Sapphire Radeon RX 7600 PULSE review
Gainward GeForce RTX 4060 Ti GHOST review
Radeon RX 7600 review
ASUS GeForce RTX 4060 Ti TUF Gaming review
MSI GeForce RTX 4060 Ti Gaming X TRIO review
GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 8GB (FE) review
Corsair 2000D RGB Airflow Mini-ITX - PC chassis review
ASUS PG27AQDM Review - 240Hz 1440p OLED monitor
MSI MAG X670E Tomahawk WiFi review
Mountain Makalu Max mouse review
Review: Palit GeForce GTX 1650 StormX OC Edition
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 the full review right here.
Review: Corsair IronClaw RGB Wireless mouse - 04/25/2019 03:11 PM
Corsair updated one of their rodents, meet IronClaw RGB mouse now in a wireless version. Designed with a comfortable fit and some pretty iCUE related features this critter might be just what the docto...
Review: Corsair GLAIVE RGB PRO mouse - 04/25/2019 03:11 PM
Corsair updated their GLAIVE RGB game mouse towards a Pro model. Next, to the new 18K Pixart sensor this mouse is very aesthetically pleasing with configurable RGB LEDs and has a grip that is intensel...
Review: Fractal Design Define S2 Vision RGB - 04/24/2019 04:07 PM
We review the all new Fractal Design Define S2 Vision, a mid-tower PC chassis, and the new variant of the Define S2, which we reviewed in October 2018. That’s quite surprising to have new ve...
Review: MSI GeForce GTX 1650 Gaming X - 04/24/2019 03:09 PM
MSI is back, this round with the GeForce GTX 1650 Gaming X edition of the GeForce GTX 1650. Designed to be a budget-friendly product MSI still did mount a pretty impressive cooler, a Twinfrozr revisio...
Review: Zotac GeForce GTX 1650 Gaming OC - 04/23/2019 05:32 PM
Join us as we review the new GeForce GTX 1650 Gaming OC edition. 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 powe...
ngoni615
Member
Posts: 56
Joined: 2019-02-25
Member
Posts: 56
Joined: 2019-02-25
#5663697 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
Joined: 2011-11-10
Member
Posts: 39
Joined: 2011-11-10
#5663731 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: 1443
Joined: 2014-07-22
Senior Member
Posts: 1443
Joined: 2014-07-22
#5663763 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: 11670
Joined: 2004-05-10
Senior Member
Posts: 11670
Joined: 2004-05-10
#5663772 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.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 126
Joined: 2005-04-21
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!