Nvidia could launch the GTX 1630 to compete with entry-level AMD graphics cards

midian182

Posts: 7,902   +82
Staff member
Rumor mill: Nvidia is rumored to be preparing the launch of a new graphics card. Sadly, it isn't one of the RTX 4000 series; it's a GTX 1630, the first GTX card to carry the xx30 designation. If the rumor, and it is just a rumor, proves true, it would be the company's first new GTX 16-series in three years.

According to VideoCardz, the GeForce GTX 1630 will replace the six-year-old GTX 1050 Ti. That means it would be the cheapest desktop graphics card to come from Nvidia in years. Its entry-level 3000-series product, the RTX 3050, has a $249 MSRP but the model closest to that price on Newegg is $329.

The appeal of a GTX 1630 could be its low selling point. It's expected to be less than $190, the current price of the GTX 1650. The card is also predicted to use the TU117 Turing-era GPU and have a TDP of under 75W, along with new GDDR6 memory. As with the GTX 1650, don't be surprised to see Nvidia launch several models of the GTX 1630 with different specs.

If the GTX 1630 is around $190 or under, that will put it up against AMD's RX 6500 XT and RX 6400, two cards we rated poorly due to their PCIe 4.0 x4 interface, no hardware encoding, and no AV1 decode. Nvidia could do well if the GTX 1630 addresses these shortcomings.

The availability and prices of graphics cards are improving drastically—just look at AMD's latest RDNA 2 offerings—and low-priced cards have long been the most popular with gamers. The GTX 1060 has been the number one card among Steam survey participants for over four years, and its position could soon be threatened by the GTX 1650, which was the second best-performing card last month. Nvidia will be hoping a GTX 1630 can imitate this success.

Permalink to story.

 

fps4ever

Posts: 905   +1,336
I can see the unnecessary comment trolling by certain poster's continues...

It would nice to see a sub $150 card where the focus isn't strictly on gaming but can help with other apps. Been stuck with the 550-1030-1050 nvidia cards for a long time.
 

Dimitriid

Posts: 2,209   +4,246
The 1650 should be the minimum acceptable performance given how the newest Ryzen APUs with RDNA 2 (Or 3) and DDR5 supports will have this level of performance *already* so it doesn't makes any sense: the 6400 is already as good as the 1650 (Given a PCI-E 4.0 bus) so if that card isn't sufficient then you should be getting a 1650 for the hardware video decoders missing on the 6400 or not enough multi monitor support or such.

It would be a terrible product, just like all of Nvidia's X030 products have always been: They shouldn't cheap out and just further cut down the 3050 into a 3030 to keep at least a little bit of support for stuff like DLSS 2.0
 

defaultluser

Posts: 412   +333
The 1650 should be the minimum acceptable performance given how the newest Ryzen APUs with RDNA 2 (Or 3) and DDR5 supports will have this level of performance *already* so it doesn't makes any sense: the 6400 is already as good as the 1650 (Given a PCI-E 4.0 bus) so if that card isn't sufficient then you should be getting a 1650 for the hardware video decoders missing on the 6400 or not enough multi monitor support or such.

It would be a terrible product, just like all of Nvidia's X030 products have always been: They shouldn't cheap out and just further cut down the 3050 into a 3030 to keep at least a little bit of support for stuff like DLSS 2.0

Yeah, Turing is ancient, so why bother?

Make an even-more-cut than the 3050 laptop model, and price it at $150!
 

Irata

Posts: 2,112   +3,652
It just shows once more that Intel‘s low end Arc GPU are a needed addition to the market. If they are indeed not stupidly cut (unlike AMD‘s offering) and support the full DX12U feature set (unlike nVidia‘s offering that are last or before last gen) they would be a welcome addition to the market.

Sadly, it remains to be seen if and when they will be released to retail.
 

p51d007

Posts: 3,156   +2,656
If the graphics card is fast enough for me to render in photoshop, that's the most I "tax" a graphics card anymore.
 

Nobina

Posts: 3,776   +4,207
They're making a solution for a problem they've partially created. I want RTX 3070 / RX 6750 XT performance minimum for 1440p. I'm waiting for prices to drop and when I get one of these cards I'm probably done with gaming after that GPU runs its course.
 
D

Dd663

I really, really lucked out picking up one of the last 1660 Supers that was available for MSRP at $240 about a year and a half ago. Nowadays it seems I'd be lucky to get a GPU half as powerful for that price.
 

PEnnn

Posts: 772   +878
I really, really lucked out picking up one of the last 1660 Supers that was available for MSRP at $240 about a year and a half ago. Nowadays it seems I'd be lucky to get a GPU half as powerful for that price.

Me too.

I got mine for $250, best decision I've ever made. Handles everything perfectly at decent resolutions, quiet and cool too.
 

captaincranky

Posts: 18,743   +7,680
It would be nice to see sub $200 card that is faster than 1050Ti.
The GTX-1650 (Asus)"Tuff" card w/ 4 GB GDDR-6 is selling for $220.00. It would/should/could easily outperform a 1050 ti.

You have to be careful though, a single fan GDDR-5 version is still selling for $230.00. :eek: I think it depends on how much the dealer cost was at the time of the supplier's purchase, and whether or not the customer can read. :rolleyes:

Memory bandwidth goes from 128 GBs to 192 GBs, GDDR-5 to GDDR6.

The biggest ripoffs now, are the 1050 ti cards, still priced at $190.00 to $200.00.
 
Last edited:

captaincranky

Posts: 18,743   +7,680
The GTX 1060 has been the number one card among Steam survey participants for over four years, and its position could soon be threatened by the GTX 1650, which was the second best-performing card last month. Nvidia will be hoping a GTX 1630 can imitate this success
By most reports the GTX-1060 still outperforms the GTX-1650. So, contrary to what Nvidia might say, you have to bump up to the GTX 1660 Super or.ti for a reasonable increase in performance.

PS, a GTX 1030 (IMO) would be useless unless it comes with 4 GB of GDDR-6