News GeForce GTX 1630 Specs Leaked: 512 CUDA Cores, 4GB GDDR6

[Admin]

VideoCardz shares the alleged specifications for Nvidia's rumored GeForce GTX 1630 gaming graphics card.

GeForce GTX 1630 Specs Leaked: 512 CUDA Cores, 4GB GDDR6 : Read more

 

[King_V]

Kind of confusing, and the specs suggest that the 1630 will underperform the 6400. I think? If the 6400 is in the ballpark of the 1650, it seems like this very cut down version will be notably below that.

Side note: Now that I'm reminded of the multiple GTX 1650 GDDR6 variants - was it ever determined if the TU106, TU116, and TU117 versions of the 1650 GDDR6 all performed the same? Or did any variant have a particular advantage?

 

[thisisaname]

Looks to me it is not competing with the AMD it is to replace the 1030.

 

[Eximo]

Lower core count than a GTX1050 or even an MX350, so, yeah, not going to be that fast, but probably a little faster than the GT1030 GDDR5.

I was curious myself how the various 1650 compare. GDDR6 models have faster memory but lower clock speeds than the GDDR5 version.

 

[PiranhaTech]

Looks to me it is not competing with the AMD it is to replace the 1030.

This is what I'm thinking as well. The GT1030 is more of a utility card for me, when I just need a basic card that can drive 1080p60 or above. Sometimes it's the case where I'm having issues with the Intel drivers (note: haven't used Intel integrated for a while so this may have changed)

 

[Eximo]

Intel drivers still have random issues. My new Dell laptop has Iris Xe graphics, and luckily, an MX350. When I first got it the screen would go black when advertisements on websites loaded. Particularly embedded video players. I tried getting the latest Intel drivers, that did not help. Turned off hardware acceleration, that worked, but then websites were very slow. So I had to turn acceleration back on and tell all my browsers to use the Nvidia card, no issues since.

If the reviews of the new Xe graphics cards are anything to go by, Intel drivers are horrendous. A lot of game titles just won't launch or they have terrible render issues and glitches. I hope they can figure it out though. I am mildly interested in their lowest end card to replace my GT1030 so I can have an HDMI 2.1 port without getting an RTX card or an RX 6400.

 

[Co BIY]

I think the key question for this class of card is: How much of an improvement is it over integrated graphics?

 

[hushnecampus]

I think the key question for this class of card is: How much of an improvement is it over integrated graphics?

That’s what I was thinking. Would you want one of these and presumably a cheap CPU, rather than an APU?

 

[cryoburner]

The GeForce GTX 1630's exact MSRP is still up in the air, but the Turing-based graphics card will likely have a sub-$150 price tag. The GeForce GTX 1650 and Radeon RX 6400 have a $148 and $159 MSRP, respectively, so the GeForce GTX 1630 will have to go very low to compete. However, we would love to see the GeForce GTX 1630 retail between $100 to $120 since we haven't seen a GeForce GTX graphics card in that price range since Pascal (GeForce GTX 1050 and GTX 1050 Ti).

I would hope the price would be well below $150. In fact, it arguably should be under $100, considering it appears to offer somewhere around GTX 1050-level performance, a card that launched with a $109 starting MSRP well over five years ago. The fact they are moving it to "GTX" branding tells me they might intend to position it over $100 though, despite it likely not offering much over a 5+ year old card at that price point, aside from the additional VRAM.

Looks to me it is not competing with the AMD it is to replace the 1030.

If it has a 75 watt TDP, it may be a bit pickier about the low-wattage power supplies found in some prebuilt systems compared to the 20-30 watt GT 1030, and cooling might also be more of a concern under load.

 

[Rdslw]

That's just the cheapest possible card. A lot of times that was still 730 as 1030 was not priced right lately. If they have spare cores, and I assume they got enough partially damaged 1650's to make them into 1630's.
1030 was also last card to be featured in the upgradable laptop format size. I wonder if 1630 will be as well. We would be able to make interesting frankenstein laptops....

 

[King_V]

Lower core count than a GTX1050 or even an MX350, so, yeah, not going to be that fast, but probably a little faster than the GT1030 GDDR5.

I was curious myself how the various 1650 compare. GDDR6 models have faster memory but lower clock speeds than the GDDR5 version.

Well, the GDDR6 version definitely outperformed the GDDR5 version, despite the lower clock speeds. My thought is that the impetus to move to GDDR6 was because of the embarrassment of the 1650 GDDR5 underperforming the 1060 3GB (where the amount of VRAM wasn't an issue), and definitely under the RX 570 4GB.

The update to GDDR6, along with lower clock speeds, brought it up to nipping at the 570 4GB's heels. That definitely suggests that the 1650 was choked on VRAM bandwidth.

As to the 3 different variants of the 1650 GDDR6, I'm curious as to whether there's any real world difference in performance given the different chips involved.