $80 used Sapphire Pulse RX570 4g would humiliate this card that costs double. So would my $89 Sapphire Nitro RX480 8g used.

 

[King_V]

Agreed - this is a little bit of a strange decision for Nvidia. I mean, maybe the switch to GDDR6 is just so they don't have to deal with GDDR5 anymore?

In any case, this really only slightly improves the poor standing of the 1650. It's still less capable than the RX 570 4GB. The only saving grace is significantly lower power draw. But "higher price and lower performance" tends to not be a strong selling point at this level, especially if a PCIe connector is going to be needed anyway.


EDIT: also, I didn't realize that the 5500 XT 8GB was as close to the 1660's performance as that. I had for some reason thought the gap between them was wider.

 

[JarredWaltonGPU]

Cool, maybe Nvidia's new card is now only a few percent behind a 3-year-old RX570 that costs $40 less. Hey at least it's not 20-25% slower and $40 more than the 3-year-old RX570 this time around.

Not impressed at all. My $80 used Sapphire Pulse RX570 4g would humiliate this card that costs double. So would my $89 Sapphire Nitro RX480 8g used.

Mostly agreed, though I have to say. I am super tired of the RX 570 4GB as well. It's not an efficient card, and the overall experience is underwhelming, but that's the case for just about every budget GPU. I'm not saying people should upgrade from 570 to a 1650 Super or whatever, but I wouldn't buy a 570 these days, unless it was under $100.

Really, for AMD GPUs, you want 8GB (or RX 5600 XT 6GB) -- stay away from 4GB cards. I generally recommend that same attitude for Nvidia, but Nvidia does a bit better with 4GB overall. Not with an underpowered GPU like TU117, though. Realistically, GTX 1650 GDDR5 should cost $120 now to warrant a recommendation, GTX 1650 GDDR6 for $140 would be fine, and GTX 1650 Super at $160 is good. But I'm not sure there's any margin left trying to sell 1650 at those prices.

Agreed - this is a little bit of a strange decision for Nvidia. I mean, maybe the switch to GDDR6 is just so they don't have to deal with GDDR5 anymore?

In any case, this really only slightly improves the poor standing of the 1650. It's still less capable than the RX 570 4GB. The only saving grace is significantly lower power draw. But "higher price and lower performance" tends to not be a strong selling point at this level, especially if a PCIe connector is going to be needed anyway.

EDIT: also, I didn't realize that the 5500 XT 8GB was as close to the 1660's performance as that. I had for some reason thought the gap between them was wider.

GTX 1660 is mostly tied with RX 590 (just a hair faster overall), which is also just a hair faster than the RX 5500 XT 8GB. It can vary by game -- Metro Exodus, RDR2, and Strange Brigade all seem to like the extra VRAM bandwidth of 590 more than other games -- but they're all very close. The 590 does use quite a bit more power, though.

 

[King_V]

Mostly agreed, though I have to say. I am super tired of the RX 570 4GB as well. It's not an efficient card, and the overall experience is underwhelming, but that's the case for just about every budget GPU. I'm not saying people should upgrade from 570 to a 1650 Super or whatever, but I wouldn't buy a 570 these days, unless it was under $100.

Yeah, agreed there. Still, at one point a couple of months ago, a new RX 570 4GB was going for $99.99... considering that's with a full warranty, it was a pretty impressive deal. I haven't seen it less than $119.99 these days. Ironically, it's Nvidia's unreasonable 1650 pricing that's keeping the RX 570 viable. Though I suppose a GDDR5 version of the 1650 that has no need for a PCIe connector might get sales just based on that for smaller systems with smaller PSUs.

GTX 1660 is mostly tied with RX 590 (just a hair faster overall), which is also just a hair faster than the RX 5500 XT 8GB. It can vary by game -- Metro Exodus, RDR2, and Strange Brigade all seem to like the extra VRAM bandwidth of 590 more than other games -- but they're all very close. The 590 does use quite a bit more power, though.

Yep - and, I'd have to say that, at, assuming the same price at a 5500XT 8GB, the R590 is a really hard sell given that high level (officially 225W) of draw.

 

[NightHawkRMX]

AMD's older cards are competing with their own cards like 5500xt.

 

[King_V]

AMD's older cards are competing with their own cards like 5500xt.

I wholeheartedly agree, and that is a problem that AMD brought on themselves. But, at least for AMD, they're getting a sale either way.

Nvidia is almost driving people away from the 1650 and toward the AMD Polaris cards. It seems like they don't HAVE to lose the low-end, but are choosing to do so.

The saving grace for them is the 1650 Super, which both cannibalizes the 1650/GDDR5 and 1650/GDDR6, along with giving a better price/performance than the Polaris cards and direct competition against the 5500XT

Also, the 1660 (when discounted). Though, that might be considered straddling between low-and-mid range.

 

[yeti_yeti]

It's honestly not that bad of a card, however I feel like that 6-Pin power connector kind of ruins the entire purpose of the 1650, which is to be a power-efficient, plug-and-play gpu that could be used for upgrading older pcs with sub-par power supplies, that would otherwise be unable to handle a card like rx 570, that requires a power connector. That said, the price could have also been a bit more generous (something like $115-120 would seem pretty reasonable to me).

 

[JarredWaltonGPU]

The saving grace for them is the 1650 Super, which both cannibalizes the 1650/GDDR5 and 1650/GDDR6, along with giving a better price/performance than the Polaris cards and direct competition against the 5500XT

Also, the 1660 (when discounted). Though, that might be considered straddling between low-and-mid range.

Yeah, 1650 Super is currently my top budget pick, but it's still in a precarious position. The 1660 can be found for under $200 at times and it's 15% faster, but then the proximity to the 1660 Super ($230 and another 15% faster) makes that questionable as well... but then 5600 XT is 23% faster and another $40. And then you hit diminishing returns.

