Wednesday, April 17th 2019

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Specifications and Price Revealed

NVIDIA is releasing its most affordable graphics card based on the "Turing" architecture, the GeForce GTX 1650, on the 23rd of April, starting at USD $149. There doesn't appear to be a reference-design (the GTX 1660 series lacked one, too), and so this GPU will be a partner-driven launch. Based on NVIDIA's smallest "Turing" silicon, the 12 nm "TU117," the GTX 1650 will pack 896 CUDA cores and will feature 4 GB of GDDR5 memory across a 128-bit wide memory interface.

The GPU is clocked at 1485 MHz with 1665 MHz GPU Boost, and the 8 Gbps memory produces 128 GB/s of memory bandwidth. With a TDP of just 75 Watts, most GTX 1650 cards will lack additional PCIe power inputs, relying entirely on the slot for power. Most entry-level implementations of the GTX 1650 feature very simple aluminium fan-heatsink coolers. VideoCardz compiled a number of leaked pictures of upcoming GTX 1650 graphics cards.
Sources: VideoCardz, VonGuru
Add your own comment

109 Comments on NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Specifications and Price Revealed

#51
dirtyferret
trog100 said:
75 watts with no need for extra plugs will be the selling point for this one..

trog
This +1, plenty of people out there with Dell, hp, Acer, etc PC's that don't want to upgrade thier PSU.
Posted on Reply
#52
HenrySomeone
This will be a perfectly fine card, sort of an updated 1050Ti and if it will be anywhere close to the 570 in performance, it will simply be a better buy considering its low power and no problems with dissipating heat whatsoever...
Posted on Reply
#53
jabbadap
dirtyferret said:
This +1, plenty of people out there with Dell, hp, Acer, etc PC's that don't want to upgrade thier PSU.
...Or can't because of proprietary PSUs.
Posted on Reply
#54
notb
tvamos said:
I bought custom built 4670k + gtx1050 for 350€ for my brother in law, so I think that it is too much for price difference.
4670K + GTX1050 is a poorly balanced combo for gaming. A weaker i5 paired with 1050Ti has a lot more potential.
And then there's the warranty, case quality, size etc. You get what you pay for. :-)
Posted on Reply
#55
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
sergionography said:
Based on the specs; I anticipate it to be on par or within 5% performance of a gtx1060 3GB
Me too, and RX 570 4GB comfortably beats GTX 1060 3GB.
Posted on Reply
#56
londiste
btarunr said:
Me too, and RX 570 4GB comfortably beats GTX 1060 3GB.
I know this is borderline trolling but comfortably?
Posted on Reply
#57
Valantar
notb said:
By the dominant use scenario. I don't have a better way.

Cards like RX560 and GTX1050 are chosen not because of how much performance they provide, but how much performance they provide with external limitations: case size, power supply, cooling etc.

This also means the price for these is rather high if you look at the whole lineup (RX560 vs RX570, GTX1050 vs GTX1050Ti). That's simply because for a big part of target consumers these cards have no competition from the higher models. Hence, they're willing to pay a premium as if GTX1050 was the top performer (just like you would pay a premium for 1080Ti).
I think we disagree on what is the dominant usage scenario. I'd say there are three: those limited by price, those limited by case size, and those limited by PSU capacity/lack of PCIe power plugs. The latter quite often overlap, but not completely. These cards sell well to all three groups, but they have different competition. I'd argue that "limited by price" is the biggest group, and that's where cards like the RX 570 are clear competitors. With limited case size Imean limited to LP cards, which up until now has meant GTX 1050 Ti or RX 560 at best. The same applies to power limited builds, though in some cases you can adapt other connectors to PCIe for a reasonably low-powered card. The latter two groups are likely willing/able to pay a premium, but the former is mostly dominated by what provides the best performance at a given price point.

notb said:
RX570 pulls 190W under heavy load and over 170W in gaming. Even if you make a small one, it may not fit in a power budget that many SSF systems provide (~200-300W).
I'm very interested to see where you've got those numbers from. As I mentioned above, I've shoehorned an RX 570 (Sapphire Pulse ITX) into a Dell Optiplex 990 SFF, which has a 240W PSU limited to ~200W on the 12V rail. I modded the PSU cables to power the GPU (spliced a PCIe power connector onto the EPS cable and one more 12V line), and it works very well. The highest gaming load I've seen is 265W at the wall, which accounting for PSU losses is below 180W (yes, the PSU has garbage efficiency). That's with an i5-2400 (95W, though around 80W under Prime95 according to HWMonitor, around 50W in games), an SSD and four fans, with no undervolting or underclocking of the GPU. There's no way the GPU pulls 170W. Period. The RX 570 has a 150W TDP, so unless you're talking heavily OC'd versions, there's no way it would exceed that by that much.
Posted on Reply
#58
londiste
RX570 pulls the intended 150W. OCd models are anyone's guess though and reviews do show 160-170W and more.
Posted on Reply
#59
notb
Valantar said:
I think we disagree on what is the dominant usage scenario. I'd say there are three: those limited by price, those limited by case size, and those limited by PSU capacity/lack of PCIe power plugs. The latter quite often overlap, but not completely. These cards sell well to all three groups, but they have different competition. I'd argue that "limited by price" is the biggest group, and that's where cards like the RX 570 are clear competitors.
Not sure about that. It's desktop gaming. Small niche. And people on tight budget might look for a used PC.
People buying new stuff can, as @cucker tarlson suggested, add $50 and get a much faster card. That would be the best spent $50 in their build - worth saving elsewhere.
I'm very interested to see where you've got those numbers from.
Techpowerup's own review:
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Sapphire/RX_570_Pulse/28.html
There's no way the GPU pulls 170W. Period. The RX 570 has a 150W TDP, so unless you're talking heavily OC'd versions, there's no way it would exceed that by that much.
Yes, it's an overclocked card, but that's the one to get. RX570 on stock isn't that impressive (much like RX470) - making GTX1060 3GB a much better choice (or RX580 if you have the power to spare).
Posted on Reply
#60
B-Real
The 1650, given its price and possible performance, will end up on the worst end of the 20 series along with the RTX 2080 and 2080Ti.

HenrySomeone said:
This will be a perfectly fine card, sort of an updated 1050Ti and if it will be anywhere close to the 570 in performance, it will simply be a better buy considering its low power and no problems with dissipating heat whatsoever...
The 1650 may be ahead of the 1050Ti's performance, the RX570 is ~40% faster. It won't even be close to the RX570. Low power, disspiating heat... you speak as the RX570 was 90 degrees.

notb said:


Yes, it's an overclocked card, but that's the one to get. RX570 on stock isn't that impressive (much like RX470) - making GTX1060 3GB a much better choice (or RX580 if you have the power to spare).
In terms of what? Their performance is around the same, the RX 570 has 1GB more VRAM and it costs 150 EUR compared to the GTX 1060 3GB's 185 EUR.
Posted on Reply
#61
cucker tarlson
B-Real said:

The 1650 Will be around 1050Ti performance, the RX570 is ~40% faster. Low power, disspiating heat... you speak as the RX570 was 90 degrees.
17% more cores on turing architecture,don't know how that's around the same performance as 1050ti.
1660 ended up 20% faster than 1060 with 10% more shaders and same bandwidth.
With 17% more shaders and 14% more bandwidth 1650 will be around 1050ti though :laugh:
this card will trade blows with 570 bar games that utilize amd cards more effectively than nvidia like bf,at the same time using no extrenal power connectors.
Posted on Reply
#62
londiste
B-Real said:
The 1650, given its price and possible performance, will end up on the worst end of the 20 series along with the RTX 2080 and 2080Ti.
The 1650 may be ahead of the 1050Ti's performance, the RX570 is ~40% faster. Low power, disspiating heat... you speak as the RX570 was 90 degrees.
It is amazing. It is like people are completely unable to understand other considerations than price/performance may exist.
RX570 is literally consuming twice the power and gives out twice the heat. This is a significant difference even if the performance delta would be 40% (which is very unlikely).
Posted on Reply
#63
HenrySomeone
Precisely - this card will render even the last competitive option from AMD (570) obsolete for everyone except the most ardent fanboys. I think this has never happened before (AMD not being usefull in even one single segment) and although Navi is supposedly on the horizon, I wouldn't expect too much from it either...
Posted on Reply
#64
londiste
HenrySomeone said:
Precisely - this card will render even the last competitive option from AMD (570) obsolete for everyone except the most ardent fanboys. I think this has never happened before (AMD not being usefull in even one single segment) and although Navi is supposedly on the horizon, I wouldn't expect too much from it either...
It will not render AMD cards obsolete, there are ways to correct the market position with price being the primary one. Right now, RX570-s are available (in Europe) for 120€. This is dirt cheap and indeed the same price as (or even lower then) GTX 1050Ti.

RX570 was intended to be a competitor to GTX 1060 3GB. These two are still comparable cards in performance but no longer in price. Price-wise, today:
- GTX 1060 3GB is being sold starting 170€ (MSRP $199, later lowered to $179)
- RX570 4GB is being sold starting 120€ (MSRP $169)
- GTX 1050Ti is being sold starting 120€ (MSRP $139)
- RX560 is being sold starting 100€ (MSRP $100)
- GTX 1050 is being sold starting 120€ (MSRP $109)
(EU prices in € and rougly same as MSRP in $, primarily due to taxes)

Note that there is a noticeable pressure on prices of the cards around RX570 while cards positioned lower than that (RX560 and GTX 1050 being examples here) cannot get much lower than where they are.
There are a lot of factors in play, mining and used cards market - especially related to mining - are big ones. Upcoming cards are starting to affect the prices of old ones (more of this on Nvidia side right now) but the pricing on RX570 does not seem very sustainable at this level (in terms of profits for AMD).
Posted on Reply
#65
dirtyferret
btarunr said:
Me too, and RX 570 4GB comfortably beats GTX 1060 3GB.
Perhaps the definition of comfortably has changed recently but most web sites like pcgamer, techspot, tomshardware, and this very one have the GTX 1060 3gb edging the 570 4gb in their performance.



