News GTX 1630 on Par With GTX 1050 Ti, Benchmarks Show

[Admin]

Nvidia's GTX 1630 is shaping up to be the slowest entry-level GPU we've seen in a long time. With new benchmarks reporting performance parity with the six-year-old GTX 1050 Ti.

GTX 1630 on Par With GTX 1050 Ti, Benchmarks Show : Read more

 

[-Fran-]

Hm... Maybe I was wrong in my previous assumption and nVidia DID notice how people complained about the 6400 and 6500XT siblings by focusing on the lack of encoding features, so they're now just charging you for those instead as a "main" feature and not the abysmal performance xD!

I mean, it would make sense from nVidia's standpoint:
-> people whines endlessly about lack of features and don't care about performance/watt
-> releases card that sucks at performance BUT has encoding features the rival doesn't
-> ...
-> profit

Regards xD

 

[King_V]

Except that Intel A380 has not quite as sucky performance, and MORE encoding options...

 

[Kridian]

I mean... just why even call it, "entry level" when's it's this neutered?

 

[InvalidError]

Except that Intel A380 has not quite as sucky performance, and MORE encoding options...

And 2GB more VRAM, and one extra video output, and ultra-basic RT, and a possibility of getting better than it currently is with driver maturity.

If I had to spend ~$150 on a slot filler because my GTX1050 decided to die before anything decent entered my palatable price-to-performance range under $200, the A380 looks like it may possibly be the least sucky of current options.

 

[Alvar "Miles" Udell]

Remember when cards like this cost under $50?

 

[ThatMouse]

Looks like a good HTPC option. Not everyone buys a video card for gaming.

 

[InvalidError]

Remember when cards like this cost under $50?

Did they have 4GB of GDDR6? That alone costs $35-40 in bulk.

To hit $50 and still make some sort of profit, you would have to drop to 2GB of DDR4, aim under 20W to keep HSF cost at the absolute bare minimum and possibly need a GPU die even smaller than GP108's already tiny 74sqmm. If Nvidia put such a thing together, it may not even be worthy of getting called a GT1610.

Basically, we'd be back to the good ole' days of ultra-basic GPUs getting laughed at as "graphics decelerators" for being generally worse than most contemporary IGPs.

 

[JWNoctis]

Remember when cards like this cost under $50?

Remember when GTX was something like second-to-best?

Granted, letters can be rather more confusing than numbers for market segmentation.

Did they have 4GB of GDDR6? That alone costs $35-40 in bulk.

To hit $50 and still make some sort of profit, you would have to drop to 2GB of DDR4, aim under 20W to keep HSF cost at the absolute bare minimum and possibly need a GPU die even smaller than GP108's already tiny 74sqmm. If Nvidia put such a thing together, it may not even be worthy of getting called a GT1610.

Basically, we'd be back to the good ole' days of ultra-basic GPUs getting laughed at as "graphics decelerators" for being generally worse than most contemporary IGPs.

Many current and most next-generation processors already have some graphics capability anyway. I'd say that pricing and market segment is no more.

 

[Alvar "Miles" Udell]

Did they have 4GB of GDDR6? That alone costs $35-40 in bulk.

To hit $50 and still make some sort of profit, you would have to drop to 2GB of DDR4, aim under 20W to keep HSF cost at the absolute bare minimum and possibly need a GPU die even smaller than GP108's already tiny 74sqmm. If Nvidia put such a thing together, it may not even be worthy of getting called a GT1610.

Basically, we'd be back to the good ole' days of ultra-basic GPUs getting laughed at as "graphics decelerators" for being generally worse than most contemporary IGPs.

I was talking about entry level cards such as the HD 5450 which were not gaming cards, but were great in HTPCs due to being inexpensive, passive, low profile, better than integrated, and supported advanced Dolby and DTS audio, not to mention it supported three simultaneous displays. They were also great cards to keep for a spare in the event your primary card died and could take two weeks, or longer, for RMA.

And cards like the 4550, 5550, and 6450 were praised by TomsHardware during their reviews for their HTPC capabilities, passive nature, and low prices.

 

[InvalidError]

I'd say that pricing and market segment is no more.

There will always be an ultra-low-end market for people who simply want more display outputs than whatever graphics are already present can provide.

The biggest problem with the $150-200 entry-level price range is manufacturers are being greedy, wanting to push their gross profit margins on entry-level GPUs as close to enthusiast margins as possible while providing as little value as possible to force people to take a step up on the price ladder, so we get generation upon generation of either underwhelming entry-level offerings or nothing whatsoever, especially during a component shortage and crypto boom.

The component shortages and crypto boom are mostly over. This should have an interesting effect on next-gen GPU sales and with some luck, AMD and Nvidia will have a renewed interest in competing at the largely untapped and heavily neglected lower-end for sales when their new stuff at likely further inflated MSRPs fails to meet inflated sales expectations from covid and crypto boom.

And cards like the 4550, 5550, and 6450 were praised by TomsHardware during their reviews for their HTPC capabilities, passive nature, and low prices.

I wouldn't use a passively cooled GPU, own one, wouldn't buy another. Kind of pointless when you have to make sure there is a case fan pointed at it to prevent it from running obscenely hot since natural convection keeps hot air trapped around the source in a conventional tower setup.

