RX 570 or GTX 1650? What do you think?

[AnitaPeterson]

Hello folks,
I'm having a bit of a dilemma, and trying to decide between two video cards.
It's an interesting scenario.

My main computer is running a Zotac GTX 950 (2GB RAM).
The card is still under warranty, which is a good thing, because the fan has become noisy.
There's no rhythm or pattern to it, but occasionally the fan would become really noisy, as if it's become unbalanced or the ball bearings are defective.
I need to have it sent out for repairs. When I get it back, it will go into another computer.

I am running Windows 7 Pro, the CPU is an i5-2500K, with 24 GB RAM in a large(ish) horizontal case (Thermaltake Bach)
The machine is NOT a gaming computer. It's primary purpose is to be a HTPC, running everything from DVDs to 4K content.
But I DO occasionally play games on it - FPS titles like the Wolfenstein, Unreal and Doom series, including the latest ones.
I also do audio/video encoding/transcoding.

I am in Canada, which means prices are different than in the US, and the choices are fewer.
I would look for a cheaper replacement, but there's no equivalent to the 950 under $150; the least expensive 1050 is $160, just like the 570.
The cheapest 1030 is $120, and I doubt that games like Doom 2016 or the latest Wolfensteins will run well on it, so there's no point downgrading to that level.

I have two options for replacement:
1) Radeon RX 570 4GB at $160
2) Nvidia GTX 1650 4GB at $200
Both are made by Gigabyte.


The pros and cons are really what stump me here.

- The 1650 is small, has only one fan and does not require a power connector.
- The 570 has two fans and is considerably larger.
- I am already running a nVidia card - although I have no trouble moving to another architecture.
- The 570 is $40 cheaper and about 19% faster (as per userbenchmark.com).

What would you do? Go with the larger, cheaper and more powerful Radeon, or the smaller, more energy efficient but more expensive Nvidia?

 

[Insert_Nickname]

The machine is NOT a gaming computer. It's primary purpose is to be a HTPC, running everything from DVDs to 4K content.

Since the primary purpose is video watching, I'd spring for the 1650, IF you can afford it. Reason being the excellent, and low power, video decoder in it.

The 570 lacks a "real" VP9* HW decoder, it runs on the shaders instead. Which works fine, but uses more power. For feature parity with NV, you'd need one of the brand new RX 5700's. Which are complete overkill for HTPC use.

*plenty of Youtube content uses VP9, particularly at 4K.

 

[Guru]

I mean if you want a quieter and less power hungry card go for the 1650. It's a pretty slow card for games, you'll have to lower setting to medium to run at 60+fps, but if you want a htpc then it might be the way to go.

If you do plan on playing more games in the future, then the RX 570 is obviously a much better choice as it is about 15% faster, plus they are amazing overclockers and undervolters, you can achieve at least 5% more performance at less power consumption.

So yeah, it all depends what you'd use your PC more for.

 

[Glo.]

Considering the fact that there is no 1650 without 6 pin connector, and RX 570 is cheaper, I would pick the 570, preferably if there is Sapphire RX 570 ITX model available with just 6 pin connector.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

Considering the fact that there is no 1650 without 6 pin connector

Actually, Zotac makes a low profile version without. It'll likely be more expensive then the regular run-of-the-mill variety though.

https://www.zotac.com/dk/product/graphics_card/zotac-gaming-geforce-gtx-1650-low-profile

 

[myocardia]

Considering the fact that there is no 1650 without 6 pin connector, and RX 570 is cheaper, I would pick the 570, preferably if there is Sapphire RX 570 ITX model available with just 6 pin connector.

It's best not to fib around here, since you're always gonna be called out on it, as evidenced above, as well as these two from Asus, and I'm assuming they aren't the only three: https://www.asus.com/Graphics-Cards/DUAL-GTX1650-O4G/gallery/ & https://www.asus.com/Graphics-Cards/PH-GTX1650-O4G/gallery/

The only reason that I linked the photos pages instead of the specifications pages is that they don't list it on their specifications page, for whatever reason, even though they say it will run on a 300 watt power supply, which pretty much never have 6 or 8 pin PCI-e card capabilities, assuming its not a fairly expensive "real" PSU, from a well-known PSU manufacturer, instead of what they put into the average pre-built Dell/HP/Acer, et al. BTW, of your two choices, only the GTX 1650 has the ability to hardware decode (which means that the fan either won't spin up at all, or will turn at its slowest speed) both 4k Youtube as well as 4k HEVC/H.265 4k Blu Ray video, if either of those matter to you. It also has all of the newest video outputs, like HDMI 2.0b, DisplayPort 1.4, and is fully HDCP 2.2 compliant.

Oh, and the Zotac single-fan 1650 also for sure has no PCI-e 6 pin requirement: https://www.newegg.ca/zotac-geforce...0&cm_re=Zotac_GTX_1650-_-14-500-468-_-Product

Last but not least, if you have any serious plans on gaming with this machine, you'd really be crazy not to spend a few more dollars on a GTX 1660. While the 1660 is slower than the 1660ti, it's considerably faster than the 1650. As you can see from this video, there isn't a large difference between the 1660 and the 1660ti, but there is a large difference between the 1650 and the 1660 non-ti:

 

[AnitaPeterson]

Thank you for chiming in!
I've been looking at userbenchmark.com (as indicated in my original post).

Upgrading from a GTX 950, the 1650 is supposed to be 55% faster, and the 570 is 84% faster.
So I'm thinking either one would definitely run all the games I'm playing right now, and even better than the current card.
However, as I said, gaming is not the primary purpose of the machine.

Money is definitely an issue. The cheapest GTX 1660 sits at $300.
By comparison, the GTX 950 cost me $100 brand-new, in December 2017.
(Yes, it was a good deal, and it's still under warranty, which is why I'm having it repaired).

Looks like the 1650 is the best bet, particularly considering the HEVC decoding...

 

[myocardia]

Money is definitely an issue. The cheapest GTX 1660 sits at $300.
By comparison, the GTX 950 cost me $100 brand-new, in December 2017.
(Yes, it was a good deal, and it's still under warranty, which is why I'm having it repaired).

Looks like the 1650 is the best bet, particularly considering the HEVC decoding...

Yes, it isn't the best deal for a gaming-only card, compared to the 570, but it's by far the cheapest card to put into an HTPC in 2019, IMO. I actually just bought the two fan Asus card that I linked in my first post, to go into my second/bedroom HTPC. It hasn't even arrived yet, but I can give you some benchmarks when it does, if you would like. I do have 279 games in my Steam library, so there are most likely a lot of games that you and I share. I expect it to arrive either tomorrow or Wednesday.

 

[alexruiz]

What is your power supply?
If it is half decent 400+W, I think the choice is clear, the RX 570.

The newer GPUs have better video decode capabilities, but the RX 570 will do fine as HTPC card.

 

[AnitaPeterson]

Alright, here's a new development:

The store has a ZOTAC GeForce GTX 1060 Mini 3GB available for CA$200, the same price as the GTX 1650.

Userbenchmark says the 1060-3GB is 100% faster than my current GTX 950, and 30% faster than the 1650.

Yet, the Anandtech review of the 1650 shows the 1060-3GB being bested by the 1650 while playing Wolfenstein II - https://www.anandtech.com/show/14270/the-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1650-review-feat-zotac/8

Could it be because this particular test has the game is running under Vulkan? Weird... All the other games seem OK...


Oh, and the PSU is Antec EarthWatts 430 W.

 

[amrnuke]

Alright, here's a new development:

The store has a ZOTAC GeForce GTX 1060 Mini 3GB available for CA$200, the same price as the GTX 1650.

Userbenchmark says the 1060-3GB is 100% faster than my current GTX 950, and 30% faster than the 1650.

Yet, the Anandtech review of the 1650 shows the 1060-3GB being bested by the 1650 while playing Wolfenstein II - https://www.anandtech.com/show/14270/the-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1650-review-feat-zotac/8

Could it be because this particular test has the game is running under Vulkan? Weird... All the other games seem OK...


Oh, and the PSU is Antec EarthWatts 430 W.

You're not gaming, remember?

The 1060 crushes the 1650 in compute/synthetics and beats it in almost every other game. Overall I think the 1060 is the better buy, but if I were you, I'd look into the encoding chip. If the encoder on the 1650 is better in any discernible way than the one of the 1060, that may be the way to go.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

The store has a ZOTAC GeForce GTX 1060 Mini 3GB available for CA$200, the same price as the GTX 1650.

The 1060 3GB is a decent option too. Since you're able to get one, which isn't always the case.

Feature wise, Pascal and non-RTX Turing are almost identical.

 

[Guru]

between the 1060 3gb and rx570 I'd go for the RX570. you can find rx 570's way cheaper, the encoding stuff is same between pascal and polaris.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

Everything hinges on the PSU in your PC. If you're using some generic bottom tier 250w garbage then your PC's life is in its hands when adding in anything. If not...

I would go with the 570. Neither card will be a performance limitation on video content or creation, but the 1650 will fall behind the 570 in situations when the performance does matter (gaming).

There will be a power/heat/noise differential in favor of the 1650, but it would likely take years of use before the difference in cost is made up by any power price savings. You describe a largish Thermaltake case, so I figure heat and noise should largely be mitigated as well.

As such, my vote would go to the 570, which is the best performance for dollar where performance really counts (and dollars do too).

 

[Flayed]

Would a 430W PSU be enough for an RX 570?

 

[VirtualLarry]

Would a 430W PSU be enough for an RX 570?

I would say "barely". Don't do any mining or DC work with that GPU, on a PSU that low, unless it's an 80Plus Gold, and "it's got headroom". But for your average gaming load, it could be doable, if you don't OC CPU or GPU, and it has the appropriate connector (6+2 pin). If not, then don't use it, get at least a 550W 80Plus Gold, or a 600W 80Plus Bronze.

Edit: I do "mining" on two RX 570 8GB MSI cards, with Power Limit set to -10% in WattMan, on an EVGA 650W G1 Gold PSU.
However, I had had issues with reboots and the like, when not reducing the Power Limit. Whether that reflects on the GPUs themselves, or the PSU, I don't know. I know that with my settings, I can draw 400-450W at the wall (measured with a K-A-W).

 

[PontiacGTX]

Would a 430W PSU be enough for an RX 570?

depends on the CPU an old 8core 22nm/28nm with OC? mayber not enough a cpu which uses 100-120w sure..(not TDP ) ,check the 12v rails

 

[maddie]

I would say "barely". Don't do any mining or DC work with that GPU, on a PSU that low, unless it's an 80Plus Gold, and "it's got headroom". But for your average gaming load, it could be doable, if you don't OC CPU or GPU, and it has the appropriate connector (6+2 pin). If not, then don't use it, get at least a 550W 80Plus Gold, or a 600W 80Plus Bronze.

Edit: I do "mining" on two RX 570 8GB MSI cards, with Power Limit set to -10% in WattMan, on an EVGA 650W G1 Gold PSU.
However, I had had issues with reboots and the like, when not reducing the Power Limit. Whether that reflects on the GPUs themselves, or the PSU, I don't know. I know that with my settings, I can draw 400-450W at the wall (measured with a K-A-W).

So let's see here.

400-450W at the wall which equals 360-405W (60% max) from the PSU is a problem for a gold 650W unit?
I suggest that any issues occuring have nothing to do with the PSU, assuming it's functioning properly. These units are made to run at least 80-90% rated capacity all day with proper cooling.

 

[maddie]

Would a 430W PSU be enough for an RX 570?

It all depends on your individual PSU.

If it's a quality one, then no problem with the RX570 and your i5-2500K. Most of the time your power draw will be a very low percentage and even in a game, it will be comfortably below your available output limit. All assumes of course that no overclocking takes place.

 

[Flayed]

Is there anyone here who is running an RX 570 with a 430W PSU? My own experience with an RX Vega 56 was that a quality 660W Platinum PSU resulted in reboots during certain gaming loads, also without anything running overclocked.

 

[alexruiz]

Alright, here's a new development:

...
Oh, and the PSU is Antec EarthWatts 430 W.

OK, this is the important piece.
The earthwatts is an older design splitting the 12V into 2 rails.
A 400W-450W PSU with 30A-35A single rail would have NO trouble powering an RX 570. Even an RX 580.
However, the earthwatts allocates 17A + 16A. That is aprox 190W for the 16A rail. It is very close for what the RX 570 needs.

 

[alexruiz]

Alright, here's a new development:

...
Oh, and the PSU is Antec EarthWatts 430 W.

OK, this is the important piece.
The earthwatts is an older design splitting the 12V into 2 rails.
A 400W-450W PSU with 30A-35A single rail would have NO trouble powering an RX 570. Even an RX 580.
However, the earthwatts allocates 17A + 16A. That is aprox 190W for the 16A rail. It is very close for what the RX 570 needs.

 

[Mopetar]

The 570 is the best price and value for performance, but I don’t know if you need it. You can likely undervolt it so that it runs cooler and quieter, but that’s extra work if you don’t have the time.

The 1650 is better for your main use case. The better video decoding will mean less power draw so over long enough it pays for any cost difference. I’d probably go with it since it’s also less fuss.

 

[AnitaPeterson]

Thank you, folks! You all provided interesting arguments and opinions.

In the end, I went with the safe option, and I bought the 1650. The observations concerning potential PSU trouble tipped the balance.

But I did appreciate the finer points some of you made about the 570.
I am pretty much architecture-agnostic, though I have a sympathy for AMD as an underdog.

 

[krumme]

Is there anyone here who is running an RX 570 with a 430W PSU? My own experience with an RX Vega 56 was that a quality 660W Platinum PSU resulted in reboots during certain gaming loads, also without anything running overclocked.

We ran a reference Vega 56 and 1600x from a 500w psu 2 years no probs at all. All stock. Probably gold or platinum psu but good stuff without being top high end. Cant remember ratings.

Ran a 470 ref from a 400w on som oc ib 3570 4.2GHz at some time. The 470 ref had a single 6 pin and was pretty lean actually. I am not so sure the 570 is so lean

 

[Iron Woode]

Alright, here's a new development:

The store has a ZOTAC GeForce GTX 1060 Mini 3GB available for CA$200, the same price as the GTX 1650.

Userbenchmark says the 1060-3GB is 100% faster than my current GTX 950, and 30% faster than the 1650.

Yet, the Anandtech review of the 1650 shows the 1060-3GB being bested by the 1650 while playing Wolfenstein II - https://www.anandtech.com/show/14270/the-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1650-review-feat-zotac/8

Could it be because this particular test has the game is running under Vulkan? Weird... All the other games seem OK...


Oh, and the PSU is Antec EarthWatts 430 W.

The 1060 3GB blows away the 1050. I have one and it is great for budget gaming @ 1080P with setting maxed. You can get one on kijiji for under $200. Or you could grab a RX570 for under $200 on kijiji, too.

I don't use vulcan because I get better FPS with direct x.

I am also in Canada.