A score of 20 is generous, given the 6500XT got the same score and offers double the performance for about the same price. To my mind, if they have the same score they should equally as bad as each other, but clearly the 1630 is objectively more 'bad' than the 6500 from a price performance and feature set perspective.
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1630 Review: An Insult to Gamers?
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
I don't do the scores but it's worth keeping in mind that as trash tier as the GTX 1630 is, it can support more than two displays, it supports encoding and has x8 PCIe lanes, all things the 6500 XT/6400 lack.
nodfor
Posts: 294 +503
6500 ΧΤ helped the market a lot back then. Pricing decrease in low budget gpus followed immediately after its release and before the crypto crash
This thing now, it is just irrelevant, it just gives an impression of nvidia being out of touch with reality.
Irata
Posts: 2,196 +3,791
OK, having eight lanes is nice but what good does it do when the 1630 is still slower than a 6400 on a PCIe 3 system.
Also, having encoding is great (the lack thereof is a deal breaker for me as my kid likes to stream / record gameplay) but what would you realistically encode using the 1630 ? Gameplay seems out of the question looking at the fps numbers.
Checking feature boxes is all well and good and complaining about missing features is justified when it comes to the 6400/6500XT but having them does not make a completely underwhelming POS graphics card like the 1630 any better.
I'll give you encoding, but I would counter that PCI-E 8x is irrelevant when the performance is so low, even your testing showed that the 6400 comprehensively beats the 1630 even on PCI-E Gen 3 4x. Likewise with 3 display support, if you just need to drive three monitors there are cheaper ways to do that.
Stardude82
Posts: 19 +6
The 1650 got panned by this publication, but as a niche product, it is still the best GPU that can be run off a PCIe slot.
This is frustrating as you can get pretty good performance out of a RTX 3060 even at 75W (80% with a 55W reduction).
https://www.notebookcheck.net/75-W-...-as-wide-as-many-were-expecting.527244.0.html
This is frustrating as you can get pretty good performance out of a RTX 3060 even at 75W (80% with a 55W reduction).
https://www.notebookcheck.net/75-W-...-as-wide-as-many-were-expecting.527244.0.html
Product like this is the reason why people should read or learn if they don't want to get ripped off.
when our work laptop was replaced 3 years ago, we've got the hp laptop running i7 8665U (Iris 620) with Radeon 530. at first I can't believe why such a crappy configuration exist but then I realize there must be someone stupid enough to bulk-purchase it.
when our work laptop was replaced 3 years ago, we've got the hp laptop running i7 8665U (Iris 620) with Radeon 530. at first I can't believe why such a crappy configuration exist but then I realize there must be someone stupid enough to bulk-purchase it.
kmo911
Posts: 343 +41
Good enough for that time I was released. 1650 ok but a more low gpu can only run far cry 1 2. forget about high end gpu fps. this is a limited version. but not bad. loosing bad to other but hey it was not meant to go against super rx g rtx 1080 ti RTX 20XX 30XX intel 380 gpus. plays fine on older games bioshock 1 2 3 remastered. doom can be run in 320x200. so nothing to say on that. a good win dos card in THAT time not 20xx.
GyratingIndy
Posts: 17 +1
Is techspot doing ingame benchmarks?
It doesn't make the 1630 any better, it makes them all sh*t. I'm not sure how else to put that one for you. They all suck, they all have issues and you shouldn't buy any of them at the current asking prices.
It would be nice if Nvidia just described the target audience for this card instead of clearly, in the minds of gamers, not doing this and leading to the obvious critisism. Maybe this card is targeted at less than 1% of the buying public but Nvidia should just say that instead of implying the it is a "sheep dressed up as lamb" as this testing implies. Who knows why they produced this card unless they just tell us who the target audience is - speculation does not help. Techspot. In your review compare what Nvidia say on their website about the purpose (target audience) for this card against what the compeditors cards can do. Maybe Nvidia don't want it to run the games you use; and are not selling it for that purpose. Attack false advertising, if it is false not them not meeting your expectations. There are means to punish Nvidia for false advertising; there is not punishment for them in not meeting your expectations.
Last edited:
All of this is completely irrelevant. All that matters is what it can do and the price. We don't need Nvidia to tell us who the product is intended for, that's nonsense. But of course they've done that anyway with the GeForce GTX branding.
"Who knows why they produced this card unless they just tell us who the target audience is"
Umm they produced it to make money :S The target audience is anyone foolish enough to buy it, Nvidia couldn't careless who that is.
All gamers dont need massive horsepower
Not even you're in the corpo backpocket, most old gamers are happy with Balders Gate 1 and 2 you know
Bizarre viewpoint. You know you don't need to spend $170-$200 on a piece of rubbish GPU to play older games right? Why would you defend/justify Nvidia or any other company taking advantage of unsuspecting consumers? I assume you have shares in the company, it's the only way you could begin to justify such a horrible take.
That argument completely dies in the a*se when there are video cards that offer much higher performance for the same money. Like, why would you buy an objectively worse card if it costs the same as a better one? That better card will also play older games, and be able to play newer games at higher fps.
Which is why the problem with this card isn't the performance, it is the price. If this was sub-$100 it would probably be well received. But at $150-200 it makes zero sense.
Irata
Posts: 2,196 +3,791
Don‘t disagree with you on the ‚not buying‘ part -the 6500XT / 6400 series was a big disappointment for me.
Still, at least they had a justifiable use case. Someone with an Intel Core 11th or 12th gen non F CPU who wanted something cheap that allowed for decent gaming at the time the card was released got it for less than a 1050Ti and did not make a bad purchase compared to the alternatives. On top of that, it did drive prices for cards like a 1050Ti or 1650 down by a good bit.
The 1630 otoh does not have any use case where there isn‘t an objectively better alternative. I think this is the issue some are taking here - both are not equally bad, the 1630 is - all things considered - far, far worse.
But yes, right now with falling prices neither should be purchased.
TheRealSCDC
Posts: 312 +434
You see, the joke will end up being on the uneducated consumer. Not all of us at Techspot. The average schmoe will walk in and see that fancy box, a gaming card. Will buy it and think it's great 
Steven, you act like you don't know this GPU is intended as an iGPU replacement.
Nevertheless, that idle power consumption is pathetic. But that's just how NV (and Intel) think of efficiency these days. We live in a world where we should reduce our power consumption, yet they keep pushing the industry in the opposite direction. Awful.
Nevertheless, that idle power consumption is pathetic. But that's just how NV (and Intel) think of efficiency these days. We live in a world where we should reduce our power consumption, yet they keep pushing the industry in the opposite direction. Awful.
A $200 US iGPU replacement that's barely faster than an iGPU, I'm an epic actor thanks.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
AMD Ryzen 7 7700X Review: Faster than Core i9?- Irata replied
-
Shadow of the Tomb Raider: A Ray Tracing Investigation
- geogan replied
-
Google Japan shows off multifunctional, five-foot-long Gboard keyboard- imdarkbreeze replied
-
A cold winter is awaiting mobile networks and phones in Europe- AlaskaGuy replied
