News GeForce GTX 1630 Proves the RX 6400 Is the Hero We Needed

King_V

Illustrious
Ambassador
I read the title...

GeForce GTX 1630 Proves the RX 6400 Is the Hero We Needed

and my brain cringed a little when it saw that line of text on the screen. But, the title is . . correct?


"Radeon RX 6400 delivered 57% higher performance than the GeForce GTX 1630. "

Ouch. Also, that, at the best case, the 1630 draws only 3W less, and in the worst case, draws 15W more than the RX 6400. Double-ouch.
 

PiranhaTech

Reputable
Mar 20, 2021
134
86
4,660
I can somewhat give AMD a little slack because the RX 6400 was during the crypto mess and some of us wanted a GPU to hold us over, though it should be a $70-120 card. I was hoping more from Nvidia
 
The most logical comparison for this level GPU is with integrated graphics. And that is completely missing in the article.
Nope. The card is supposedly priced at around $150, the same MSRP that Nvidia gave the ~60% faster 1650 when it launched over 3 years ago, and within $10 of the RX 6400's price. Though neither Nvidia or the card manufacturer would supply TechPowerUp with official pricing information, probably because they are trying to hold onto former crypto-market pricing for as long as possible for these lower end cards. Granted, the 1650 is also typically still marked up to over $200, but it's possible to find the 6400 for as little as its $160 MSRP now. So the most logical comparison is with other similarly-priced cards on the market. In any case, the better current-generation integrated graphics solutions tend to perform roughly in the vicinity of a 1030, a card included in their comparison, though the exact performance level can vary depending on memory configuration and the processor being compared.

The only thing Nvidia got right with the GeForce GTX 1630 may be the graphics card's power consumption. It has a 75W TDP, so the recommended power supply is a 300W unit.
Except the power draw is bad too, at least for the performance on offer. Going by Techpowerup's article, the power draw of the 1630 is nearly identical to the RX 6400, despite the 6400 offering close to 60% more performance. Keep in mind that the GTX 1030 had a 30 watt TDP, or 20 watts for the DDR4 model, so that's a big increase in power draw over the card's similarly-numbered predecessor. And while a 20-30 watt card will most likely work fine with just about any low-end power supply in a prebuilt system, the 1630 can potential climb up into the 65-70 watt range, which is more likely to result in an unstable system on such a PSU.
 

neojack

Reputable
Apr 4, 2019
605
173
5,140
I think this class of card has a role to play for repurposing refurb office PCs (cheap Dell, HP towers on ebay or local stores) into entry-level gaming PCs

I believe they are the most powerfull option for if someone search for cards without 6-pin connectors ?
 
I think this class of card has a role to play for repurposing refurb office PCs (cheap Dell, HP towers on ebay or local stores) into entry-level gaming PCs

I believe they are the most powerfull option for if someone search for cards without 6-pin connectors ?
No, RX 6400s and many GTX 1650s also don't require additional power, and have similar power draw, despite offering around 60% more performance. So there's not really much point in the 1630, unless it drops to a significantly lower price point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cyrusfox and King_V

Co BIY

Splendid
I think this class of card has a role to play for repurposing refurb office PCs (cheap Dell, HP towers on ebay or local stores) into entry-level gaming PCs

Maybe the cheapest way to run three monitors or more.

What kind of Hardware is behind the new (ish) screen menus at all the restaurants?
 
I really don't understand these cards at all with these prices. (Unless your intent is to upgrade an older prebuilt for e-sports, or much older titles.) As the article states the 1650 has a similar price and performs much better. And the 6400 is in the ballpark also.

Entry level should be RX480/580/590/6400 levels of performance now. This is 1080p at medium settings.

Any thing else I would think you would better off going 5700g APU if doing a new system build. That will get you 720p gaming and a much lower system price.
 
  • Like
Reactions: martinch

lightofhonor

Distinguished
Feb 29, 2012
34
24
18,545
Do you remember when the RX 570 cost $120 and offered twice the performance?
It's hard to believe that was only 3 years ago. But such is the progress of technology, always marching forward into the brighter future of tomorrow.
3 years ago the RX 570 was already a 2 year old card. I'm sure these prices will come down as they clear out inventory near EOL but with rising costs and inflation we may not see a decent sub-$100 card again sadly :(
 

King_V

Illustrious
Ambassador
Um, let's not forget the release prices of those older cards versus the "cheapest we ever saw them" prices.

I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm not impressed with the 1630's price or performance, but the RX 570 was released at $169.99, in 2017. About $202 today.

Still better than what we're seeing today price/performance-wise, but using $120 as the reference point probably is a little unfair.

Also, I feel kind of dirty now trying to offer even a little defense of the 1630.
 
3 years ago the RX 570 was already a 2 year old card. I'm sure these prices will come down as they clear out inventory near EOL but with rising costs and inflation we may not see a decent sub-$100 card again sadly :(
The card might have been a couple years old at that time, but the fact still stands that the RX 570 is still a slightly faster card than any of these models. The only real advantage they hold over it is lower power consumption and in turn heat output. And the 1650 itself launched for $150 over three years ago, so it's arguably EOL at this point, and certainly shouldn't be selling for over $200. Rising costs may be playing a role, but this is still largely a market recovering from the cryptocurrency price-gouging of last year, and manufacturers are trying to hold onto those higher prices for as long as they can.

As for decent sub-$100 budget gaming cards, I don't think those have really been a thing for the last decade. Cards like the 1030 were hardly decent, as they were only roughly on-par with the integrated graphics in AMD's processors at the time. Still, a new card shouldn't be offering significantly worse performance at a similar price point as cards that came out years before it.
 
The most logical comparison for this card is a toilet with money getting flushed down it. I don't see any realistic scenario where purchasing this card makes sense.
If my keyboard wasn't an avid tea drinker, I'd say you owe me one. Well done xD

And a about the article... Yikes. Talk about fumbling the ball. I know nVidia doesn't like measuring itself against AMD, but at least they should have seen the massive push back it had xD

Regards.
 

Co BIY

Splendid
Maybe the cheapest way to run three monitors or more.

What kind of Hardware is behind the new (ish) screen menus at all the restaurants?

You can do that with standard off the shelf intel core chips. You can even run 3 monitors with goldmount, goldmount+, ....gemini lake, which is the predecessor to sunny cove e cores.

I think many (most?) motherboards only have two video outputs. Is there a way to add outputs without an add-in video card ?
 
Among new boards (B660) I saw a couple that have 2 HDMI plus 2 DP so there are options for 4 monitors out of iGPU.
It's not down to how many ports, but what the GPU can actually handle. From memory, integrated Intel graphics can handle 3 monitors at 1080p@60Hz with no problem (think office work), but above that, you start running into issues with them. AMD and nVidia have a little of this as well and, again, from memory, I do recall some cards where you can't use the last HDMI port if you have all 3 DPs in use and some other restrictions like that. My point is: there's always a lot of fine print on monitor support around GPUs and specially true for Intel iGPUs.

Regards.