Nvidia's product roster is such a mess. Bad Nvidia, stop it.

buhehe:

Nvidia's product roster is such a mess. Bad Nvidia, stop it.

Just forget the non-super exists. The super cards are what the standard ones should have been. this card is $10 more than the regular 1650 and is ~20% faster. If anything I applaud Nvidia for the super line-up due to the much better $/performance over the standard Turning line-up. Guess they didn't want to just sit there and watch the sales figures continue to stagnate.

Loophole35:

Just forget the non-super exists. The super cards are what the standard ones should have been. this card is $10 more than the regular 1650 and is ~20% faster. If anything I applaud Nvidia for the super line-up due to the much better $/performance over the standard Turning line-up. Guess they didn't want to just sit there and watch the sales figures continue to stagnate.

The products themselves are not bad... but boy this line is confusing. 1xxx products being released after 2xxx went out Ti and Super are redundant - they both mean "kinda better" Super cards being released with performance identical to existing products (see 1660 Ti and 1660 Super) IMHO they should have stuck to the same generation - not borrowing numbers from the previous one. Especially the midrange is confusing - where you transition from 1660 Ti (or, well... Super) to 2060. Sure, the big difference between gen 10 / 16 and 20 is RTX. Might as well just say "GTX 2050, RTX 2060". Besides, who is ever going to use RTX on a 2060? But that's another matter. Between gen 16 and 20 there are currently 12 concurrent models, some of which are slowly being replaced by the Super versions but are still around.

Ok so if this lands in the 150-160$ range that’s actually pretty impressive considering how close it is to the 1660 or the last get 1070.

Building a 1080p rig with less than $550 is really easy now and you can do it with a clear upgrade path. I totally expect the 5500/xt to be around this same price/performance area. on the naming thing. I don’t find it confusing in the least. No 16xx card is faster than a 20xx card so no toes are stepped on there. I for one have always called my card by it’s number designation (6950, 7970, 670, 780, 1070, 1080ti see what I mean) so the knowing the 20xx cards have the RT cores and the 16xx cards don’t is easy. Now the ti/super I get the issue there but as always I implore consumers to research their purchases. BTW who do I have to talk to at Nvidia to get the ULTRA monicker to make a comeback?

Lol, remember those days when you had a silent rig that sounded like a vacuum because of the xxxxUltra 😀 Or you were smart enough to install a zalman/arctic cooler 😎

fry178:

Lol, remember those days when you had a silent rig that sounded like a vacuum because of the xxxxUltra 😀 Or you were smart enough to install a zalman/arctic cooler 😎

Headphones.

Its not bad product. Nvidia screwed with the release of original 1650.

Yeah, sold my 1080 finally and might get this to hold me over till 3xxx series, so siege stops whining about outdated drivers with my 570 🙄

Would still go with rx580 due more vram. Pricing is about the same. 1660 on the other hand is still 50$ more.

Dont wanna deal with the higher heat and switching within Nv lineup i can keep the drivers/shadowplay.

I have the GeForce GTX 1650 Super 4GB on my i5 9400K rig, 5x 120mm fans. When it comes to the temperature chart supplied here, I think it is way, way off when it comes to gaming. At rest I get 35-45°. When running graphic applications it gets 50-60° and can peak at 70°. Some game specifics. Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 - 60-70° with a peak of 76° Star Citizen - 70-80° and a constant 83° when in high graphic areas or combat Just my experiences on my rig..