5700 is only 10% faster than the 5600 XT (and costs 13% more, so still reasonable). 2060 is 4% slower but costs 11% more. And it only gets worse from there. 5700 XT is probably the next best step, and it's 10% faster than the 5700 but costs 21% more. 2060 Super costs 5% more than 5700 XT and is about 11% slower. Or 2070 Super is 5% faster than the 5700 XT but costs 36% more!

Honestly, right now it's hard to get excited about anything below the RX 5600 XT -- it offers a tremendous value proposition at the latest prices. You can make a case for just about any GPU with the right price, but performance and price combined with efficiency I'd definitely consider the 5600 XT, especially if you can find it on sale for $250 or so. Same with RX 5700. Of course, right now I'd also just wait and see what Ampere and RDNA2 bring to the party.

 

[srfdude44]

None of these can top the GTX1070. When I can afford a 2080, then I can upgrade, by then the 2080 will be where the 1070 is....sigh.

 

[JarredWaltonGPU]

None of these can top the GTX1070. When I can afford a 2080, then I can upgrade, by then the 2080 will be where the 1070 is....sigh.

Yeah, if you have a 1070, your only real upgrade path is to move to at least a 2070, probably faster. Best bet is to wait and see what the RTX 3060 and AMD equivalent (RX 6600?) can offer in performance and price. Hopefully by next year you'll be able to get 2080 levels of performance for under $300. Maybe.

 

[King_V]

None of these can top the GTX1070.

Ok, all well and good, but this article was talking about budget-level cards. The 1070 isn't part of that equation.

 

[NightHawkRMX]

In all fairness, I bought a Zotac Mini 1070 for $179 with free shipping on eBay a couple of months ago, so the price is only roughly $10 more than a 1650 super, very close. However, the price has jumped a little as of late, but it should settle down after corona.

Used will always be a better value than new, but I think mentioning a used 1070 is plenty relevant.

A healthy chunk more performance than a 1650 super, and a TON more performance than a 1650 non-super. Plus the 8gb VRAM is nice.

 

[JarredWaltonGPU]

In all fairness, I bought a Zotac Mini 1070 for $179 with free shipping on eBay a couple of months ago, so the price is only roughly $10 more than a 1650 super, very close. However, the price has jumped a little as of late, but it should settle down after corona.

Used will always be a better value than new, but I think mentioning a used 1070 is plenty relevant.

A healthy chunk more performance than a 1650 super, and a TON more performance than a 1650 non-super. Plus the 8gb VRAM is nice.

Getting into the used hardware situation is a massive can of worms. Sure, some used cards will run great, while others were used for mining and may have issues. Support and warranty is a big concern. Basically, if you know enough to deal with any potential headaches and you're in no rush, used PC hardware is generally fine, but we don't include used prices with new prices for stuff like GPUs.

I've bought used hardware plenty of times, I've sold some stuff as well over the years (my own stuff, not things provided for review). I've had some good and some very bad experiences with eBay hardware, needless to say. The bad are enough that there's no way I'd write an article recommending used hardware in general. You'd be better off going through something like Facebook Marketplace than eBay IMO.

 

[iXorizon]

how is ampere coming an excuse to put that as a con for the GPU's??? How? In what world does that make sense???

 

[JarredWaltonGPU]

how is ampere coming an excuse to put that as a con for the GPU's??? How? In what world does that make sense???

I assume you're looking at the Best Graphics Cards, not this review? In which case, the answer is simple: buying a high-end RTX card right now, when Ampere is potentially 2-3 months away, is not a good idea. If you absolutely have to buy a card today, you'd be better off buying a budget card (or a used card) to hold you over until the next gen parts arrive. Then upgrade to an RTX 3080 or whatever AMD calls Big Navi.

 

[iXorizon]

I assume you're looking at the Best Graphics Cards, not this review? In which case, the answer is simple: buying a high-end RTX card right now, when Ampere is potentially 2-3 months away, is not a good idea. If you absolutely have to buy a card today, you'd be better off buying a budget card (or a used card) to hold you over until the next gen parts arrive. Then upgrade to an RTX 3080 or whatever AMD calls Big Navi.

yeah but youre reviewing the card itself and its performance, why are you putting its' lifespan as a con? its like reviewing a gtx 660 and saying that you should just go for the newest gen.

 

[JarredWaltonGPU]

yeah but youre reviewing the card itself and its performance, why are you putting its' lifespan as a con? its like reviewing a gtx 660 and saying that you should just go for the newest gen.

I have no idea what you're referencing. I reviewed the GTX 1650 GDDR6, a relatively new card, and the three cons given are:

Basically same price as GTX 1650 Super
16% slower than GTX 1650 Super
TU117 lacks enhanced Turing NVENC

Nothing about lifespan or Ampere coming is mentioned with the low-end Turing cards that I'm aware of. The only thing I said about Ampere here is that Nvidia won't do 7nm/8nm chips until Ampere, so this particular TU117 GPU is still 12nm. Bringing up GTX 660 also makes no sense, as that card came out in 2012 whereas this GPU arrived in 2020.

The biggest problem is that GTX 1650 GDDR6 is slower than GTX 1650 Super, which costs just $10 more. If you can afford a $150-$160 1650 GDDR6, certainly you can afford $160-$170 for a card that's 20% faster for just 7% more money.

Long-term, the 4GB is also a limiting aspect, but that has nothing to do with Ampere either. That's all GPUs. If you have a 4GB card right now, in another year there will be plenty of games where that limits your options.

 

[Exploding PSU]

This GPU looks incredibly cute, I'm thinking of picking one up solely from how it looks, after considering the price and performance aspects of course.