Question [Videocardz] 1660 Super and 1650 Super final specs

[jpiniero]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER and GTX 1650 SUPER final specifications | VideoCardz.com

Featured, GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER, GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER Today we share full, confirmed specifications of the upcoming SUPER series. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 16 SUPER Series NVIDIA has provided the full specifications

videocardz.com

The 1650 Super in particular is a decent improvement over the regular 1650 - 1280 shaders instead of 896 and GDDR6 instead of GDDR5... although the TDP has now gone up to 100W instead of 75.

 

[Glo.]

GTX 1650 Super will compete with RX 5500, and GTX 1660 Super will compete with RX 5500 XT.

 

[uzzi38]

GTX 1650 Super will compete with RX 5500, and GTX 1660 Super will compete with RX 5500 XT.

Can't compete with a GPU that doesn't exist (5500XT). *Taps head*

Anyway, the only thing left up in the air between the 5500 and 1650 Super is pricing. Will the two price match, or will AMD undercut again?

 

[mohit9206]

1650 super sounds nice other than the 128 bit bandwidth. However it will not be cheap, probably 180. And the 4gb vram is also a dealbreaker. Unless its 150 i don't see any value in this card.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

Is 1650 Super going to even be any better than the RX 570? I'm tempted to just go buy a used 570 to wait out the end of this console gen because I don't want to buy a new expensive gpu before or early in a new console gen after how horribly Kepler aged. And it's not like previously expensive AMD cards like HD 7950 aged that beautifully either (though much better than Kepler).

 

[jpiniero]

Is 1650 Super going to even be any better than the RX 570?

Faster, yes but not by much.

Any non-RTX card is going to age horribly so I wouldn't worry about it.

 

[Glo.]

Can't compete with a GPU that doesn't exist (5500XT). *Taps head*

Anyway, the only thing left up in the air between the 5500 and 1650 Super is pricing. Will the two price match, or will AMD undercut again?

It does exist, my friend .

1650 super sounds nice other than the 128 bit bandwidth. However it will not be cheap, probably 180. And the 4gb vram is also a dealbreaker. Unless its 150 i don't see any value in this card.

Some time ago there were rumors that bigger Nvidia GPU with 1650 series will cost around 155$

 

[VirtualLarry]

1650 super sounds nice other than the 128 bit bandwidth. However it will not be cheap, probably 180. And the 4gb vram is also a dealbreaker. Unless its 150 i don't see any value in this card.

I agree with both the "Will this be faster than a $140 RX 570 card", and the above. If this is priced much above $150-160, I think that it will be largely DOA, with only 4GB of VRAM (GDDR6 notwithstanding).

It might be a decent card for mining with, well, possibly until ProgPow takes over for ETH PoW algo. Current algo is memory-intensive, and not so shader-intensive, so anything with GDDR6 and a low price would be good for it.

I'm curious why they went with GTX 1650 Super, rather than Ti? Or is there going to be both cards, with the "Super" variants with GDDR6, and a 1650 ti variant with GDDR5 and more shaders (1400?)?

 

[jpiniero]

I'm curious why they went with GTX 1650 Super, rather than Ti? Or is there going to be both cards, with the "Super" variants with GDDR6, and a 1650 ti variant with GDDR5 and more shaders (1400?)?

The regular 1660 (and the 1660 Super) both have 1408 shaders.

 

[Ranulf]

Well, reviewers will have an interesting time with these cards. Who will follow the reviewer guides and who will break ranks? That 1660S will be right on the heels of the 1660ti for $50 less. There wasn't much excuse to go with the 1660ti before except the ram difference now there is maybe 5-10% difference in perf vs 18% in price.

I wonder if they'll fire sale the 1660 non supers during the holidays?

 

[insertcarehere]

Is 1650 Super going to even be any better than the RX 570? I'm tempted to just go buy a used 570 to wait out the end of this console gen because I don't want to buy a new expensive gpu before or early in a new console gen after how horribly Kepler aged. And it's not like previously expensive AMD cards like HD 7950 aged that beautifully either (though much better than Kepler).

Looking at the specs it's more GTX 1660 minus than GTX 1650 plus, it should be on par with the fastest Polaris gpus.

 

[uzzi38]

It does exist, my friend .

Mate, if you knew the first thing about the RDNA architecture, you'd realise that an XT model would be utterly worthless. <3% better than the 5500 at best.

It won't be a desktop product. The full 24CU Navi 14 die will likely get thrown at Apple and AMD'll call it a day.

 

[Glo.]

Mate, if you knew the first thing about the RDNA architecture, you'd realise that an XT model would be utterly worthless. <3% better than the 5500 at best.

It won't be a desktop product. The full 24CU Navi 14 die will likely get thrown at Apple and AMD'll call it a day.

What if it is not useless and what if it is not only 3% faster than RX 5500?

If anything we should learn by now is that Nvidia always want to come on top of AMD. There is a good reason why they release TWO GPUs, not one.

 

[jpiniero]

AT has a review now of the 1660 Super. Pretty surprised it's that close to the 1660 Ti. Given that it's only 10 bucks more than the reg 1660 it kind of obsoletes both.

 

[Glo.]

Hardware Unboxed placed them 6-10% behind GTX 1660 Ti on average, while consuming more power than both: GTX 1660 and GTX 1660 Ti. I guess 14 Gbps GDDR6 uses more power than 12 Gbps and GDDR5.

 

[VirtualLarry]

AT has a review now of the 1660 Super.

AT with an up-to-date first-day review of a product? You've got to be kidding me! (Ok, joking, but only slightly. Nice to see though.)

 

[Stuka87]

I was really expecting the Super to just replace the 1660Ti, but not the case. A pretty mild refresh compared to some of the other Super cards. And it still falls behind old cards like the RX 590 (although with much less power usage).

 

[VirtualLarry]

HardwareUnboxed's YT video had the GTX 1660 Super above the RX 590 mostly all of the time, at least @ 1080P.

 

[Mopetar]

Hardware Unboxed placed them 6-10% behind GTX 1660 Ti on average, while consuming more power than both: GTX 1660 and GTX 1660 Ti. I guess 14 Gbps GDDR6 uses more power than 12 Gbps and GDDR5.

The AT review has it at 96% of the performance of the Ti and barely more power draw. At $50 cheaper than the 1660 Ti I'm not sure anyone would buy anything but the 1660 Super.

 

[VirtualLarry]

The AT review has it at 96% of the performance of the Ti and barely more power draw. At $50 cheaper than the 1660 Ti I'm not sure anyone would buy anything but the 1660 Super.

Did AT's article (haven't read it yet), use NVidia's "MSRP" of $230? HWU used a "estimated street price" of $240, seeing as how there aren't really any GTX 1660 cards available at MSRP of $220 in USA either, most are $230 and up. Whereas, BestBuy has a dual-fan EVGA GTX 1660 ti for $255 + tax. I think at that price, I would still choose the ti model. Barring that, though, the 1660 Super does look like a slightly better deal, price/performance wise.

 

[Glo.]

The AT review has it at 96% of the performance of the Ti and barely more power draw. At $50 cheaper than the 1660 Ti I'm not sure anyone would buy anything but the 1660 Super.

RX 5500/5500 XT

 

[Mopetar]

Did AT's article (haven't read it yet), use NVidia's "MSRP" of $230? HWU used a "estimated street price" of $240, seeing as how there aren't really any GTX 1660 cards available at MSRP of $220 in USA either, most are $230 and up. Whereas, BestBuy has a dual-fan EVGA GTX 1660 ti for $255 + tax. I think at that price, I would still choose the ti model. Barring that, though, the 1660 Super does look like a slightly better deal, price/performance wise.

That AT article has the price listed as $229 and here's what they have to say about it in the closing remarks:

Which perhaps isn’t remarkable in and of itself, but what the GTX 1660 Super doesn’t bring to the table in terms of new hardware, it brings to the table in terms of pricing. NVIDIA is launching this card at $229, which is $50 below where the GTX 1660 Ti launched back in February – and indeed, what it still sells for today. Meanwhile at the other end of the spectrum, the new Super card delivers 12% better performance than NVIDIA’s $219 vanilla GTX 1660, all for a decabuck ($10) more.

As a result, at current prices the GTX 1660 Super all but makes the other GTX 1660 cards redundant; the Ti isn’t fast enough to justify the price, and the vanilla GTX 1660 isn’t cheap enough to justify the performance hit.

Sure the Ti cards will probably see a price drop as retailers look to move any remaining inventory, but there's no reason for both product to exist when the 1660 Super is that close in terms of performance.

RX 5500/5500 XT

I was specifically referring to the 1660 or the 1660 Ti, and didn't even really consider current AMD cards, let alone unreleased future cards, as part of the equation. There is certainly a nice little gap in the market at the $200 price point for AMD to snuggle into though. I'm not sure what the 1650 Super is going to come in at in terms of price, but just based on the specs it's going to be a massive step up over the 1650.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I really wish that the 1650 Super and 1660 Super were releasing at the same time (end of Oct.). I might prefer the 1650 Super for mining and 1080P gaming purposes.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

Did AT's article (haven't read it yet), use NVidia's "MSRP" of $230? HWU used a "estimated street price" of $240, seeing as how there aren't really any GTX 1660 cards available at MSRP of $220 in USA either, most are $230 and up. Whereas, BestBuy has a dual-fan EVGA GTX 1660 ti for $255 + tax. I think at that price, I would still choose the ti model. Barring that, though, the 1660 Super does look like a slightly better deal, price/performance wise.

There is an EVGA model that's $230 on newegg and amazon. $230 is still way too much for this card (should be more like $200) but it's probably what I'll end up buying to replace my dead 970. I'm not spending $350+ on a card that'll probably be crap in two years with a new console gen.

 

[amrnuke]

There is an EVGA model that's $230 on newegg and amazon. $230 is still way too much for this card (should be more like $200) but it's probably what I'll end up buying to replace my dead 970. I'm not spending $350+ on a card that'll probably be crap in two years with a new console gen.

If $230 is way too much, at least wait 30 days to see how the RX 5500 does. May be cheaper and better.