Nvidia will reportedly launch the GeForce GTX 1660 and 1650 in March and April

[Polycount]

In brief: We already know that Nvidia could be looking to fill out their low-end GTX 1600-series GPU line-up with two new cards: the GTX 1660 and 1650. Now, a new report may have given us information on the cards' pricing and release dates.

It seems Nvidia understands that the prices of their newest RTX-series GPUs put the cards a bit out of reach for the average gamer - the recently-launched Turing-based GTX 1660 Ti is evidence of that.

Though the card lacks the DLSS and real-time ray tracing features that its RTX cousins have, it makes up for those lost features with a significantly-reduced $279 price tag.

However, the 1660 Ti alone may not be enough for Nvidia. Recent rumors suggest the company is working on two more 1600-series cards with similarly stripped-down feature sets: the GTX 1660 and 1650.

Courtesy of a report from DigiTimes, the official prices and release dates for those cards may have just been revealed. "Industry sources" have reportedly informed the outlet that the GTX 1660 will cost $229 with a March 15 launch date, and the 1650 will release on April 30 at $179.

Nvidia hasn't commented on these rumors yet, so it may be wise to take them with a grain of salt. Still, we won't have to wait long to find out how accurate they are - March and April are just around the corner, and Nvidia might unveil the GPUs shortly before their launch dates to build hype.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/78960-nvidia-reportedly-launch-geforce-gtx-1660-1650-march.html

 

[Vulcanproject]

These cards exist because Nvidia's revenue this year is projected to drop by a pretty whopping 20 percent. The mining collapse saw them having to admit to shareholders just the end of last year that there is going to be a significant dip.

I suspect these cards were a bit of a hasty plan to try and help that situation, which also kind of explains why Nvidia have mangled their naming conventions for them. I mean GTX1650......what is this garbage? How can anyone tell where they sit in the lineup compared to the GTX10 branded Pascal generation?

Absurd numbering aside, they do seem to be a sensible move. If they can bring fresh competition into the lower mid range we will just have to see how they stack up to the RX570-90.

At $229, 1660 needs to be somewhere close to the RX590, if not a bit better to make sense against the Ti model for $50 more. Based on current pricing, 1650 needs to be a close match to the RX580.

 

[ZackL04]

Make one of them in a LP standard. I’ll buy one

 

[J2018]

I wouldn’t be surprised to see GTX 1670, 1680 & 1680 Ti models at a later date. But at this stage there’s not much motivation until AMD (or Intel) provide competition.

 

[ElDiomedes]

I wouldn’t be surprised to see GTX 1670, 1680 & 1680 Ti models at a later date. But at this stage there’s not much motivation until AMD (or Intel) provide competition.

Doubt that. Releasing a 1670 would mean undermining the RTX 2060. Nvidia aren't that bad in business lol.

 

[Zorak]

These cards exist because Nvidia's revenue this year is projected to drop by a pretty whopping 20 percent. The mining collapse saw them having to admit to shareholders just the end of last year that there is going to be a significant dip.

I suspect these cards were a bit of a hasty plan to try and help that situation, which also kind of explains why Nvidia have mangled their naming conventions for them. I mean GTX1650......what is this garbage? How can anyone tell where they sit in the lineup compared to the GTX10 branded Pascal generation?

Absurd numbering aside, they do seem to be a sensible move. If they can bring fresh competition into the lower mid range we will just have to see how they stack up to the RX570-90.

At $229, 1660 needs to be somewhere close to the RX590, if not a bit better to make sense against the Ti model for $50 more. Based on current pricing, 1650 needs to be a close match to the RX580.

Better yet, I still have an 9600 GT. But using the 16XX scheme is just nonsense - where is the 15XX series?

 

[captaincranky]

Better yet, I still have an 9600 GT. But using the 16XX scheme is just nonsense - where is the 15XX series?

Why would Nvidia having a 1500 series matter so much to you? What do you do for fun, ride around in your car and rename streets in your imagination to your satisfaction?

In any event, I had a 9500-GT on one of my machines. I took it out and installed a GT-710, which runs 1080p porn way better, and draws only 19 watts, as opposed to 50 watts for the 9500.

As far as the 9800 goes, IMHO, you should have at least stepped up to at least a GTX-750 ti somewhere along the way. Or didn't you like the way it was named?

here's a number chart, counting by hundreds, starting at 1000, and going to 2000.

1000, 1100, 1200, 1300, 1400, 1500, 1600, 1700, 1800, 1900, 2000.

you'll notice that "1600", (which is emboldened in both instances), is more than halfway between 1000 and 2000. What the hell is Nvidia trying to tell us, or lead us to believe by naming the new series cards thusly?

If you're unable to figure that out, I'll defer the explanation to someone with more patience than myself.

 

[Sausagemeat]

Sheesh you guys need to get over the name. These products have never been linearly named. I mean just a few years ago they skipped the 800 series. Around the same time that AMD went from a 7970 to a 290 and released a 285 that was slower than the 280. Just do your research before buying a card. If you’re so easily confused by a name then you deserve to get ripped off!

 

[Lew Zealand]

Nvidia GTX 0118 999 881 999 119 725

3

Get used to it.

 

[mcborge]

Nvidia GTX 0118 999 881 999 119 725

3

Get used to it.

I see what you did there, lol.

 

[Zorak]

Why would Nvidia having a 1500 series matter so much to you? What do you do for fun, ride around in your car and rename streets in your imagination to your satisfaction?

In any event, I had a 9500-GT on one of my machines.
(...)
If you're unable to figure that out, I'll defer the explanation to someone with more patience than myself.

I still appreciate you took your time to chime in on this, even if it wasn't my intention to single out only one "missing generation". My point was the seemingly random naming scheme, as people predicted either a 20XX series (which we got) or the 11XX naming convention (which we... didn't). Instead we got an seemingly arbitrary 16XX which just adds another tiny bit of confusion. Sometimes I wonder what the next generation will be - 30XX and 17XX? Nah, too predictable. I'm not especially confused by all this myself as I tend to keep up with the news and benchmarks, but as a quite normal mantis I see how this might be problematic to people who don't tend to keep up so much. They deserve to be ripped off? I mean yes, but...

Also yeah. Zorak has a 9600 GT. Zorak has a lot of different cards. Not using one at the moment.

 

[captaincranky]

I still appreciate you took your time to chime in on this, even if it wasn't my intention to single out only one "missing generation". My point was the seemingly random naming scheme, as people predicted either a 20XX series (which we got) or the 11XX naming convention (which we... didn't). Instead we got an seemingly arbitrary 16XX which just adds another tiny bit of confusion. Sometimes I wonder what the next generation will be - 30XX and 17XX? Nah, too predictable. I'm not especially confused by all this myself as I tend to keep up with the news and benchmarks, but as a quite normal mantis I see how this might be problematic to people who don't tend to keep up so much. They deserve to be ripped off? I mean yes, but...

Um, so what?

IAlso yeah. Zorak has a 9600 GT. Zorak has a lot of different cards. Not using one at the moment.

Captaincranky has many video cards as well. Captaincranky enjoys speaking of himself in the 3rd person also.