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.

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 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".

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.

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.

Its funny, this little thing is faster than the first GTX Titan!

card really good but 1 word makes it useless "RX 570" 🙂

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.

Loophole35:

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.

Is this card a joke? Maybe decent HTPC card, but many much cheaper cards can do that.

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 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

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.

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.

Loophole35:

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.

nvm. Turing's been going on for 7 months now. Not much left to be said that haven't been said already.

Hilbert Hagedoorn:

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?

$149?....Lol https://i.postimg.cc/YSzDptMX/470.png butt kick for $30 less...

This is a goddamn piece of shit!

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 is a netflix 4k card, not a gaming card. thats how im looking at it.