Cooler Master MasterBox NR600 review
MSI to unveil 10th Anniversary RTX 2080 Ti Lightning Edition
Ballistix Elite 3600 MHz 16GB Dual Channel DDR4 review
ASUS ROG Rapture GT-AC2900 Gaming Router review
Asustor Nimbustor 4 (AS5304T) NAS Review
Promo: VIP-SCDKey Games and Windows 10 / Office
be quiet! Dark Rock SLIM review
Gigabyte GeForce GTX 1660 Gaming OC review
Edifier G4 Pro Headset review
Microsoft Office 2016 Pro and Windows 10 Pro for just $34
Zotac GeForce GTX 1650 Gaming Review
Posted by: on: 04/23/2019 05:31 PM [
36 comment(s) ]
We review the Zotac GeForce GTX 1650 Gaming OC edition, this incredibly small GeForce GTX 1650 has been fabbed to be a budget-friendly product, with an extremely small and compact size. We're talking less than 15cm here. The single fan product is energy friendly as well, there's no need for even a power connector as it feeds from the 75 Watt PCIe power slot.
Read article
Advertisement
pages 1 2
BReal85
Senior Member
Posts: 242
Senior Member
Posts: 242
Posted on: 04/23/2019 05:50 PM
Thanks for the quick release, Hilbert!
To be honest, that performance is close to pathetic given the $150+ price tag. It has +10% performance in a fresh NV title (Metro Exodus) compared to the 1050 Ti.... I believe - as I wrote days earlier - the 1650 is the black sheep of the 20 (16) series with the RTX 2080 and 2080 Ti in terms of price/performance. I would honestly buy only the 1660 and 1660 Ti from the NV line.
I can't imagine how green eyed a person has to be to defend this card. Please, forget the "only 75W TDP" sentence.
Thanks for the quick release, Hilbert!
To be honest, that performance is close to pathetic given the $150+ price tag. It has +10% performance in a fresh NV title (Metro Exodus) compared to the 1050 Ti.... I believe - as I wrote days earlier - the 1650 is the black sheep of the 20 (16) series with the RTX 2080 and 2080 Ti in terms of price/performance. I would honestly buy only the 1660 and 1660 Ti from the NV line.
I can't imagine how green eyed a person has to be to defend this card. Please, forget the "only 75W TDP" sentence.
HWgeek
Senior Member
Posts: 367
Senior Member
Posts: 367
Posted on: 04/23/2019 06:15 PM
Thanks for the review- so soon after driver released.
Looking at the AVG performance of GTX 1650 -IMO the 0.1%/1% numbers would be even worse compared to RX570- and this means "Not smooth gaming experience".
Thanks for the review- so soon after driver released.
Looking at the AVG performance of GTX 1650 -IMO the 0.1%/1% numbers would be even worse compared to RX570- and this means "Not smooth gaming experience".
Kaarme
Senior Member
Posts: 1475
Senior Member
Posts: 1475
Posted on: 04/23/2019 06:37 PM
I'm happy that little thing isn't beating my dusty old 390. I'd feel bad waiting to see how Navi turns out if it had.
I'm happy that little thing isn't beating my dusty old 390. I'd feel bad waiting to see how Navi turns out if it had.
waltc3
Senior Member
Posts: 877
Senior Member
Posts: 877
Posted on: 04/23/2019 07:28 PM
Good gosh, what is nVidia trying to do? Pricing a 128-bit bus product against AMD's 256-bit bus RX-570 is insane--ideally this is a $50-$75 GPU. Not to forget here's *another* nVidia GPU that cannot do SLI. The 570 can do Crossfire/D3d12 multi-GPU--but of course, not the comparably priced nVidia GPU. Again. nVidia doesn't seem favorably disposed to selling many/any of these.
Good gosh, what is nVidia trying to do? Pricing a 128-bit bus product against AMD's 256-bit bus RX-570 is insane--ideally this is a $50-$75 GPU. Not to forget here's *another* nVidia GPU that cannot do SLI. The 570 can do Crossfire/D3d12 multi-GPU--but of course, not the comparably priced nVidia GPU. Again. nVidia doesn't seem favorably disposed to selling many/any of these.
