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!

foxX:

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.

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 ???

foxX:

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.

foxX:

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.

foxX:

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!

HH always test cards at the same settings regardless of the price to show the difference between them period. Dont like it go to an shitty e sports review site then. Show some damn respect to HH.

foxX:

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!

as Agonist said HH test all cards with the same settings ... this is not to show you how a card can perform with tweaked settings on each tittle .... then the testing would be infinite pretty much , what HH shows you here is the performance this card put out against the rest of the cards in the market so you can then decide price wise witch card you want to buy all depends on your budget !

waltc3:

... Entry-level hardware is always very slow and is for budget-minded n00bs, mainly,...

What's with the trash-talking, mate?