Also, if you aren't going to use your HTPC for 3D, you can just use the IGP until new CODECs not supported by the IGP and too spicy for software-decode on the CPU come along. That is much cheaper, power-efficient and easier to cool than the cheapest GPU.

 

[rluker5]

It would make a good PhysX card.

 

[egda23]

Well, on Steam’s video cards chart the 1050ti is still number 3.
Not everybody is shelling out hundreds of €/$ just to play a little bit

 

[TerryLaze]

Well, on Steam’s video cards chart the 1050ti is still number 3.
Not everybody is shelling out hundreds of €/$ just to play a little bit

The problem isn't so much the amount of performance, 1050ti is ok for low end, the issue is that it's the 1050ti performance 6 years later at the same price as back then.

 

[egda23]

The problem isn't so much the amount of performance, 1050ti is ok for low end, the issue is that it's the 1050ti performance 6 years later at the same price as back then.

It the price will be under 180 wathever’, it will sell.
It’s the only thing that many people look at

 

[TerryLaze]

It the price will be under 180 wathever’, it will sell.
It’s the only thing that many people look at

I'm just explaining why some people are upset.
Yes anything will sell if the price is right, that's not the issue.

 

[-Fran-]

Except that Intel A380 has not quite as sucky performance, and MORE encoding options...

And it's in China only. For now at least. Until Intel actually decides to bring it to the other markets, I am not holding my breath.

Regards.

 

[JWNoctis]

The problem isn't so much the amount of performance, 1050ti is ok for low end, the issue is that it's the 1050ti performance 6 years later at the same price as back then.

Another problem is, the performance of either (as well as most of their competitors in the same weight class) will be matched or exceeded by a hypothetical desktop Zen 3+/4 RDNA2 APU, especially when paired with memory of better performance than what's available to laptops, when and if that comes out. Something analogous from Intel is possible, but less than likely.

This only leaves those favouring a different processor, those needing multiple displays, or those fancying a discrete GPU.

Could be a while before those come out, still!

 

[TerryLaze]

Another problem is, the performance of either (as well as most of their competitors in the same weight class) will be matched or exceeded by a hypothetical desktop Zen 3+/4 RDNA2 APU, especially when paired with memory of better performance than what's available to laptops, when and if that comes out. Something analogous from Intel is possible, but less than likely.

This only leaves those favouring a different processor, those needing multiple displays, or those fancying a discrete GPU.

Could be a while before those come out, still!

While the APUs make sense for some people it's an added cost (they are not the same price as the same CPU only) and on top of that it's in expense to the CPU performance, also you lose close to 4Gb of system memory if you play a somewhat demanding game, it's not for everybody and especially not for people that will upgrade only the GPU in 2-3 years.

 

[Sluggotg]

Actually the 1630 is available from EVGA for $199. Also on EVGA you can buy the standard version of the 3050 for $250, (currently out of stock, it comes and goes), the Overclocked version of the 3050 is$329. The standard 3050 is twice as fast for $50 more than the 1630. I just don't see it as a viable card at that price. The 1630 should have been more like $150. It may not be profitable at that price though.
At least the premium 3k series is readily available and the prices keeps screaming down.

 

[King_V]

Remember when cards like this cost under $50?

No.

Unless you're doing the "and gas was only 17 cents a gallon" thing as well...

 

[King_V]

And it's in China only. For now at least. Until Intel actually decides to bring it to the other markets, I am not holding my breath.

Regards.

That's fair to a degree. I don't see Intel keeping it as China only, though. That would be a bit strange.

Plus, with the 1630's release, it's like Nvidia opened the door for Intel in the rest of the world. "Man, we made such a sucky video card that even your A380 puts it to shame... come on, bring it in to the rest of the world market!"

 

[InvalidError]

While the APUs make sense for some people it's an added cost (they are not the same price as the same CPU only) and on top of that it's in expense to the CPU performance, also you lose close to 4Gb of system memory if you play a somewhat demanding game, it's not for everybody and especially not for people that will upgrade only the GPU in 2-3 years.

IGPs have been in practically every mainstream Intel CPU for the last 10 years, albeit disabled in some SKUs for a $0-20 discount and makes little difference in CPU performance when you don't actually use it. The expense in system memory is not particularly bad when you have 16GB of RAM, negligible when you have 32GB and the IGP only reserves that memory when actually needed too. Since the IGP shares system memory, using it eliminates the need to make local copies of game assets and contributes to lowering the memory footprint.

And AMD's next-gen CPUs will all have at least a basic IGP baked into their IOD too.

 

[Neilbob]

Actually the 1630 is available from EVGA for $199. Also on EVGA you can buy the standard version of the 3050 for $250, (currently out of stock, it comes and goes), the Overclocked version of the 3050 is$329. The standard 3050 is twice as fast for $50 more than the 1630. I just don't see it as a viable card at that price. The 1630 should have been more like $150. It may not be profitable at that price though.
At least the premium 3k series is readily available and the prices keeps screaming down.

That wouldn't be so bad if the 3050 wasn't (in my opinion) also pretty bad value at $250.

 

[InvalidError]

That wouldn't be so bad if the 3050 wasn't (in my opinion) also pretty bad value at $250.

The RTX3050 would be decent value at $200, especially when you keep in mind that the RX6600 is ~50% faster and can sometimes be had for under $300.