GTX 1650ti thread - Another AMD threat

At 2 years old now, Wolfenstein 2 looks to be one of the only gaming scenarios where 4 GB vram is an issues at this performance level while able to get 60 fps+:
wolfenstein-2-1920-1080.png


Greedfall looks like it falls short at 1080p as well as it should be closer to 60 fps:

greedfall-1920-1080.png


In both scenarios, adjusting from ultra or uber textures to even very high should put the 1650 Super back within 10% of the 1660.
 
So, anyone think we will see a GTX 1630 (3 gb 96 bit gddr5) and a GTX 1630 Super (3 gb 96 bit gddr6) yet?
 
Yet another 1650 variant looks to be coming:
https://www.techpowerup.com/263851/msi-lists-geforce-gtx-1650-with-gddr6-memory
This looks to be a GDDR6 variant of the 1650 which should give performance closer to the 1650 Super.

Why is MSI doing this? Perhaps they are building a card for my original vision of the 1650 Super - a low profile version. They could be building it for system integrators, but it would be nice for those of us that have an sff case.

A 1650 with GDDR6 would be the fastest sff card by a good margin.
 
They (MSI) probably has an overstock of the original 1650 GPUs to use up. They need to offer some incentive to buyers, relative to the 1650 Super, or there won't be a way for them to use up those chips.
 
Wooshoo said:
Iterative low performance upgrades....wwoooohhhooo.
Click to expand...

If it's a low profile card, it will be a nice performance boost for those of us that are running a 1050ti or lower.

I typically 5+ year old games on 1080 high such as gta 5. This would allow me to run some newer games on high or the older ones at 1440p.
 
  • Like
Reactions: noko
like this
Nightfire said:
If it's a low profile card, it will be a nice performance boost for those of us that are running a 1050ti or lower.

I typically 5+ year old games on 1080 high such as gta 5. This would allow me to run some newer games on high or the older ones at 1440p.
Click to expand...
You are right of course and I do support smaller cards but the last time I was excited about a new card was when the Zotac mini 1050 dropped for nearly $100. I bought three or four and upgraded a few of my friends and family but that was almost 4 years ago. Since then I haven’t really seen anything at quite so low a price that was worth anything at all.
 
Decent performance and LP is always welcome. The 1050ti has been king of the LP hill for WAAAAY too long. I seriously don't understand why 3rd party doesn't make a 2060 LP, they could charge a ton and it would still sell like hotcakes... because demand.
 
Burticus said:
Decent performance and LP is always welcome. The 1050ti has been king of the LP hill for WAAAAY too long. I seriously don't understand why 3rd party doesn't make a 2060 LP, they could charge a ton and it would still sell like hotcakes... because demand.
Click to expand...

Yep, the 1650 was barely an upgrade.
It's very hard to make an LP card layout with more than a 128 bit bus. The 1650 Super had too many cores as LP cards are generally PCIE powered only.

To be clear, nothing confirmed on this being Low Profile, but it makes sense considering MSI was one of the few 1050ti LP manufactures.

Rough guess, this would be around 50% faster than a 1050ti or around RX570 levels.
 
Are they finally going to release a fully enabled 1650 chip? Otherwise, this is pointless to attach GDDR6 to it
 
defaultluser said:
Are they finally going to release a fully enabled 1650 chip? Otherwise, this is pointless to attach GDDR6 to it
Click to expand...

Actually the product list clearly says LP, and since the 1650 pushes the power envelope of an LP card already, I doubt you will get more cores.

What it doesn't state is that it will be 4 GB, but instead could be 3 GB and possibly 6 GB cards by use of a 96 bit bus. With 14GB/s memory, it would still have more bandwidth than the 1650 and be cheaper to produce.

It would be similar to what they did with the 1050, but in this case you should actually have more bandwidth.
 
Vendors must hate Nvidia right now... 1650. 1650 Super, 1650Ti, 1660, 1660 Super, and 1660Ti, and every vendor has a few different sku's for each model, eg; EVGA Black, Ultra XC.... etc etc...

I know it's good for the consumer, because they can literally have a card for every $5 price braket now, but there is so much ovelap, it creates mad confusion for the general consumer. The higher end SKU's for each product overlap with the next product, so you end up with say MSI's Gaming X 1650Ti costing more than a 1660 base... it's stupid.
The consumer looses, because average joe walks into Micro Centre thinking instead of buying a low end 1650ti, he'll spend the few extra bucks and get the Zotac AMP, or Gaming X card, mean while that price difference could have landed him the next product up. Not only is there price overlap, but you now have product performance overlap, with factory overclocks and some lower end cards shipping with GDDR6 and with factory overclocks might push the card into the next product segment, so now Average Joe makes a shit purchase.

I could be wrong but I think this is the first time there has been this much overlap with Nvidia Graphic's cards. I get they are trying to drown AMD out, but it almost makes AMD a simpler choice for the consumer, RX 580 -> 5500 - 5600 - 5700 - 5700 xt.

Alright, done my ranting.
 
Last edited:
I don't know. Nvidia just seems to be giving mainstream buyers more options.

It keeps things fresh when in actuality there haven't been any new chips.

You can't really go wrong, any of those cards will be great for entry-level rigs.
 
dave343 said:
Vendors must hate Nvidia right now... 1650. 1650 Super, 1650Ti, 1660, 1660 Super, and 1660Ti, and every vendor has a few different sku's for each model, eg; EVGA Black, Ultra XC.... etc etc...

Alright, done my ranting.
Click to expand...

It's probably just a matter of using up their GDDR5 supply. The GTX 1650 and 1660 will no doubt be phased out as the 1650ti (what I'm calling it), 1650 super and 1660 super cover these cards. Vendors don't really help with names like EVGA 1650 'Super Overclock' which is just a 1650. Still, the EVGA super name has been around for a while so blame goes to Nvidia as well.

Surprised there is no news of a 1630 GDDR6 card yet. Maybe 3GB 96 bit gddr6.

At least they are going the 'right' way with these name changes. In the past, a casual gamer could do some quick research on a GTX 1060 and then end up buying the 3 GB version, or an RX 560 buyer getting the cut down 896 core version, or worst of all, a budget gamer wanting a GTX 1030 and getting the dreaded DDR4 version.

All of the 'Super' cards are nearly as good as their higher tier older cousins ie a 2060 Super is almost a 2070.
 
Vendors don't hate Nvidia. The Refresh a Card Once a Year is pretty common (See RX 480 -> RX 580 -> RX 590). The GTX 1650 release date was April of last year.

The rest of their lineup are just price cuts. GTX 1660 with 192-bit GDDR5 is now sandwiched between the GTX 1650 Super with 128-bit GDDR6 and 1660 Super. That 1660 Super makes the 1660 Ti mostly pointless.

The reason the 1650 GDDR6 refresh is so important is ultra-portables. Notebooks will take any performance improvement they can get at 75w TDP. Dell XPS 15 is expected to ship with the 1650 Ti GDDR6 later this year.

That 1650 Super at 100w is still in the same thick gamig notebook territory (and at that point they would raher go 6GB VRAM for the target market, so wht not go 1660?). So he 1650 Super was just a RX 5500 desktop/notebook part killer.
 
Last edited:
The only value to this is the lack of a PCIe connector and LP designs. For everyone else, there are better options available.
 
kirbyrj said:
The only value to this is the lack of a PCIe connector and LP designs. For everyone else, there are better options available.
Click to expand...

I would say that is more value than releasing a bunch of 1660 Super SKUs when there was already a 1660ti, releasing a 2060 Super when there was already a 2070, etc.

It's great for budget gamers running SFF cases or those trying to upgrade in a small Dell case. For me, it could mean nearly twice the performance of my 1050ti SFF.

It looks like prices are on average $20 more than the RX570. I would say that is worth it as well considering the massive power savings which add up for some. Also, we have seen time and time again that 4 GB on Nvidia goes further than 4 GB on Polaris.
 
Nightfire said:
I would say that is more value than releasing a bunch of 1660 Super SKUs when there was already a 1660ti, releasing a 2060 Super when there was already a 2070, etc.

It's great for budget gamers running SFF cases or those trying to upgrade in a small Dell case. For me, it could mean nearly twice the performance of my 1050ti SFF.

It looks like prices are on average $20 more than the RX570. I would say that is worth it as well considering the massive power savings which add up for some. Also, we have seen time and time again that 4 GB on Nvidia goes further than 4 GB on Polaris.
Click to expand...

The 1650 Super is a far superior card if you can handle a 6-pin PCIe power connector or can use a full size card. I would probably take the 570 over this also honestly. 4GB on Nvidia goes further because it is clocked higher and has more bandwidth because of it.
 
kirbyrj said:
The 1650 Super is a far superior card if you can handle a 6-pin PCIe power connector or can use a full size card. I would probably take the 570 over this also honestly. 4GB on Nvidia goes further because it is clocked higher and has more bandwidth because of it.
Click to expand...

Well, I haven't seen benchmarks, so not sure if it is FAR superior. Obviously, the faster card is preferred, but it all comes down to $/perf.

I was unaware that higher clocks made memory go 'further', but I have no evidence to dispute it. Also, clock speed is not the only thing that determines bandwidth.
 
Nightfire said:
Well, I haven't seen benchmarks, so not sure if it is FAR superior. Obviously, the faster card is preferred, but it all comes down to $/perf.

I was unaware that higher clocks made memory go 'further', but I have no evidence to dispute it. Also, clock speed is not the only thing that determines bandwidth.
Click to expand...

https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/geforce-gtx-1650-super.c3411

https://www.thefpsreview.com/2020/02/24/asus-rog-strix-geforce-gtx-1650-super-review/

Some 30-40% better.

Yes, I understand what you are saying about bandwidth. I tend to remember Nvidia historically clocking higher on the memory with a smaller bus and AMD slower memory on a larger bus, but I could be wrong.
 
Nightfire said:
Those are comparing a 1650 Super to a 1650 gddr5. A 1650 gddr6 will have a significant performance boost over a 1650 gddr5 with the same amount of cores in the same way as a 1660 Super has a performance boost over a 1660 with the same amount of cores.
Click to expand...

You're never going to get near 30% extra just in a higher frequency memory. It just doesn't have the shaders to make that a reality. I think it will cut the 30% difference to around half that. Hard to tell though without a real review.

The 1660 Super to 1660Ti isn't nearly the same because there's only an ~8% difference in shaders vs. a ~30% difference between the 1650 and 1650 Super. Even almost doubling the speed of the memory on the 1660 Super still doesn't eclipse the 1660Ti in many benchmarks. And that's with an 8% difference in shaders. A card with 30% less shaders is going to perform like a card with 30% less shaders no matter how high the memory clocks. The 1650 Super already has 14Gbps GDDR6 so you don't have the memory speed gap like you have with the 1660S and the 1660Ti either.

The 1650 Super is superior in every way with the exception of the PCIe Aux power and no LP (I circled the train back to my original post ;) ). The 1650 GDDR6 version will probably be the best card you can buy without an extra power requirement and also the best LP card.
 
Last edited:
This card is basically a 2/3rds 1660 Super in bandwidth and cores count.

This is the best way to look at it.
That's Rx570 / 1060 3gb performance all day.

It will be closer to the 1650 super than the 1650. The 1650 gddr5 is just that bandwidth starved.

**Edit: Well, wrong I am. Looks to be about 6.4% over the GDDR5 version. Clocks were down 5%, but still lower than expected:
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/gtx-1650-gddr6-vs-gddr5-performance

**Edit 2: Chinese review is suspect with 2 digits past the decimal being used for fps. Also, 1% low may see bigger gains. Need to wait for real review.

Don't trust China. China is asshole
 
Last edited:
The RX 570 8Gb is the card you want as it offers to be the lead card in Cross Fire paired with even a RX 580 ( It works) and gives my x58 something to do as it works prefect on that old platform .. but remember the RX 570 does clock up to RX 580 levels even in memory speed .
 
Wow almost 5 years since polaris with the 470 and Nvidia still hasn't had a definitive win at this price point. Pretty wild when you think of it
 
blackmomba said:
Wow almost 5 years since polaris with the 470 and Nvidia still hasn't had a definitive win at this price point. Pretty wild when you think of it
Click to expand...

It's not hard to think that it's all about Polaris and being the prefect card at the right price on a budget as why Jen was bitching about RX 580 laying waste to Nvidia's low end sales not so long ago ..
 
blackmomba said:
Wow almost 5 years since polaris with the 470 and Nvidia still hasn't had a definitive win at this price point. Pretty wild when you think of it
Click to expand...
AMD doesn't have a definitive win over it either with their $180 4GB 5500xt.
 
cybereality said:
Interesting. Seems like Nvidia is giving a lot of choices here, maybe too many, but we'll see where these cards land.
Click to expand...

agreed. I don’t buy much hardware anymore, but when I do I am old school and I go for the second from the top.Back in the day, far fewer choices and usually the second card was value for the money and could play most anything out there
 
I realize this is the longest thread about the most pointless of cards, but whatever.

Here is another side by side:


Interesting to note that the GDDR6 version was using about 1 GB more system ram in 5 out of 9 tests. I would like to see how that affects budget systems with 8 GB ram.

All games saw only a 5% improvement over the GDDR5 version. Compare this to the 15%+ boost that the 1660 Super sees over the 1660.

Going on a GFLOP to bandwidth ratio in gb/s
1650 G5: 23
1650 G6: 14.5
1660: 25
1660S : 15

Strange that the 1650 G6 did not get the same performance boost.
 
kirbyrj said:
Do these cards come without a PCIe power requirement?
Click to expand...


If they had no ppower connector previously, then they will continue to do so in the refit (Not all gtx 1650 cards use only bus power).

Nvidia lowered GPU boost cocks to make-up the power difference in going GDDR6 memory. That's the reason the cards are only 5% faster.
 
whateverer said:
If they had no ppower connector previously, then they will continue to do so in the refit (Not all gtx 1650 cards use only bus power).

Nvidia lowered GPU boost cocks to make-up the power difference in going GDDR6 memory. That's the reason the cards are only 5% faster.
Click to expand...

Like I said above, that's the only real draw to these cards. If you're going to use aux power at all, you might as well spend the extra $10 and get the 1650 Super. If the 1650 Super was $180 and these were $150, that might be different, but at $160, it seems like a no brainer for the extra horsepower.
 
Tested by Gamer's Nexus. He got a little better performance boost than other reviews. Closer to 10% at clock parity:


However, those same performance boosts cost the equivelant in performance consumption as seen with Time spy.
Screenshot_20200418-070829_YouTube.jpg


So this explains the clock drop on these cards. When limited to no PCI-e as in a LP version, performance improvements will be near 0 as far as max oc to max oc goes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top