GeForce GTX 1650 Evaluate: Turing at $150

Based on the TU117 chip, the new GeForce GTX 1650 continues to include all of the new Turing shader innovations that improve performance and efficiency, including support for simultaneous floating point and integer operations, a unified cache architecture with a larger L1 cache, and adaptive Shading.

The TDP for the new GPU is only 75 watts and means that no external power connection is required. It is the fastest graphics card available and does not require an external PCIe power supply. Then, like the GTX 1660 Ti and 1660, there will be no Founders Edition version, but no major loss.

The GTX 1650 contains 896 CUDA cores, 36% fewer than the GTX 1660. This is the biggest downgrade we've seen in the Turing product stack to date. For the most part, we saw cuts of around 20% when we switched from 2080 to 2070, 2070 to 2060, 2060 to 1660 Ti and then only 8% from 1660 Ti to vanilla 1660.

The only other example of a 30% downgrade was the RTX 2080 Ti to the RTX 2080. A 32% reduction in core count was found, resulting in a 4K decrease in 4K performance. We expect a similar reduction in performance for the GTX 1650 compared to the 1660, as the 36% reduction in cores is supported by a 33% reduction in memory bandwidth.

While the 1660 is equipped with 6 GB of GDDR5 memory, the GTX 1650 receives 4 GB with a memory bus that is only 128 bits wide for a maximum memory bandwidth of 128 GB / s. The standard clock rates were set to a base of 1485 MHz and a boost of 1665 MHz, which corresponds to a 7% reduction in the clock rate compared to the GTX 1660.

Nvidia claims that the GTX 1650 is twice as fast as the GTX 950 and up to 70% faster at 1080p than the GTX 1050, although the wording here is a bit difficult because its claim is specific to modern games with complex shaders. For example, games like Shadow of the Tomb Raider and Wolfenstein II. Therefore, the average performance increase may be lower depending on the title.

For testing, we'll take a closer look at the 1080p performance in a dozen titles. Our test system is the usual GPU table, which contains a Core i9-9900K with 5 GHz and 32 GB DDR4-3200 memory …


Starting the benchmarks is a new title in our test suite: World War Z. This game supports the Vulkan API, although the performance is not particularly good for Nvidia GPUs with the current driver. Therefore, GeForce cards were tested with DX11, while AMD uses the lower level Vulkan API. Nevertheless, the Radeon RX 570 smoked the new GTX 1650 with a whopping 38% lead. In the meantime, the GTX 1650 was 26% faster than the 1050 Ti, but also 15% slower than the 1060 3GB.

The performance in Apex Legends was very competitive between the GTX 1650 and the RX 570, at least in the quiet part of the game we're testing. The Radeon GPU was 4% faster and generally we think less than 5% is a tie.

Division 2 was a strong title for AMD and this continues in this battle between the RX 570 and GTX 1650. Here, the Radeon GPU offered 27% more performance at 1080p, making it the superior GPU.

Nvidia promised good things in new complex titles like Shadow of the Tomb Raider, but here we can see that the GTX 1650 just doesn't deliver. The performance was similar to that of the RX 570, but similar performance is not good enough for a new GPU. The GTX 1650 should significantly outperform the 570 at this price.

The GTX 1650 suffered a serious blow in Forza Horizon 4, where it was 21% slower than the RX 570. This difference was also noticeable in the game, as the RX 570 never sank below 60 fps and offered a smoother gaming experience.

On average, the Radeon RX 570 was 11% faster than the 1650 when tested with Just Cause 4. Normally this is a good title for Nvidia, but even here the new budget Turing can't do it.

Resident Evil 2 is another new title that works well on AMD hardware. Here the RX 570 was 30% faster than the GTX 1650. While the Radeon GPU was able to maintain over 60 fps at all times, the 1650 dropped to 50 fps.

One game you can always rely on to improve GeForce performance is Fortnite. Here the GTX 1650 can outperform the RX 570 by a small margin. The GTX 1650 was also 26% faster than the 1050 Ti.

Metro Exodus is a title sponsored by Nvidia, so you'd expect the GTX 1650 to win here, but that's not the case. Basically, it matched the RX 570, but that was the best thing it could do here.

Rainbow Six Siege throws us a curveball, although I was ready given what we saw from Turing in this title. Here the GTX 1650 can beat the RX 570 and it is a shame with a convincing majority that we have not seen any more of it.

We see similar frame rates in Battlefield V. The RX 570 was slightly faster on average, while both gave a similarly low result of 1%. This meant that the GTX 1650 was 26% faster than the GTX 1050 Ti and 11% slower than the 1060 3 GB.

