[Videocardz] 1650 details

[maddie]

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.

funny enough so is this 1650 Nvidia thread.

Quote: The 1650 will be at least equal to a 570 with no power connector.

By the way, what do you think went wrong here?

 

[Head1985]

1650 is memory bandwidth bottleneck because same bandwidth as 1050TI.

 

[Mopetar]

1650 is memory bandwidth bottleneck because same bandwidth as 1050TI.

That's my assumption as well. I looked at other Turing cards compared to their closest Pascal analog and the 1650 is in line with all of the rest when it comes to comparing cores, GFLOPs, fill rate, etc. The only difference is that unlike other cases where the memory bandwidth significantly increased, the 1650 saw a decrease relative to what it should stack up against.

An uncut chip with GDDR6 would definitely punch above the 570.

 

[AtenRa]

I would really like to see the power consumption of an RX 590 (12nm 233mm2) at the same performance of the GTX 1650 (12nm 200mm2).

 

[wilds]

Would love to see some perf/w figures for the 75w version especially with an undervolt.

 

[Iron Woode]

75 watt version reviewed by Hardware Unboxed:

 

[ozzy702]

I would really like to see the power consumption of an RX 590 (12nm 233mm2) at the same performance of the GTX 1650 (12nm 200mm2).

That would be really interesting to see. Off the top of my head I'd guess ~ 125-135 watts, but maybe even less. I'm not sure what core clock the 590 would need to be at to equal the 1650, but should be pretty easy to test. Of course we all know that AMD's voltages are all over the place, so manually tuning a card could need some really spectacular gains in efficiency with a low clock speed assuming it's a solid chip.

 

[tajoh111]

This chips is starting to remind me of the r9 285 also known as Tonga launch . It seems redundant and a tad too expensive for a replacement card.

The r9 285 series was meant to replace the 280/280x originally. However it was a disappoint card considering at the same die size, it was largely the same performance(as the 280) and the price was pretty bad too. The retail pricing of the card was 250-270USD which was a cut down Tonga chip but performed about 10% slower than the r9 280x which at official pricing of 260 dollars at the time but street pricing was really 240 dollars with the r9 280 decently under 200. It was not particularly well received and the only saving grace was the power consumption which was slightly better than Tahiti.

Another thing these two cards have in common is the 1650 and the r9 285 come out with a smaller memory bus compared the the cards they replace in performance. These extra transistors saved or gain from the design change went into features. The irony today is much like Tonga's launch, it was the r9 xx50, which is equivalent to the rx x70 series today that is giving Nvidia problems in reviews.

This chips is a really big gtx xx50 series and when fully enabled, will have the almost the same performance as a GTX 1060 while having the same die size, much like the r9 285/380x vs r9 280/280x.

Altogether it seems a bit redundant, it seems like a important move for the laptop and system builders market but for people who buy cards, it is largely unnecessary.

 

[SPBHM]

75 watt version reviewed by Hardware Unboxed:

interesting the version with 6pin barely uses more power at stock, but 6pin version is better for OC, basically,

using just the power from the slot is an advantage, but I don't see it as that huge of deal, when it's simple to use an adapter, and with the level of power draw the 1650 uses I don't think that's something to be worried, still...

I like the card without the power connector also for the size, no reason why most 1650s shouldn't be that compact, and that's a clear advantage for very cheap and also small cases.

Yeah. After watching those two linked videos (HU and GN) about the GTX 1650, it seems.... wholly unimpressive. Who would have imagined that a brand-new NV card would get it's ass whooped by a 3-year-old (effectively) RX 570 card?


Drop the price to $99, it might actually sell well.

Edit: RX 570 4GB models shipping from China are already in that price-range.
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA4RE91E9033&ignorebbr=1

they can potentially sell well with the current price, given the 1050s AFAIK continue to sell, and the 1660 is not so close in price.
I think they should drop the price to $130 or $120, even if performance is lower, it is not massively slower, the power usage is less than half and it can easily be sold with a small pcb/no 6 pin.... and... it's from Nvidia...

the 570 for those prices is clearly a better option for gaming, but I don't think it invalidates the 1650 entirely,

 

[Yotsugi]

the 570 for those prices is clearly a better option for gaming, but I don't think it invalidates the 1650 entirely,

It doesn't, and 1650 is a quality laptop fodder.
Unfortunately, 570 doesn't have that much time to live left.

 

[JDG1980]

That would be really interesting to see. Off the top of my head I'd guess ~ 125-135 watts, but maybe even less. I'm not sure what core clock the 590 would need to be at to equal the 1650, but should be pretty easy to test. Of course we all know that AMD's voltages are all over the place, so manually tuning a card could need some really spectacular gains in efficiency with a low clock speed assuming it's a solid chip.

The Radeon WX 5100 is a cut-down Polaris 10 chip, configured to run in a 75W power envelope and thus not need a PCIe connector. TechPowerUp pegs the WX 5100 as being only a bit weaker than the GTX 1650. Until the 1650's release, this was the most powerful card under 75W on the market - though few bought it because it is positioned, and priced, as a workstation product.

The updated "12nm" GloFo process can provide either higher absolute clocks, or better clocks at the same power level compared to first-gen 14nm. Also, perf/watt is generally better when running more shaders at lower clocks, especially on AMD products. Therefore, I think if AMD wanted to make a card optimized to run below 75W and used Polaris 30 (the updated chip stepping in the RX 590) as a base, they could beat the GTX 1650 by a comfortable margin. As others have said, this is in large part due to the Nvidia chip's lack of adequate memory bandwidth - even though Nvidia can get the same performance with less bandwidth than AMD, their delta compression can only work so many miracles.

 

[JDG1980]

using just the power from the slot is an advantage, but I don't see it as that huge of deal, when it's simple to use an adapter, and with the level of power draw the 1650 uses I don't think that's something to be worried, still...

It's for upgrading OEM systems with crap PSUs.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Unfortunately, 570 doesn't have that much time to live left.

I disagree. I think that AMD's RX 570, is their version of NVidia's GT730. Only it's arguably a REAL gaming-class GPU (for 1080P). I'm sure that as long as they are economically-viable to produce, we'll see them on the market in one form or another, under new labels if necessary, as long as GF has the capacity, and AMD has the WSA to fulfill, and they continue to actually sell in the market. (*)

Plus, they ARE faster than a GTX 1050ti 4GB, and they do come in 4GB, 8GB, and even one 16GB variety. Hence a certain amount of future-proofness, even today, as many of NVidia's most recently budget and mid-range gaming cards only have 6GB VRAM.

Edit: (*) Unless, they have a Navi card scheduled to slot right into where the RX 570 or a 12nm-equivalent RX 575 would sit, and 7nm, despite higher production costs for the process, actually costs less to produce because the dies are smaller at 7nm, and run cooler/lower-power and faster. Still, I would think that those would command a premium, and like Bristol Ridge, having the "old" RX 570 hang around for a little while longer might make sense in certain market regions. (After all, AMD did just re-release Bristol Ridge dies as FM2+ dual- and quad-core APUs, the 7480 and 7680.)

 

[ozzy702]

The Radeon WX 5100 is a cut-down Polaris 10 chip, configured to run in a 75W power envelope and thus not need a PCIe connector. TechPowerUp pegs the WX 5100 as being only a bit weaker than the GTX 1650. Until the 1650's release, this was the most powerful card under 75W on the market - though few bought it because it is positioned, and priced, as a workstation product.

The updated "12nm" GloFo process can provide either higher absolute clocks, or better clocks at the same power level compared to first-gen 14nm. Also, perf/watt is generally better when running more shaders at lower clocks, especially on AMD products. Therefore, I think if AMD wanted to make a card optimized to run below 75W and used Polaris 30 (the updated chip stepping in the RX 590) as a base, they could beat the GTX 1650 by a comfortable margin. As others have said, this is in large part due to the Nvidia chip's lack of adequate memory bandwidth - even though Nvidia can get the same performance with less bandwidth than AMD, their delta compression can only work so many miracles.

That would be pretty cool to see. Hopefully NAVI doesn't come clocked to the hilt and over-volted for a change.

 

[mohit9206]

That would be pretty cool to see. Hopefully NAVI doesn't come clocked to the hilt and over-volted for a change.

It will come overclocked and over volted because that's the only way they can match Nvidia in performance. So either sacrifice performance for efficiency or efficiency for performance.
Also i think 1650 is a very good product. It just needs to be $20 less.

 

[VirtualLarry]

It will come overclocked and over volted because that's the only way they can match Nvidia in performance. So either sacrifice performance for efficiency or efficiency for performance.
Also i think 1650 is a very good product. It just needs to be $20 less.

About the bolded: LOL! Two of the biggest names in YouTube hardware reviewing, said that the card is "pointless".

And if you have info on Navi performance vis-a-via NVidia's recent card releases, and clocks, and power consumption numbers, let's have the info! Don't keep it to yourself.

Edit: And it's kind of funny that you should say that (only way that they can match Nvidia in performance), because the GTX 1650, even when fully overclocked, can't even match a cheaper AMD RX 570 card.

 

[ozzy702]

About the bolded: LOL! Two of the biggest names in YouTube hardware reviewing, said that the card is "pointless".

And if you have info on Navi performance vis-a-via NVidia's recent card releases, and clocks, and power consumption numbers, let's have the info! Don't keep it to yourself.

Edit: And it's kind of funny that you should say that (only way that they can match Nvidia in performance), because the GTX 1650, even when fully overclocked, can't even match a cheaper AMD RX 570 card.

Agreed, 1650 is DOA. If they release an uncut chip with GDDR6 the 1650TI will be a great card if it were priced where the 1650 is but that won't happen.

 

[mohit9206]

About the bolded: LOL! Two of the biggest names in YouTube hardware reviewing, said that the card is "pointless".

And if you have info on Navi performance vis-a-via NVidia's recent card releases, and clocks, and power consumption numbers, let's have the info! Don't keep it to yourself.

Edit: And it's kind of funny that you should say that (only way that they can match Nvidia in performance), because the GTX 1650, even when fully overclocked, can't even match a cheaper AMD RX 570 card.

It can't match 570 in performance because it doesn't have to, to sell. It will sell regardless as how people buy Apple phones even though they are inferior to Android and more expensive. I mean to say like how Anand lal shimpi said there's no such thing as a bad product but only a bad price. If this was 20-30 cheaper then most of the reviews would have been positive. Also about Navi, i was just speculating which is probably a wrong thing to do but amd haven't shown that they can compete in both efficiency and performance in the last few years.

 

[VirtualLarry]

If this was 20-30 cheaper then most of the reviews would have been positive.

To be fair, that's probably true. If it cost the SAME as an RX 570, I think that it would be a lot more viable in the market, and not DOA like it kind of is now. I could see NVidia moving the price down to $110-120, to match the price of the cheaper RX 570 variants, while at the same time, slotting in a "full fat" GTX 1650 ti, with GDDR6, as faster than the current batch of RX 570 cards, for an equivalently higher price, matching RX 570's price/performance, and beating it on power-consumption. (But if the 1650 non-ti barely makes the cut for the lack of 6-pin PCI-E power, I don't see too many of these hypothetical GTX 1650 ti cards lacking PCI-E power either.)

Also about Navi, i was just speculating which is probably a wrong thing to do but amd haven't shown that they can compete in both efficiency and performance in the last few years.

Maybe I'm just sensitive to speculation, wholly painting AMD in a poor light. After all, they came out with Zen, and that does wonders for power-efficiency, they even have an 8C/16T CPU that's 65W, and going to get even better with 7nm Zen. And Navi is going to be on 7nm too.

 

[Ranulf]

I see on NE they already have the high end MSI 1650 (rgb and better cooler etc.) at $179 with a $20 mail rebate and some Fortnite deal. They'd be better off just cutting the price $20 across the board for all cards.

 

[mohit9206]

$179 GTX 1650!

 

[VirtualLarry]

They'd be better off just cutting the price $20 across the board for all cards.

I agree. I mean, OK, I get it, NVidia likes to charge their fans (customers) a premium, for the brand-name. But when price/performance, and absolute performance, is both worse than your immediate competitor, then maybe some "market positioning" is due.

Once Nvidia decides that they actually WANT TO SELL SOME OF THESE CARDS to customers, other than a few YouTube reviews that had to buy their own cards to review (0-day reviews), they are going to realize that once the word gets out about these cards versus the RX 570, they (NVidia) will have to CUT THE PRICE.

Sure, $20-30 cheaper, sounds decent to me.

 

[Qwertilot]

We’ve had these arguments before with the 750ti etc. I know some people think purely in terms of perf/$ but there’s clearly - solidly proven by empirical testing by now - quite a big market out there for these sorts of cards that will pay a slight premium for the vast power efficiency difference.

So NV charge it. Slightly silly to get so riled up about it really.

 

[ozzy702]

Maybe I'm just sensitive to speculation, wholly painting AMD in a poor light. After all, they came out with Zen, and that does wonders for power-efficiency, they even have an 8C/16T CPU that's 65W, and going to get even better with 7nm Zen. And Navi is going to be on 7nm too.

Zen was a ground up redesign with a focus on power efficiency. We have precious little information on NAVI, so everything is just a speculation right now. If AMD does a complete ground up redesign with a new architecture, sure, power efficiency could be stellar, especially on 7nm. On the other hand if it's just another incremental revision like we've seen so often since the 7000 series with GCN, at best they will catch NVIDIA's 12nm efficiency and when the 3000 series is dropped it will be the same story all over again with NVIDIA taking a massive lead and AMD forced to compete as the "budget" gpu with rock bottom prices.

We've all been hijacking this thread, which is understandable given how lackluster the 1650 is. Hopefully they release a 1650TI so there's something remotely interesting to talk about.

 

[Yotsugi]

Zen was a ground up redesign with a focus on power efficiency

It inherited a lot from previous cores (~the entire BPU is pretty much from BD), and used a lot of things Intel did.

If AMD does a complete ground up redesign with a new architecture

You never go for a ground-up redesign in GPUs.
They never work.

On the other hand if it's just another incremental revision like we've seen so often since the 7000 series with GCN

Everything GPU since the dawn of unified shaders to Turing is incremental.

Hopefully they release a 1650TI so there's something remotely interesting to talk about.

That would be basically mobile 1650 (full TU117) clocked higher.