Posted on Reply
#66
Ibotibo01
GTX 1650 has got 896 cores which means it is %40 faster than GTX 1050 but 1650 is Turing and it has got higher Core and VRAM MHZ than 1050. I expect that 1650 reaches GTX 1060 3GB-RX570 tier. Also GTX1650=RTX2060/2, if you test any benchmark, it performs like RX570.


If you want look: https://twitter.com/tum_apisak
Posted on Reply
#67
tvamos
notb said:
4670K + GTX1050 is a poorly balanced combo for gaming. A weaker i5 paired with 1050Ti has a lot more potential.
And then there's the warranty, case quality, size etc. You get what you pay for. :)
Well this was with 16gb too, 256gb ssd and 1tb hdd, corsair case and corsair psu. I still feel it is better deal, considering he can drop in a lot stronger gpu for this ~150€ difference compared to your link. And 3.4ghz on 2400 is nowhere near 4.3ghz this one is oc-ed to. Not to bash your choice, just wanted to say I feel it is overpriced
Posted on Reply
#68
cucker tarlson
Ibotibo01 said:
GTX 1650 has got 896 cores which means it is %40 faster than GTX 1050 but 1650 is Turing and it has got higher Core and VRAM MHZ than 1050. I expect that 1650 reaches GTX 1060 3GB-RX570 tier. Also GTX1650=RTX2060/2, if you test any benchmark, it performs like RX570.


If you want look: https://twitter.com/tum_apisak
do note that this benchamark positions 580 on par with 1060 3gb not 6gb,so 1650 is more likely to trade blows with 570 in most games,though 570 will probably be faster overall.
Posted on Reply
#69
Ibotibo01
cucker tarlson said:
do note that this benchamark positions 580 on par with 1060 3gb not 6gb,so 1650 is more likely to trade blows with 570 in most games,though 570 will probably be faster overall.
In AC Odyssey, GTX1650>RX570 but in BF5 RX570>GTX1650.
Posted on Reply
#70
notb
tvamos said:
Well this was with 16gb too, 256gb ssd and 1tb hdd, corsair case and corsair psu. I still feel it is better deal, considering he can drop in a lot stronger gpu for this ~150€ difference compared to your link. And 3.4ghz on 2400 is nowhere near 4.3ghz this one is oc-ed to. Not to bash your choice, just wanted to say I feel it is overpriced
Well, it has warranty. And I'd choose a Dell case over Corsair any day. :-)

As for the set you've built:
I'm sure the client can switch to a more powerful GPU, but how's that important? You said you sold a 1050. That's it. He would now have to pay for 2 cards. :-P
Also, the CPU you put in that set was already too powerful for the GPU. What's the point of overclocking?
No offense, but it seems like you've built someone a computer for benchmarks, not games. ;-)
Posted on Reply
#71
tvamos
notb said:
Well, it has warranty. And I'd choose a Dell case over Corsair any day. :)

As for the set you've built:
I'm sure the client can switch to a more powerful GPU, but how's that important? You said you sold a 1050. That's it. He would now have to pay for 2 cards. :p
Also, the CPU you put in that set was already too powerful for the GPU. What's the point of overclocking?
No offense, but it seems like you've built someone a computer for benchmarks, not games. ;-)
You got it all wrong and You don't read, I bought that pc as is for 350, built nothing, sold nothing. Also proprietary mobo and psu in that older dell vs this is a no go. Ok, I stop here, have a nice day.
Posted on Reply
#72
lexluthermiester
londiste said:
I know this is borderline trolling but comfortably?
That's not trolling. The other user made an incorrect statement and you corrected them, with evidence. Carry on..

dirtyferret said:
Perhaps the definition of comfortably has changed recently but most web sites like pcgamer, techspot, tomshardware, and this very one have the GTX 1060 3gb edging the 570 4gb in their performance.
It does depend on the benchmark, but over-all the 1060-3GB comes out on top, even if only just.
Posted on Reply
#73
notb
lexluthermiester said:

It does depend on the benchmark, but over-all the 1060-3GB comes out on top, even if only just.
On top of some of the best cooled RX570 versions, like Sapphire Pulse or ASUS Strix.

If you look at smaller and simpler versions, like Sapphire Pulse ITX, they're another 5% slower.
Posted on Reply
#74
dirtyferret
lexluthermiester said:

It does depend on the benchmark, but over-all the 1060-3GB comes out on top, even if only just.
Obviously specific games can prefer one card over the other, my statement was towards the entire gaming suite used by each web site in their current reviews.
Posted on Reply
#75
trog100
people seem to forget this card is engineered down to 75 watts and no extra plugs.. it will perform as well as 75 watts can perform.. no more no less..

trog
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment