The 1030 does not come in 3GB flavors, so OP must have a 3GB 1060. I agree that "upgrading" to a 1650S from there makes very little sense unless he desperately needs that extra 1GB.
Depends on the specific game but in general you might get 10 FPS more not worth it.
The GTX1650S is 5-10% faster than the 3GB GTX1060 so long as you use game settings that won't blow through 3GB. With settings that flex the 1650S' 4GB, then the 1650S becomes 20-40% faster.
Waiting until after reviews shouldn't be too much of an issue considering how limited availability on the 3070-3090 still is.
Still not worth it.
Those two are kind of two sides of the same coin: if you wait long enough and continue setting money aside, you end up having more money to spend on new entry-level GPUs.
Though we know about a 3060 Ti, which will probably land at 400$.
With next-gen IGPs bumping performance up quite a bit, $150 GPUs may not be viable for much longer unless we're talking something like a GT710 successor intended mainly for providing extra monitor outputs, then I can imagine a RT-less, tensor-less, 32bits GDDR6 GA108 for the GT3010.
Maybe so, but, those better Igpus aren't here yet, so that might be applicable for the next gen, rtx 4000 series, which will have intel Xe breathing on it, and probably AMD working on RDNA for ryzen 6000.
They will be by the time a hypothetical RTX3030 based on a cut-down GA107 might be announced a couple of months after the RTX3050 launches. Also, if the supply situation with the RTX3070 and up persists, launches of lower-end parts will likely get delayed either explicitly or in effect by availability being nonexistent.
Rumors suggest that intel 11th gen with Xe graphics will launch mid-late Q1, meaning probably around march.
Xe is already out on Intel Tiger Lake laptops and at least on laptops, Xe beats Vega 11 by around 10-40% depending on the game, making it a much better "light gaming" option at least on mobile. Xe is likely going to be a better option for low end gaming on desktop over Ryzen APUs until AMD finally gets around to updating or replacing Vega. I'm actually considering getting a cheaper 12-13" 2 in 1 with Xe, to replace my old Dell Inspiron 11 3000 i3-4010U 2 in 1 that I bought used for $350 in 2015.
True, but it's still not even close to the 1650 super, being around 60-80% slower.
I got Vega 8 benchmarks mixed up when I was comparing Xe to Vega 11. The whole thing is such a mess with Intel's product naming, that I'm constantly getting things confused, so a lot of other benchmark data I saw is probably wrong too when comparing to older hardware. I'm trying to remember the articles I had seen with some benchmark data, but with the laptops plugged in and running full power, the Xe was something like up to 40% faster than Ryzen with Vega 8 on some games and only a bit faster or slower on others.
While the mx350 is based on the 1050, and the mx450 on the 1650, they are not even close to each other in performance.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram