Palit GeForce GTX 1630 4GB Dual review
FSP Dagger Pro (850W PSU) review
Razer Leviathan V2 gaming soundbar review
Guru3D NVMe Thermal Test - the heatsink vs. performance
EnGenius ECW220S 2x2 Cloud Access Point review
Alphacool Eisbaer Aurora HPE 360 LCS cooler review
Noctua NH-D12L CPU Cooler Review
Silicon Power XPOWER XS70 1TB NVMe SSD Review
Hyte Y60 chassis review
ASUS ROG Thor 1000W Platinum II (1000W PSU) review
Palit GeForce GTX 1650 StormX OC Review
Posted by: on: 04/26/2019 01:36 PM [
8 comment(s) ]
In this review, we look at the Palit StormX OC edition of the GeForce GTX 1650. It's a product that was designed for users on a budget, the card breathes and oozes that. This OC model comes with a really simplistic single fan cooler in a rather small compact design.
Read article
Advertisement
pages 1 2
ngoni615
Member
Posts: 55
Member
Posts: 55
Posted on: 04/26/2019 04:17 PM
Wow, it really helps to use a sub-$200 video card for reviewing games at Ultra details and at 4K-Ultra details.
It's all the difference when comparing entry level hardware to know which one can run the game at 18.3 fps and which one at 19.1 fps!
Wow that 0.8 fps makes a difference in the overall smoothness of the game bud.
Wow, it really helps to use a sub-$200 video card for reviewing games at Ultra details and at 4K-Ultra details.
It's all the difference when comparing entry level hardware to know which one can run the game at 18.3 fps and which one at 19.1 fps!
Wow that 0.8 fps makes a difference in the overall smoothness of the game bud.
ManuKey
Member
Posts: 39
Member
Posts: 39
Posted on: 04/26/2019 06:25 PM
The only interest I see in gaming with a GTX 1650, is for HTPC, like I have below my TV. That said, where are the low profile models ???
The only interest I see in gaming with a GTX 1650, is for HTPC, like I have below my TV. That said, where are the low profile models ???
waltc3
Senior Member
Posts: 1390
Senior Member
Posts: 1390
Posted on: 04/26/2019 07:46 PM
Wow, it really helps to use a sub-$200 video card for reviewing games at Ultra details and at 4K-Ultra details.
It's all the difference when comparing entry level hardware to know which one can run the game at 18.3 fps and which one at 19.1 fps!
I didn't see any 4k testing with these cards--just FHD and QHD. Entry-level hardware is always very slow and is for budget-minded n00bs, mainly, which is probably why nVidia price-gouges on the low end--those folks frequently don't know any better. The problem with these cards is they are not priced competitively--AMD's offerings at these price points blow them away in every performance category & metric and are much superior buys for the money. These are sub-$100 GPUs priced approximately $100 too high, imo. Either nVidia simply doesn't care if it sells any of these, or else they are price-gouging the inexperienced n00bs, as I mentioned. Odd, no matter how you look at it.
Wow, it really helps to use a sub-$200 video card for reviewing games at Ultra details and at 4K-Ultra details.
It's all the difference when comparing entry level hardware to know which one can run the game at 18.3 fps and which one at 19.1 fps!
I didn't see any 4k testing with these cards--just FHD and QHD. Entry-level hardware is always very slow and is for budget-minded n00bs, mainly, which is probably why nVidia price-gouges on the low end--those folks frequently don't know any better. The problem with these cards is they are not priced competitively--AMD's offerings at these price points blow them away in every performance category & metric and are much superior buys for the money. These are sub-$100 GPUs priced approximately $100 too high, imo. Either nVidia simply doesn't care if it sells any of these, or else they are price-gouging the inexperienced n00bs, as I mentioned. Odd, no matter how you look at it.
alanm
Senior Member
Posts: 11255
Senior Member
Posts: 11255
Posted on: 04/26/2019 08:44 PM
Wow, it really helps to use a sub-$200 video card for reviewing games at Ultra details and at 4K-Ultra details.
It's all the difference when comparing entry level hardware to know which one can run the game at 18.3 fps and which one at 19.1 fps!
Since most cards can do most games @ 1080p at ultra settings, this is what the 1650 should be run at. Yes its near the bottom of the list, but once you lower settings there are too many variables that can muddy up the results. 1080p at ultra settings should be the standard for all GPUs to bench in reviews (imo). If the card does badly in some games, prospective buyers should know how badly. And now we know. There are other "sub-$200" cards in the review (Rx570) and they do well at "ultra details". Not sure where your "4k-Ultra details" comes from, but obviously not from the review.
Wow, it really helps to use a sub-$200 video card for reviewing games at Ultra details and at 4K-Ultra details.
It's all the difference when comparing entry level hardware to know which one can run the game at 18.3 fps and which one at 19.1 fps!
Since most cards can do most games @ 1080p at ultra settings, this is what the 1650 should be run at. Yes its near the bottom of the list, but once you lower settings there are too many variables that can muddy up the results. 1080p at ultra settings should be the standard for all GPUs to bench in reviews (imo). If the card does badly in some games, prospective buyers should know how badly. And now we know. There are other "sub-$200" cards in the review (Rx570) and they do well at "ultra details". Not sure where your "4k-Ultra details" comes from, but obviously not from the review.
pages 1 2
Click here to post a comment for this article on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 125
Wow, it really helps to use a sub-$200 video card for reviewing games at Ultra details and at 4K-Ultra details.
It's all the difference when comparing entry level hardware to know which one can run the game at 18.3 fps and which one at 19.1 fps!