[SOLVED] Is there any point buying an Overclocked Graphics Card?

[rajeshja]

I'm looking to buy a budget graphics card, and have settled on the GTX 1650/1660/1660Ti cards based on budget and my needs.

My current rig is:
CPU: i5 9600K
MotherBoard: Asus Prime B360M-A
RAM: 2x Corsair Vengeance LPX 16GB 3000MHz C16
Storage: WD Green PC 240GB M.2 SATA III
plus a number of older spinning disk drives
CPU Cooler: Antec C400
PSU: Corsair CX Series CX550

I have sufficient clearance on my cabinet for the GPUs so that's not a concern either.

My use-case is learning game development, and some casual gaming. But if I write a high quality game, I would want to be able to test it out, though that's not going to happen frequently.

I'm leaning towards the GTX 1650 because I'm not sure I have the need for anything more powerful. The supposedly better value for money AMD RX 570 seems significantly more expensive here in India, so I'm ignoring it for now.

The brands that are available are Zotac, Inno3D, Galax, Gigabyte, Asus and MSI. Are the first 3 really any worse than the latter 3? The price differential is significant at 25% higher for an Asus card over an Inno3D one.

Also, Inno3D and Galax have OC and 1-Click OC versions for just a little more money. However when I look at the specs, I'm not sure whether the OC cards are really faster.

The Inno3D Geforce GTX 1650 Compact has a Boost Clock at 1665 MHz.
The Inno3D Geforce GTX 1650 TWIN X2 OC claims a Boost Clock at 1710 MHz. This is 2.7% higher than the regular one, and costs 3% more.
GALAX GeForce GTX 1650 EX (1-Click OC) has a Boost Clock 1680 MHz and a 1-Click OC Clock of 1695 MHz. This is 1.8% faster and costs 7% more.

Am I looking at the right numbers to compare speeds? Why bother overclocking at all for paltry 2-3% improvement? Should the OC speeds for the 1-click OC card be compared to the base clock rather than boost clock?

Is OC just a marketing gimmick here?

The Asus ROG Strix GeForce GTX 1650 OC Edition costs a little more (3.5%) than the Inno3d GeForce GTX 1660 Twin X2, but also has a higher Boost Clock (1830/1860 vs 1785).

What parameters should I really be looking at when comparing cards from various brands? I would think a 1660 is better than 1650 no matter which brand you go to, but I'm no longer sure. Of course I understand that the more expensive cards come with better components or features, but for my use-case does it really matter?

 

[SkyNetRising]

Don't worry about GPU overclocks. They are not significant.
Worry about gpu cooling solution.
Avoid single fan cooling, if possible. Cooling with copper heatpipes is better than simple aluminium block.

And performance difference between GTX 1650 and GTX 1660 is pretty big. Difference between GTX 1660 and GTX 1660 ti - not so much.
https://www.techspot.com/review/1835-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1650/

 

[rajeshja]

Don't worry about GPU overclocks. They are not significant.
Worry about gpu cooling solution.
Avoid single fan cooling, if possible. Cooling with copper heatpipes is better than simple aluminium block.

And performance difference between GTX 1650 and GTX 1660 is pretty big. Difference between GTX 1660 and GTX 1660 ti - not so much.
https://www.techspot.com/review/1835-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1650/

Thanks. When it comes to dual fan cooling, does the direction of the fans matter? One of the brands claimed superior airflow because their fans rotate in opposite directions, hence no turbulence between both fans.

 

[SkyNetRising]

Probably there is some small benefit from anti-turbulence system.
But don't worry about it too much. It's more of a marketing thing. Doesn't make any radical difference.

 

[rajeshja]

Probably there is some small benefit from anti-turbulence system.
But don't worry about it too much. It's more of a marketing thing. Doesn't make any radical difference.

Thanks. Should I also assume that the brand names themselves don't matter? Inno3D or Asus, it's still the same chip?

 

[SkyNetRising]

Chip is the same. That's correct. But manufacturer matters.
Build quality, components used, custom pcb design, cooling solution - all of that is done by manufacturer.

Essentially it all boils down to price difference. If price difference is small, then go with more reputable and better recognized brand.
If difference is significant, then you may want to consider some less reputable brands also.

 

[-Fran-]

In terms of what to look out for, as @SkyNetRising already pointed out to and myself adding to it:
1.- GPU type (in your case, 1660 being the fastest option)
2.- Cooling Solution (Asus Strix 1650 being the best option from the bunch IMO)
3.- Warranty (Asus might be better)
4.- OC headroom.

Usually, number 1 should be the deciding factor and 2+3 should complement 1. If you have a really shoddy "good" GPU vs a quality "second place performer" GPU, you could make the argument of getting the "second place performer".

Also, why not AMD cards? In that price range they have good options in the RX580 cards.

Cheers!

 

[rajeshja]

Also, why not AMD cards? In that price range they have good options in the RX580 cards.

Cheers!

Thanks for recommending the RX 580. I hadn't evaluated that card before. However, since it has a higher power draw and is slightly slower than the 1660 while still costing approximately the same - albeit for a Sapphire Nitro+ vs an Inno3D, I'll be sticking to Nvidia for now.