The GTX 1650 is not impressive in Far Cry New Dawn and achieves 23% faster than the GTX 1050 Ti, but 18% slower than the RX 570. At 1080p with the default for ultra quality, it had problems achieving an average of 60 fps.

Power consumption and temperatures

In terms of power consumption, the GTX 1650 is pretty impressive in that regard. The Gigabyte board we tested increased the total system consumption to 184 watts, while the MSI card reached 192 watts. This is just an ~ 10% increase in system utilization with an apparently over 30% performance improvement.

In comparison, the Radeon RX 570 increased total system consumption by 55%. The 1650 is certainly more efficient, but we are not convinced that it is a better product overall.

At a quick glance at operating temperatures and clock speeds, the MSI Gaming X reached a maximum of 61 degrees in a 21-degree room and normally worked with a boost frequency of 1920 MHz. Needless to say, it was very cool and calm.

The larger Gigabyte Gaming OC did best with a peak operating temperature of only 58 degrees, which allowed it to reach an average of 1950 MHz for the boost clock. This made no difference in terms of frame rate performance, but slightly cooler operation with a slight increase in frequency is a win for gigabytes.

Service summary

At this point your socks should be tight, the GeForce GTX 1650 has been pretty overwhelming so far. To get a clearer picture, let's look at some head-to-head comparisons.

GTX 1650 vs. GTX 1050 Ti

Nvidia keeps comparing the GTX 1650 to the GTX 1050, but the 1650 is $ 10 more than the starting price of the 1050 TiSo it's not a replacement for the $ 110 GTX 1050. Compared to the 1050 Ti, the 1650 is on average 35% faster for a few extra dollars. After three years, a 35% increase at this price is a bit overwhelming.

GTX 1650 vs. GTX 1060 3 GB

Compared to the GTX 1060 3 GB (historically a more expensive GPU), the GTX 1650 was about 9% slower. Granted, the 1060 cost $ 200, but it's a 3-year-old GPU again. The GTX 1650 offered small performance gains in some titles, but at best it wasn't even 5% faster than the outgoing Pascal GPU.

GTX 1650 vs. GTX 1060

Compared to its immediate sibling, the GTX 1660, the GTX 1650 was 32% slower, which seems okay as it is 32% cheaper, which works pretty well. At least in a GTX Turing bubble. However, as you will see in this price range, there is quite a bit of competition with AMD, which is lowering prices in response to the latest versions of Nvidia.

GTX 1650 vs. Radeon RX 570

Here we have the RX 570, which is a $ 170 part, or at least it used to be. For many months, this Radeon GPU has been selling for just $ 130, and there are currently several options at this price. This makes the GTX 1650 ~ 15% more expensive and yet we have found that it is 10% slower on average.

For some titles, this gap was up to 20% slower, so that the GTX 1650 cannot keep up with the Radeon in terms of pure value.

Wrap up

Our cost-per-frame graph provides the ultimate picture of where the GTX 1650 is at launch. Two years after the release of the RX 570, we get a GPU that is more expensive per frame.

Even if we ignore the insanely good value of the RX 570, thanks to its recent price cuts, the RX 580 is still cheaper and offers much more performance for a small price premium. We can see that the GTX 1650 offers a similar value to the 1660, but at less than $ 200, where Nvidia faces tougher competition and where additional frame rates can make a big difference, this won't help our recommendation to deliver.

At the current MSRP of $ 150, the GTX 1650 isn't a bad product. However, if you're looking for the best possible frame rates for every dollar spent, the RX 570 is simply superior. At $ 110, the 1650 would have been competitive, not particularly exciting, but at least competitive.

Some will argue that the GTX 1650 is great because it doesn't need an external power connector, but you'd stick to straws. You can upgrade your PSU to a decent 450-500 watt model for around $ 35 if you don't have any problems. In addition, we found that the GTX 1650 clocked lower without an external PCIe power input because it is limited to 75 watts – both the MSI and Gigabyte cards tested here had a power connector – which further affects performance. In other words, you could get a very small upgrade over the GTX 1050 Ti.

We bought an additional GTX 1650 base card without a power connector and will measure it soon. However, we doubt that the GTX 1650 will be better illuminated by tests. For common and affordable GPU options, we saw the attractiveness of the RTX 2060, GTX 1660 Ti and 1660, which received our recommendations in all cases. For less money, the RX 570 lives on.

Purchasing links:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *