The only saving grace is significantly lower power draw. It's still less capable than the RX 570 4GB. In any case, this really only slightly improves the poor standing of the 1650. I mean, maybe the switch to GDDR6 is just so they don't have to deal with GDDR5 anymore? King_V said:Agreed - this is a little bit of a strange decision for Nvidia. But I'm not sure there's any margin left trying to sell 1650 at those prices. Realistically, GTX 1650 GDDR5 should cost $120 now to warrant a recommendation, GTX 1650 GDDR6 for $140 would be fine, and GTX 1650 Super at $160 is good. Not with an underpowered GPU like TU117, though. I generally recommend that same attitude for Nvidia, but Nvidia does a bit better with 4GB overall. Really, for AMD GPUs, you want 8GB (or RX 5600 XT 6GB) - stay away from 4GB cards. I'm not saying people should upgrade from 570 to a 1650 Super or whatever, but I wouldn't buy a 570 these days, unless it was under $100. It's not an efficient card, and the overall experience is underwhelming, but that's the case for just about every budget GPU. I am super tired of the RX 570 4GB as well. So would my $89 Sapphire Nitro RX480 8g used.Mostly agreed, though I have to say. My $80 used Sapphire Pulse RX570 4g would humiliate this card that costs double. Hey at least it's not 20-25% slower and $40 more than the 3-year-old RX570 this time around. NightHawkRMX said:Cool, maybe Nvidia's new card is now only a few percent behind a 3-year-old RX570 that costs $40 less. Minimum fps doesn't improve quite as much, and the limited 4GB VRAM certainly plays a role in that. While it's not our full test suite, the quick and dirty overclock of the EVGA GTX 1650 GDDR6 improved performance by 7% on average, with a few games showing up to an 8% increase in performance. Tom's Hardware GPU Overclocking Performance Average / 99th Percentile FPS Game
0 kommentar(er)
