• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

[Videocardz] 1650 details

Head1985 said:
150usd is 36% more than 1050 110usd msrp😕
Click to expand...

That's true, but I think this should perform quite a bit better based on what we've seen so far. This will probably be able to hit at least 1060 3 GB levels of performance.

This seems pretty likely to be a cut chip, and I assume that the 1650 Ti will have 1,024 cores and probably faster memory. Likely sell for $180.
 
maddie said:
So basically only lower power than present similarly priced products, as the 570 should be comparable in performance. Truly a dark age, Let's hope the renaissance is imminent.
Click to expand...
Yeah, spec-wise, this seems a bit unimpressive versus a common RX 570 card... save for the "no power connector".

Of course, these will then become the go-to cards for upgrading OEM boxes with insufficient PSUs to support "real" GPUs that require external power.

So then, other than the last few years of word-of-mouth popularity, the GTX 1050/ti might finally fade into obscurity, like the then-groundbreaking 750ti before it.

Edit: Will we see LP (Low-Profile) versions too? Any announced thus far?
 
570 is 40+% faster than 1050ti.This 1650 have only 16% more sp than 1050ti and same bandwidth.So i dont think it will match 570.Best case 5% slower average.1650ti with 1024sp should be 5% faster than 570 and match 1060 3gb.
 
Head1985 said:
570 is 40+% faster than 1050ti.This 1650 have only 16% more sp than 1050ti and same bandwidth.So i dont think it will match 570.Best case 5% slower average.1650ti with 1024sp should be 5% faster than 570 and match 1060 3gb.
Click to expand...
If that's true, then the 1650 sounds a bit like an abortion of a card, with the 1650ti squeaking by slightly in terms of performance. I consider an RX 570 to be the baseline GPU these days (2019) for 1080P gaming, and that's not even at the high end of 1080P or high refresh-rate gaming.

Sure, no power connector is great, but how far backwards are you willing to go as far as performance scaling, to get that feature? I dunno, sounds like a risky release to me, but I'm sure that the die size is small-ish, and NVidia's faithful will lap them up.

Edit: On the other hand, if it were the same price as the RX 570 4GB cards, and somehow decisively faster, and no external power connector to boot, then AMD might be in trouble as far as market-share at the low end, so let's hope that's not true, and your scenario is more likely.

The good thing about most AMD GPU-based cards, is that they are over-built, compared to their NVidia counter-parts. (Space Invaders, anyone?)

Edit: The 1650's MSRP (if correct) is lower than current "street prices" for the GTX 1050 ti 4GB cards, well, most of them, so it should sell regardless.
 
Head1985 said:
570 is 40+% faster than 1050ti.This 1650 have only 16% more sp than 1050ti and same bandwidth.So i dont think it will match 570.Best case 5% slower average.1650ti with 1024sp should be 5% faster than 570 and match 1060 3gb.
Click to expand...
gtx 1070 has 25% more shaders than the 1660ti with equal performance.
The 1650 with 576 shaders would equal a gtx 1050ti.
A 1650 with 896 shaders will be 36% faster than a gtx 1050ti.
1050ti boost clock is is 1392,my guess the 1650 will boost over 1700 core.
The 1650 will be at least equal to a 570 with no power connector.
The 1650ti will be as fast as a 580 and use 50% less power.
The 1050ti sold at basically the same price as the 570 and outsold it 4 to 1 at least.
The 1650/(ti) will be the next upgrades for the gtx950/ gtx960 4gb/1050/1050ti buyers.
40%to 50% faster for about the same price, $150 to $180.
 
Last edited:
happy medium said:
gtx 1070 has 25% more shaders than the 1660ti with equal performance.
Click to expand...
You mean, "for games that can take advantage of simultaneous int and FP ops". Some games and applications are still faster with more raw shaders like on the 1070.
happy medium said:
The 1050ti sold at basically the same price as the 570 and outsold it 4 to 1 at least.
Click to expand...
Are we talking strictly gaming-usage purchases here? Because if you count the mining market too, I really doubt that the GTX 1050ti out-sold the RX 570 by that much. At least, not among those "in the know", that knew that the RX 570 performed better, for the same price, in games. (I learned that from HardwareUnboxed videos about the G4560.)
 
Yeah it's definitely going to be slower than the 570/1060 3 GB, except in cases where the 3 GB cripples performance like in Wolf 2.
 
jpiniero said:
Yeah it's definitely going to be slower than the 570/1060 3 GB, except in cases where the 3 GB cripples performance like in Wolf 2.
Click to expand...


based on what?
why do you think it will be slower?

Some people might say the memory speed but forget the 25% better memory compression Nvidia has over Pascal.
 
Last edited:
happy medium said:
gtx 1070 has 25% more shaders than the 1660ti with equal performance.
Click to expand...
Yeah 25% more shaders with LESS memory bandwidth.Look at 1660 vs 1060.Same memory bandwidth and 10% more shaders but only 15-20% faster.Its pretty similar to 1650 vs 1050TI.Same memory bandwidth and 16% more SP.
btw only turing cards which are close to 40% faster than pascal are 2070/2080 and they have GDDR6(75% for 2070 and 45% for 2080 more bandwidth vs 1070 and 1080)).
1650 will be memory bandwidth bottleneck because same bandwidth as 1050TI.
 
Last edited:
Tbh I think you miss the point when comparing to 570's and the like. The key audience for these cards wants something that's doesn't take much power (no power connector required) and is small. That way it fits into all sorts of cheap pc's with little cases/power supplies and limited cooling.
The 1650 will easily be the fastest card for that market. It will sell well just like the 1050/1050Ti do despite not being a great cards in a straight performance/$ competition.
 
Head1985 said:
Yeah 25% more shaders with LESS memory bandwidth.Look at 1660 vs 1060.Same memory bandwidth and 10% more shaders but only 15-20% faster.Its pretty similar to 1650 vs 1050TI.Same memory bandwidth and 16% more SP.
btw only turing cards which are close to 40% faster than pascal are 2070/2080 and they have GDDR6(75% for 2070 and 45% for 2080 more bandwidth vs 1070 and 1080)).
1650 will be memory bandwidth bottleneck because same bandwidth as 1050TI.
Click to expand...
Nvidia uses memory compression technique so memory bandwidth should not be a big issue.
 
Dribble said:
Tbh I think you miss the point when comparing to 570's and the like. The key audience for these cards wants something that's doesn't take much power (no power connector required) and is small. That way it fits into all sorts of cheap pc's with little cases/power supplies and limited cooling.
The 1650 will easily be the fastest card for that market. It will sell well just like the 1050/1050Ti do despite not being a great cards in a straight performance/$ competition.
Click to expand...

^ This. Unless Navi has a very compelling competitor that only runs off the PCIE slot, they will sell well just like the 1050TI did. I'll likely be ordering up 40 of them this summer.
 
If they have a passively cooled card similar to the 750 Ti then the 1650 will be immensely popular for HTPC boxes.

Something completely silent but still allowing good 1080p performance is going to be really popular with a lot of folks.
 
Interesting..from w1zzard
no guide, no presentation, no briefing, no driver, just a short email with some basic specs and marketing speak

and i know why, the performance just isn't there:
sq7shekcnb.jpg
 
Regardless of performance, card will sell because its in its own category - fastest card with no power connector for an acceptable price. Just like 1050ti and 750Ti before it.
 
Head1985 said:
and i know why, the performance just isn't there:
sq7shekcnb-jpg.5475
Click to expand...
Certainly no AMD RX 570 "killer", not at the low end of NVidia's stack.

Edit: Still, performance moves up a notch (a "hair"), in the GPU-without-a-PCI-E-power-connector category.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top