Monday, July 20th 2020

NVIDIA Seemingly Producing Yet Another GTX 1650 Variant Based on TU-116

NVIDIA's GTX 1650 has already seen more action and revisions within its own generation than most GPUs ever have in the history of graphics cards, with NVIDIA having updated not only its memory (from 4 GB GDDR5 with 128 GB/s bandwidth to 4 GB GDDR6 memory for 192 GB/s bandwidth), but also by carving up different silicon chips to provide the same part to market. The original GTX 1650 made use of NVIDIA's TU117 chips with 896 CUDA cores, which was then superseded by the TU116-based GTX 1650 SUPER, which mightily increased the GTX 1650's execution units (1280) and bandwidth (256-bit bus). There was also a TU106-based GTX 1650, which was just bonkers - a chip originally used on the RTX 2060 was thus repurposed and cut-down.

Now, another TU-116 variant is also available, which NVIDIA carved down from its GTX 1650 SUPER chips. These go back to the original releases' 896 CUDA cores and 128-bit bus, whilst keeping the GDDR6 memory ticking at 12 Gbps and clocks set at 1410 MHz Base and 1590 MHz Boost. This card achieves feature parity with the TU106-based GTX 1650, but trades in the crazy 445 mm² TU106 die for the much more svelte 284 mm² TU116 one. NVIDIA seems to be doing what it can by cleaning house of any and all leftover chips in preparation for their next-gen release - consumer confusion be damned.
Sources: momomo_us @ twitter, via Videocardz
Add your own comment

25 Comments on NVIDIA Seemingly Producing Yet Another GTX 1650 Variant Based on TU-116

#1
_Flare
give us ampere gaming, already! almighty leatherjacket
Posted on Reply
#3
Lionheart
OMG just give us the 3000 series already NVIDIA!!!
Posted on Reply
#4
ARF
This means the wait for a new generation continues.
Wasn't there a news from several days ago that nVidia has just taped the new chips out?
Posted on Reply
#7
Assimilator
Have dies, will harvest. I honestly wonder where NVIDIA keeps them all.
Posted on Reply
#8
TheoneandonlyMrK
AssimilatorHave dies, will harvest. I honestly wonder where NVIDIA keeps them all.
In a bin with a billion teirs apparently and side pockets with hidden pockets and a special turd shoot for those 940 discrete office GPU's.
Posted on Reply
#9
windwhirl
So... that's the 15th variant, considering mobile chips...

RaevenlordNow, another TU-116 variant is also available, which NVIDIA carved down from its GTX 1650 SUPER chips. These go back to the original releases' 896 CUDA cores and 128-bit bus, whilst keeping the GDDR6 memory ticking at 12 Gbps and clocks set at 14410 MHz Base
That's a lot of clock, @Raevenlord ... Nvidia sure isn't holding anything back :D
Posted on Reply
#10
lynx29
another reason to go with Big Navi is big navi drivers are stable.
Posted on Reply
#11
Fluffmeister
This is most likely just OEMs wanting different specs for their respective parts, but I understand people like to hate.
Posted on Reply
#12
_Flare
yeah, Radeon drivers stable like a car on 3 wheels
Posted on Reply
#13
windwhirl
lynx29another reason to go with Big Navi is big navi drivers are stable.
_Flareyeah, Radeon drivers stable like a car on 3 wheels
Can I ask what do Radeon drivers have to do with this topic? I don't really see the connection :confused:
Posted on Reply
#14
R0H1T
lynx29another reason to go with Big Navi is big navi drivers are stable.
You might be onto something :toast:
Posted on Reply
#15
Vya Domus
windwhirlCan I ask what do Radeon drivers have to do with this topic? I don't really see the connection :confused:
Fanboys, trolls ?

Nah, it can't be that. They probably just posted in the wrong thread, yeah it's probably that no doubt.
Posted on Reply
#16
kiriakost
I made my decision a month ago in favor of ASUS 1660 Super MINI OC , and I do refuse starting over the game of research for plus or minus 3FPS.
Posted on Reply
#17
mechtech
I'm more interested in that ALF figurine.
Posted on Reply
#18
windwhirl
mechtechI'm more interested in that ALF figurine.
It's for size reference? :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#19
Tom Yum
Looking forward to the TU102 variant with 75% of the shader units lasered inactive. Surely NVIDIA has a pile of defective TU102's that could be repurposed, why stop at TU106?
Posted on Reply
#20
lynx29
Tom YumLooking forward to the TU102 variant with 75% of the shader units lasered inactive. Surely NVIDIA has a pile of defective TU102's that could be repurposed, why stop at TU106?
they can still get away with this type of hubris if big navi drivers are unstable. we can expect stagnation in gpu price/performance/re-releases that no one asked for endlessly unless big navi drivers are stable at launch. so it's just a matter of time now, we will see. I hope AMD surprises us all personally, would love to give my money to the red team again
Posted on Reply
#21
R0H1T
Let's be clear drivers probably ain't the single biggest reason Navi isn't selling that well. With that out of the way it's fair to say that Nvidia doesn't feel compelled to change their tried & tested strategy of milking the cow(s) dry, oh well the more things change the more they remain the same :shadedshu:
Posted on Reply
#22
Tsukiyomi91
people are already confused as it is. I know this is what some would do to clear inventory but the amount of revisions they do is a little too much.
Posted on Reply
#23
Vya Domus
I guess the 1650 is just like the 1060, a million different versions. Nothing new really.
Posted on Reply
#24
FreedomEclipse
~Technological Technocrat~
In case anyone's hoping for another 'EVGA 2060 KO' with the extra unlocked compute cores that put it at 2080 or 2080Ti levels of compute... No that wont happen again. Nvidia have already said that was a mistake and it shouldnt of happened.

I mean it could happen, But a very very very small chance of that as they are gonna be extra careful.
Posted on Reply
#25
kiriakost
Tom YumLooking forward to the TU102 variant with 75% of the shader units lasered inactive. Surely NVIDIA has a pile of defective TU102's that could be repurposed, why stop at TU106?
Excellent idea and we may have back the NVIDIA TNT2 in PCI-E version this time.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment