GeForce GTX 1650 Review: Turing at $150

[Julio Franco]

Based on the TU117 die the new GeForce GTX 1650 still includes all of the new Turing shader innovations that improve performance and efficiency. The TDP is just 75 watts, meaning it doesn't require external power, making it the fastest graphics card available that won't need external PCIe power.

Read the full article here.

https://www.techspot.com/review/1835-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1650/

 

[Nate092]

Yikes ......
(besides the low power comsuption)
RX 570 is superior option (since can find much cheaper and have 8GB models).....oh no guys lets wait on the (we all know will come sooner than later NVIDIA segmenting/saturating the market) 1024~1280 core GTX 1650 TI* guys...LOL

 

[whatajoke]

Anyone who pay for this under performance overpriced crap should get their heads examined.

 

[amghwk]

$150 even for the rock bottom "entry card" is very much bloated.

This should have been a sub-$100 card.

I think including some cards from Pascal and Maxwell generation in these benchmarks would have shown what a perfromer this card is, and if owners of previous budget cards would want to "upgrade" to this over-priced not-really-a-budget card.

 

[TrexAverell]

Once again Nvidia doing Nvidia

 

[yeeeeman]

This card should be 100$ tops.

 

[Jon Tseng]

I wonder if the lack of external power requirement is the killer feature. Sure its cheap to upgrade your PSU but there's a bunch of more casual users who just wouldn't do that no matter how cheap (think ppl with a pre-built system who are scared of voiding warranty).

IIRC the 1050 Ti was a "PUBG" card aimed at casual-ish Chinese gamers who wanted to try this multiplayer schtick. Maybe we should think of the 1650 as a "Fortnite" card aimed a folks who wanna upgrade from playing Fortnite on their mobile to their dusty old desktop.

Agree for a more serious user this part doesn't make much sense tho.

 

[Puiu]

I wonder if the lack of external power requirement is the killer feature. Sure its cheap to upgrade your PSU but there's a bunch of more casual users who just wouldn't do that no matter how cheap (think ppl with a pre-built system who are scared of voiding warranty).

IIRC the 1050 Ti was a "PUBG" card aimed at casual-ish Chinese gamers who wanted to try this multiplayer schtick. Maybe we should think of the 1650 as a "Fortnite" card aimed a folks who wanna upgrade from playing Fortnite on their mobile to their dusty old desktop.

Agree for a more serious user this part doesn't make much sense tho.

The video cards used here require a cable from the PSU. The one that draws power from just the PCIe slot will prolly have lower performance.

 

[Lounds]

So this article proves that the RX580 is and was the better option to the GTX 1060, yet Steam shows that the 1060 outsold nearly 15:1

Why are consumers such *****s.

 

[Mr Majestyk]

The only positive is it's faster than the old 1050 Ti but to not even reach 1060 3GB performance for most cases is quite sad IMO. $99 top or just make them for laptops as a decent upgrade from Intel's cr@p iGPU.

 

[Puiu]

So this article proves that the RX580 is and was the better option to the GTX 1060, yet Steam shows that the 1060 outsold nearly 15:1

Why are consumers such *****s.

You can't blame them. For over a year the 580 was much more expensive and with low stocks.

 

[ET3D]

All in all, a nice generational gap, but at too high a cost. This launches at a higher price than the 1050 Ti launched at, and it's not a Ti product. Also, TU117 is 202 mm2 compared to 132 mm2 for the GP107 and 200 mm2 for the GP106 (GeForce 1060 / Ti), which is a 16nm chip. While we still don't have the 1650 Ti for comparison, apart from a little drop in power, it doesn't seem like Turing is actually worth it.

The GeForce 1650 seems like it's destined for low power PCs, and possibly passive / low profile versions will provide the fastest cards for those niches.

 

[LogiGaming]

GTX 1660 still the best card money can buy. Even if this website states otherwise. I can find them for 230€ here in Europe with Black Ops 4 Bundled. That card is the best overclocker since the gtx 460 days (if someone remembers), and even when compared to a 1660ti max overclocked, it is behind by 5%.

RX 570 is cheap and great performance for the price, but it uses more power wich can be a concern on a lot of people systems, on this price range. A lot of people buying cheap cards can´t upgrade their PSU or are using HTPCs.

GTX 1650 should have been a 100€-120€ GPU at max. At this price is DOA. But I would make the effort to save up for a GTX 1660, by far. No other card can beat its value, if you use MSI Afterburner and drag a slider to the right.

 

[grumblguts]

If you played 8 hours a day for 4 years you would then break even on cost of use to the AMD RX 570 but still be slower after.
This is such a bad deal the world is upside down.

 

[elementalSG]

"At this point your socks should be firmly in place"

Indeed, there was nothing here that knocked my socks off about the GTX 1650.

 

[Adhmuz]

This card would have been a great deal at $99, my guess is there will be yet another entry level card coming in at that price point, maybe a GT 1630 to replace the GT 1030 and remove all pascal cards from the market.

As it stands this card is a major flop.

 

[NightAntilli]

I'm surprised the RX 570 didn't get more flack over its power consumption. Or the GTX 1650 getting more praise for its low power consumption.
Quite interesting, to be honest. Could the tides be shifting? nVidia is now having a confusing naming scheme, technology that is seen mostly as a glorified gimmick, reports of RTX cards dying... Quite a few drawbacks. This is stuff that normally happens to AMD pretty much every generation..

I'm very curious to see what the Steam Hardware Survey will look like in a month or two...

Lastly, I saw on Hardware Unboxed that you didn't sleep after the whole nVidia driver hold-out thing, Steve. Thanks for the effort of getting the benchmarks out as soon as possible. And good on you for calling out nVidia on the driver most likely deliberately being used as a way to not ruin their launch.

 

[Lew Zealand]

With an additional power connector, these tested cards have no value and no place or function in any gamer's system. Buy an RX570 instead.

A 75W slot-power only 1650 has huge value as an add-in card in an 3-8 year old office tower with a free PCI slot and a non-standard PS, or one still under warranty. Looking forward to the 75W slot-only review and I'll bet the improvement over the 1050Ti will be more than half of what is listed here, **assuming** that you are also comparing to a 75W slot-only 1050Ti, of course.

 

[codgerface]

Oof. A '60' might be too generous for the 1650 models that are over $150 (already too much) and that require a 6 pin cable.

But, Steve, you earn a 100 for getting the article and HUB video out so quickly after the release of those "unification" drivers.

 

[trgz]

But how does it compare to a 970? I'm guessing that it doesn't match the older card.

 

[meric]

I think GTX 1660/TI are the only cards that's worthy of their cost in this generation Nvidia cards. Like many mentioned here, 1650 would be great if it was much cheaper than this. At AMD's side, RX 570 still holds great value despite its power consumption

 

[QuantumPhysics]

RTX 2060

 

[redgarl]

Let me know if I understand...

You have a card that cannot match its 3 years old contender... that is costing more... and you give this a passing mark of 60%...???!!!

Let's be honest, this is the worst card release of the last 5 years.

It should be rated between 20-35%.

 

[redgarl]

GTX 1660 still the best card money can buy. Even if this website states otherwise. I can find them for 230€ here in Europe with Black Ops 4 Bundled. That card is the best overclocker since the gtx 460 days (if someone remembers), and even when compared to a 1660ti max overclocked, it is behind by 5%.

RX 570 is cheap and great performance for the price, but it uses more power wich can be a concern on a lot of people systems, on this price range. A lot of people buying cheap cards can´t upgrade their PSU or are using HTPCs.

GTX 1650 should have been a 100€-120€ GPU at max. At this price is DOA. But I would make the effort to save up for a GTX 1660, by far. No other card can beat its value, if you use MSI Afterburner and drag a slider to the right.

You sir, are drinking the coolaid. The best card money can buy, in term of value, is a RX 570, a RX 580 or a Vega 56 below 300$.

In term of performance, it is the 2080 TI or the Titan...

You should remove your Nvidia googles.

And as power goes... Performance is always more important than Power. Nobody buy a card for is power consumption for gaming. We are talking about 5-10$ of electricity per year of difference. It is a false debate. I always base my purchase on price/performance, never in term of power. I take a Vega 64 at 400$ everyday over a 550-600$ 2070.

 

[Mugsy]

The inclusion of a puny GTX 1050 in these results begs for inclusion of even older... yet more powerful... cards as a reference point.

I have an old GTX670... which is faster than a 1050 Ti... and have been looking into "upgrading" for over a year, but I have yet to see a new card that justifies the expense based on the minimal performance improvement.

If a slow 1050 deserves inclusion in these charts, then maybe we should include an old 690 in the tests as well if for no other reason than to show just how little card speed has improved in the past seven/nine years.