Equinoxe
Senior Member
Posts: 232
Senior Member
Posts: 232
Posted on: 04/23/2019 07:36 PM
Its funny, this little thing is faster than the first GTX Titan!
Its funny, this little thing is faster than the first GTX Titan!
Strange Times
Senior Member
Posts: 111
Senior Member
Posts: 111
Posted on: 04/23/2019 07:40 PM
card really good but 1 word makes it useless "RX 570"
card really good but 1 word makes it useless "RX 570"
Loophole35
Senior Member
Posts: 9121
Senior Member
Posts: 9121
Posted on: 04/23/2019 08:43 PM
The 570 is faster but uses twice the power or more (which would make the price difference up in a year or less). This is a good upgrade for a big box store computer with no GFX card because it does not require external power.
Price is too high for performance however.
The 570 is faster but uses twice the power or more (which would make the price difference up in a year or less). This is a good upgrade for a big box store computer with no GFX card because it does not require external power.
Price is too high for performance however.
Undying
Senior Member
Posts: 10898
Senior Member
Posts: 10898
Posted on: 04/23/2019 08:54 PM
The 570 is faster but uses twice the power or more (which would make the price difference up in a year or less). This is a good upgrade for a big box store computer with no GFX card because it does not require external power.
Price is too high for performance however.
I would just get a faster and cheaper rx570 now and deal with a higher power consumption later in a year but thats just me.
The 570 is faster but uses twice the power or more (which would make the price difference up in a year or less). This is a good upgrade for a big box store computer with no GFX card because it does not require external power.
Price is too high for performance however.
I would just get a faster and cheaper rx570 now and deal with a higher power consumption later in a year but thats just me.
alanm
Senior Member
Posts: 8577
Senior Member
Posts: 8577
Posted on: 04/23/2019 08:59 PM
Is this card a joke? Maybe decent HTPC card, but many much cheaper cards can do that.
Is this card a joke? Maybe decent HTPC card, but many much cheaper cards can do that.
Elder III
Senior Member
Posts: 3534
Senior Member
Posts: 3534
Posted on: 04/23/2019 10:37 PM
I could see a reasonable place in the market for this GPU at $100.... no way in Hades is it worth $150-170 though.
I could see a reasonable place in the market for this GPU at $100.... no way in Hades is it worth $150-170 though.
Mundosold
Member
Posts: 73
Member
Posts: 73
Posted on: 04/24/2019 12:00 AM
I was thinking that MAYBE having the new Turing nvenc engine could make this okay for video streaming but turns out it uses the old nvenc. Just an extra punch to the gut I guess.
This card has zero appeal when the RX 570 performs far better and frequently on sale less than $130
I was thinking that MAYBE having the new Turing nvenc engine could make this okay for video streaming but turns out it uses the old nvenc. Just an extra punch to the gut I guess.
This card has zero appeal when the RX 570 performs far better and frequently on sale less than $130
ObscureangelPT
Senior Member
Posts: 529
Senior Member
Posts: 529
Posted on: 04/24/2019 01:07 AM
Honestly, I was expecting a little more from this card, but looking to those 128gb/s and those 896 shader cores it is not surprising, turing itself didn't improve that much comparing to Pascal aside from better low level API support and the RT Cores (which is missing in here).
It offers better performance than the 1050TI, but also trailing behind the RX 470, sometimes just a few frames in specific nvidia titles, other times falls a lot to a point that it is slighty better than a 1050TI
The power consumption is good, somehow I was even expecting better than the equal power consumption of the 1050.
The big big disappointment it is the price, it's a big big joke, the xx50 non-ti always belong to the 100$-125$ price range, and they are actually trying to charge the 150-175$ price range of a xx50ti.
Basically you pay the same price of a 1050TI launched 2.5 years ago for a very very small boost in performance and almost similar same power consumption, it's sad!
Every launch this days for both amd and Nvidia have been bumping up the same branchs of before to a higher price, and that's disgusting to look at.
When comparing to the RX 570 actual price that even brings 2 new games like RE2 and DMC V, it is just sad that someone will go for Nvidia for gaming for this specific card, even if they had to buy a slightly better psu and sell the old one, the RX 570 it's the only good choice at this price range.
Honestly, I was expecting a little more from this card, but looking to those 128gb/s and those 896 shader cores it is not surprising, turing itself didn't improve that much comparing to Pascal aside from better low level API support and the RT Cores (which is missing in here).
It offers better performance than the 1050TI, but also trailing behind the RX 470, sometimes just a few frames in specific nvidia titles, other times falls a lot to a point that it is slighty better than a 1050TI
The power consumption is good, somehow I was even expecting better than the equal power consumption of the 1050.
The big big disappointment it is the price, it's a big big joke, the xx50 non-ti always belong to the 100$-125$ price range, and they are actually trying to charge the 150-175$ price range of a xx50ti.
Basically you pay the same price of a 1050TI launched 2.5 years ago for a very very small boost in performance and almost similar same power consumption, it's sad!
Every launch this days for both amd and Nvidia have been bumping up the same branchs of before to a higher price, and that's disgusting to look at.
When comparing to the RX 570 actual price that even brings 2 new games like RE2 and DMC V, it is just sad that someone will go for Nvidia for gaming for this specific card, even if they had to buy a slightly better psu and sell the old one, the RX 570 it's the only good choice at this price range.
sykozis
Senior Member
Posts: 20867
Senior Member
Posts: 20867
Posted on: 04/24/2019 01:59 AM
Funny how I was just reading over on THG how NVidia hasn't released drivers for this card yet and that reviews aren't possible.....but yet, as usual, Hilbert has a review up.
The 570 is faster but uses twice the power or more (which would make the price difference up in a year or less). This is a good upgrade for a big box store computer with no GFX card because it does not require external power.
Price is too high for performance however.
Are you guys done beating power consumption into the ground yet? You're running an overclocked 8700K.....
Let's talk reality for a minute now. For most of us, the power consumption difference between this GTX1650 and an RX570 is negligible at best. The difference is a few dollars a year, at best. If those few dollars are that important, turn your thermostat up 2 degrees this summer. Problem solved. I find it quite funny that power consumption of a graphics card was never a concern until the 600 series launched. Now it's all some people seem to care about. This card is a disappointment. Compared to the RX570, it's not worth the asking price, regardless of it's power consumption.
Funny how I was just reading over on THG how NVidia hasn't released drivers for this card yet and that reviews aren't possible.....but yet, as usual, Hilbert has a review up.
The 570 is faster but uses twice the power or more (which would make the price difference up in a year or less). This is a good upgrade for a big box store computer with no GFX card because it does not require external power.
Price is too high for performance however.
Are you guys done beating power consumption into the ground yet? You're running an overclocked 8700K.....
Let's talk reality for a minute now. For most of us, the power consumption difference between this GTX1650 and an RX570 is negligible at best. The difference is a few dollars a year, at best. If those few dollars are that important, turn your thermostat up 2 degrees this summer. Problem solved. I find it quite funny that power consumption of a graphics card was never a concern until the 600 series launched. Now it's all some people seem to care about. This card is a disappointment. Compared to the RX570, it's not worth the asking price, regardless of it's power consumption.
Koniakki
Senior Member
Posts: 2800
Senior Member
Posts: 2800
Posted on: 04/24/2019 02:31 AM
nvm.
Turing's been going on for 7 months now. Not much left to be said that haven't been said already.
nvm.
Turing's been going on for 7 months now. Not much left to be said that haven't been said already.
ScottishPickle
Member
Posts: 23
Member
Posts: 23
Posted on: 04/24/2019 02:56 AM
Review: Zotac GeForce GTX 1650 Gaming (OC edition)
Where in the review does it mention that you should look for a 970 for $100-$120?
Review: Zotac GeForce GTX 1650 Gaming (OC edition)
Where in the review does it mention that you should look for a 970 for $100-$120?
airbud7
Senior Member
Posts: 6784
Senior Member
Posts: 6784
Posted on: 04/24/2019 02:56 AM
$149?....Lol
butt kick for $30 less...
$149?....Lol
butt kick for $30 less...
revenge
Junior Member
Posts: 2
Junior Member
Posts: 2
Posted on: 04/24/2019 03:24 AM
This is a goddamn piece of shit!
This is a goddamn piece of shit!
sverek
Junior Member
Posts: 4895
Junior Member
Posts: 4895
Posted on: 04/24/2019 05:57 AM
This will sell like a hotcakes. No need for power, ideal for cheap prebuilt desktops and laptops. Works better with cheaper PSUs.
GTX1050ti sells well for a reason and this card replaces it.
This card is not for consumers who has a choice to built own PC.
This will sell like a hotcakes. No need for power, ideal for cheap prebuilt desktops and laptops. Works better with cheaper PSUs.
GTX1050ti sells well for a reason and this card replaces it.
This card is not for consumers who has a choice to built own PC.
Astyanax
Senior Member
Posts: 1529
Senior Member
Posts: 1529
Posted on: 04/24/2019 11:04 AM
this is a netflix 4k card, not a gaming card.
thats how im looking at it.
this is a netflix 4k card, not a gaming card.
thats how im looking at it.
Andy Watson
Member
Posts: 43
Member
Posts: 43
Posted on: 04/24/2019 01:20 PM
As mentioned this is for people like Dell or HP to stick in low cost desktops that will not stress the 300w PSU and has a brand name which they will get a massive discount on,
I'm struggling to think of any nvidia card currently that gives good bang for buck for the enthusiast at any level. In the past the ti's used to be that, but now they simply fill yet another cost level so the whole spectrum is covered. I guess lack of competition is to blame.
Lets hope navi follows AMD cpu's of recent times and gets them back in the game.
As mentioned this is for people like Dell or HP to stick in low cost desktops that will not stress the 300w PSU and has a brand name which they will get a massive discount on,
I'm struggling to think of any nvidia card currently that gives good bang for buck for the enthusiast at any level. In the past the ti's used to be that, but now they simply fill yet another cost level so the whole spectrum is covered. I guess lack of competition is to blame.
Lets hope navi follows AMD cpu's of recent times and gets them back in the game.
Darkest
Senior Member
Posts: 10130
Senior Member
Posts: 10130
Posted on: 04/24/2019 01:34 PM
While I can see a market for this card in people who want a hassle free upgrade for their prebuild (although how much of a market that is I couldn't say), I do feel that it's a good 40-50 bucks more expensive than it should be. For almost everyone else the 570 is clearly the better buy giving the competing price points.
Honestly though, I find all of Nvidia's current lineup to be more expensive than it should be. Mid range the only one of their cards that I like is the 1660 vanilla, low power usage and decent performance, most seem to OC to almost 1660ti/1070 levels, but again it could do with being 10-20 bucks cheaper. The 1660ti is in some sort of weird limbo between the 1660 and 2060 to the point where you may as well save 50 bucks and get the 1660 or spend another 50 for the 2060. Fingers crossed for Navi, even for die hard NV fans it might provoke some price drops if nothing else.
While I can see a market for this card in people who want a hassle free upgrade for their prebuild (although how much of a market that is I couldn't say), I do feel that it's a good 40-50 bucks more expensive than it should be. For almost everyone else the 570 is clearly the better buy giving the competing price points.
Honestly though, I find all of Nvidia's current lineup to be more expensive than it should be. Mid range the only one of their cards that I like is the 1660 vanilla, low power usage and decent performance, most seem to OC to almost 1660ti/1070 levels, but again it could do with being 10-20 bucks cheaper. The 1660ti is in some sort of weird limbo between the 1660 and 2060 to the point where you may as well save 50 bucks and get the 1660 or spend another 50 for the 2060. Fingers crossed for Navi, even for die hard NV fans it might provoke some price drops if nothing else.
Loophole35
Senior Member
Posts: 9121
Senior Member
Posts: 9121
Posted on: 04/24/2019 02:03 PM
Are you guys done beating power consumption into the ground yet? You're running an overclocked 8700K.....
Let's talk reality for a minute now. For most of us, the power consumption difference between this GTX1650 and an RX570 is negligible at best. The difference is a few dollars a year, at best. If those few dollars are that important, turn your thermostat up 2 degrees this summer. Problem solved. I find it quite funny that power consumption of a graphics card was never a concern until the 600 series launched. Now it's all some people seem to care about. This card is a disappointment. Compared to the RX570, it's not worth the asking price, regardless of it's power consumption.
I’m not saying that it was a card for me. Does being a AMD exclusive user make people incapable of reading comprehension?
I pointed out it’s advantage over the 570 that’s it. The 570 requires a external PCI power cable this card doesn’t in the instances that a customer wants a GFX card to ply fortnight or DOTA or one of the lighter titles out there on a cheaper big box store computer this card is an option. Most of those PSU’s that come in there are not going to have the cable for the extra power.
Let’s also look at another problem that arises when a card uses more power. Noise and heat. The 570 is a warm card warm cards require the fan to spin more more air moving more noise. This card however will not produce much heat which mean less noise. I know that’s not a big deal for most but some may rank it high on their priorities.
And I love how you suggest turning the thermostat up to offset. Seriously if you have to sacrifice comfort so you can justify the people’s GFX card I don’t know what to say.
Are you guys done beating power consumption into the ground yet? You're running an overclocked 8700K.....
Let's talk reality for a minute now. For most of us, the power consumption difference between this GTX1650 and an RX570 is negligible at best. The difference is a few dollars a year, at best. If those few dollars are that important, turn your thermostat up 2 degrees this summer. Problem solved. I find it quite funny that power consumption of a graphics card was never a concern until the 600 series launched. Now it's all some people seem to care about. This card is a disappointment. Compared to the RX570, it's not worth the asking price, regardless of it's power consumption.
I’m not saying that it was a card for me. Does being a AMD exclusive user make people incapable of reading comprehension?
I pointed out it’s advantage over the 570 that’s it. The 570 requires a external PCI power cable this card doesn’t in the instances that a customer wants a GFX card to ply fortnight or DOTA or one of the lighter titles out there on a cheaper big box store computer this card is an option. Most of those PSU’s that come in there are not going to have the cable for the extra power.
Let’s also look at another problem that arises when a card uses more power. Noise and heat. The 570 is a warm card warm cards require the fan to spin more more air moving more noise. This card however will not produce much heat which mean less noise. I know that’s not a big deal for most but some may rank it high on their priorities.
And I love how you suggest turning the thermostat up to offset. Seriously if you have to sacrifice comfort so you can justify the people’s GFX card I don’t know what to say.
kings
Member
Posts: 56
Member
Posts: 56
Posted on: 04/24/2019 03:54 PM
The card itself is fine, 30%~35% faster than 1050Ti in 1080p, the thing that ruins it is the price! Way too high for this performance level.
In any case, versions without a power connector should sell well, especially for pre-assembled systems!
The card itself is fine, 30%~35% faster than 1050Ti in 1080p, the thing that ruins it is the price! Way too high for this performance level.
In any case, versions without a power connector should sell well, especially for pre-assembled systems!
alanm
Senior Member
Posts: 8577
Senior Member
Posts: 8577
Posted on: 04/24/2019 04:46 PM
Seeing power draw and temps, the 1650 is a good candidate for a fanless design. Still, that under-performance will have gamers go for the Rx570 and HTPC users opt for the $80 gt1030.
Seeing power draw and temps, the 1650 is a good candidate for a fanless design. Still, that under-performance will have gamers go for the Rx570 and HTPC users opt for the $80 gt1030.
pages 1 2
Click here to post a comment for this article on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 8824
Took just a moment to check performance graphs. Even in nVidia titles it is quite slower than RX-570. And with that price tag...
RX-570 starts at $125 for small (1-fan) card, which would be competitor for this particular model. And at $130 for regular size 2-fan card.
That shines bad light to GTX 1650 with its price tag. Especially since in some games RX-570 has around 50% fps advantage.
I do remember when RX-480 came along and some reviewers complained about 75W taken from PCIe, and I do remember that hateful bandwagon.
And from Power Draw there comes that other issue...
While you can tweak cheaper RX 570 to eat 75W and it will likely keep performance advantage in most of the games, you do not get to OC GTX 1650 anywhere near RX-570 performance level... And even attempting to overcome power limits would be ill advised action.
Edit: And If we ignore existence of AMD's cards, Within nVidia's ranks 1660 makes so much more sense. Performance per Dollar spent on graphics card is quite better there. And if one would be making whole new system, then performance per Dollar spent on entire system would make 1650 look much worse.