• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.
  • The forums have been upgraded with support for dark mode. By default it will follow the setting on your system/browser. You may override it by scrolling to the end of the page and clicking the gears icon.

MSI GeForce GTX 1650 Super Gaming X

IceShroom said:
Pitty for those 1660 user. Outdated so soon by a $60 cheaper GPU.
Click to expand...
Well, it's called progress. :)

Anyway, half a year after launch 1660 remains ~15-20% faster than this for around 35% more.
It's not that different from how Nvidia cards "lose value" normally.
New generation comes out every ~1.5 year and it usually shifts the lineup by a step.

In 2H 2020 we should see a $250 card with performance beyond 1660Ti (maybe halfway to 2060). That's life.
On the other hand, most people game for maybe 5-10 years, so half a year is relatively quite a long time. :)
 
Chloe Price said:
This is something GTX 1650 should've been already.
Click to expand...
I have the exact same feeling about every Super card (in relations to their non-super counterpart)
 
This is life in the PC world ...everything loses value over time ... as does most anything else. Try trading in your smart phone. This is a simple fact of life. if peps could rsist the urge to have the 1st new shiny thing, they would have less buyer's remorse.

productions lines are tweaked as they mature .... bugs found are correted, speed improvements are made. This is essentially what TI cards have always been. Changing Ti to Super is nothing more than a word change. The fat is the 1650 was the best that production line could do at that point in time ... after it matures, they can produce a better product, better products have more value, more vaue warrants higher prices. But you can't seel a better product with the same name. A new name makes people feel better about things ... in some instances, it's only in the marketing department's head ... like a pre-owned vehicle, it's still a used car.
 
notb said:
1650 is designed to fit 75W of PCIe power budget.
Click to expand...
What I mean that 1650 was just awful in terms of price and performance.
 
Chloe Price said:
What I mean that 1650 was just awful in terms of price and performance.
Click to expand...
And with each PCIe-powered GPU launch some people criticize the bad price/performance ratio.
And each time other people try to explain that not needing a power connector provides the missing value. Plus, there's always some price flattening in the lower end.

Because "value" has more variables than just price and number of fps.

I used to be the "other people" but repeating this all the time with no effect is really demeaning.
 
notb said:
And with each PCIe-powered GPU launch some people criticize the bad price/performance ratio.
And each time other people try to explain that non needing a power connector provides the missing value. Plus, there's always some price flattening in the lower end.

Because "value" has more variables than just price and number of fps.

I used to be the "other people" but repeating this all the time with no effect is really demeaning.
Click to expand...
Not always, 750 Ti had awesome price/performance ratio few years ago :)
 
EarthDog said:
Curious if this feeling was the same through GCN and rebranding of the RX 5 series? Do people with this mindset (inc. @Chloe Price) feel the same way about the RX 590?
Click to expand...
That rebranding was ridiculous, RX 480 v3 in its purest form. Rebranding sucks, I don't care the company who does it, it still sucks.
 
EarthDog said:
Curious if this feeling was the same through GCN and rebranding of the RX 5 series? Do people with this mindset (inc. @Chloe Price) feel the same way about the RX 590?
Click to expand...
RX 590 was a rebranded 580, which was rebranded 480. Everyone more or less knew what to expect. Turing was not a rebrand. 2080 matched 1080Ti for the same amount of money, and then it all goes the same down the stack. Only by introducing the Super cards at original non-Super pricing has made the generational leap make sense. Which should have been done from the start.
Don't know how you made the connection... two completely different scenarios.
 
ShurikN said:
RX 590 was a rebranded 580, which was rebranded 480. Everyone more or less knew what to expect. Turing was not a rebrand. 2080 matched 1080Ti for the same amount of money, and then it all goes the same down the stack. Only by introducing the Super cards at original non-Super pricing has made the generational leap make sense. Which should have been done from the start.
Don't know how you made the connection... two completely different scenarios.
Click to expand...
These are not directly rebrands, correct. However, the concept of the same arch tweaked for higher performance is what I was going for.

These came out at these speeds for a reason... likely having to do with yields and such. Here they just cut out lesser parts from higher parts filling the gaps and bumping up the relative performance of the line. I guess what I am saying overall is I don't have an issue with what they did, nor do I buy the 'what it should have been' (though with price...lol) concept is all. The generational leap makes complete sense to me... wasn't it pretty similar from the 10 series over 9? There will always be overlap...
 
Last edited:
EarthDog said:
The generational leap makes complete sense to me... wasn't it pretty similar from the 10 series over 9? There will always be overlap...
Click to expand...
In terms of price/performance, absolutely not.
980Ti launched at 650USD, 1080Ti @700USD. And the performance difference was huge.
2080 launched at around the same price, yet was 5% faster at best. The entire price/perf for Turing was abysmal at launch. Only with the Super cards has it become acceptable. This can mostly be attributed to the move from 28 to 16nm, but the process that NV used for Turing is not new, and yields must have been good.
And all of it happened because of the addition of RT cores, but that's a discussion for another time and another topic...
 
ShurikN said:
In terms of price/performance, absolutely not.
Click to expand...
I was only talking performance. We all know the pricing is off my man. :)

EDIT: Forget it.. Chloe mentioned $ but just now saw it... I moved the goalposts in my head to only performance. My fault!

EDIT2: The performance difference between flagships was also less, yes. Yields may have been good, but regardless its a game that is always played... more so when yields are lower, of course.
 
Last edited:
I switched to a RX570 8GB (155 Euros incl Shipping) from a GTX 980 a while ago, because 4GB just didn´t allow me to set the highest texturedetails, wich make a big difference in the look, but not primary in needed performance.
This card being faster but not having 6GB or more, just disqualifies it in my opinion.
A 8GB RX570 can be had for 139 Euros incl. shipping and totally eliminates the need for more VRAM in the performance-segment of the market.
GTX 1650 non-super and 1050Ti and RX570 4GB are more expensive than same RX 570 8GB, wich makes even those obsolete in my opinion.

If AMD wants to release a new consumer card here in germany with less than 8GB it needs to beat their own actual offerings.
 
If you're willing to spend $180.00 on a GPU a used GTX 1070 would be the way to go over this.
 
4 gigs of ram? Meh...

FAIL.

With Windows 10 constantly evolving its display graphics model, there is so much more you can do with the extra vram... 4 gigs is perfect for streaming ultra hd content from Netflix but that’s about it. Should of come at least with 6, given its increased horse power over the 1650.
 
Last edited:
IceShroom said:
Pitty for those 1660 user. Outdated so soon by a $60 cheaper GPU.
Click to expand...
I got a 1660 near launch. How is it outdated by this new card? It is still quicker and still has 50% more memory. You can still buy the same card new today for 25% more than what a 1650 Super costs, which arguably is still better value than buying a 4GB card in 2019, nearly 2020.

Also in at least one game, for whatever reason, the 'outdated' 1660 destroys the 1650 Super: 71% faster at 1080p in Wolfenstein II.

www.techpowerup.com

MSI GeForce GTX 1650 Super Gaming X Review

NVIDIA's new GTX 1650 Super is 40% faster than the GTX 1650, which is a huge improvement. The card is priced competitively, too, obsoleting AMD's Radeon RX 580/590 offerings. MSI's Gaming X variant comes with a large cooler that offers great temperatures, extremely low gaming noise, and...
www.techpowerup.com www.techpowerup.com

The headline figure that the 1660 is only 11% faster than a 1650 Super is misleading because in some individual games the lead is significant (like 30%) and that's now, this will only increase in future as more games demand more video memory than the 4GB the 1650 Super is hobbled with.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"..obsoleting AMD's Radeon RX 580/590 offerings.."
uh wait what? @ 4k gaming the 1650 super duper aint so super, and on 1080p gaming they are not too far off each other, and i can buy them both for same price.
so how obsoletering is this? did i miss something? confused

btw am i the only one flabbergasted on the price?
the 480 (3.5 years ago)/580(2years ago) were all introduced for a $200 pricepoint, now we get same price performance cards. any reason to upgrade?
 
Last edited:
rippie said:
"..obsoleting AMD's Radeon RX 580/590 offerings.."
uh wait what? @ 4k gaming the 1650 super duper aint so super, and on 1080p gaming they are not too far off each other, and i can buy them both for same price.
so how obsoletering is this? did i miss something? confused
Click to expand...
You're getting the same performance for the same price, but with half of RX580's power consumption.

In fact AMD has their own replacement for the aging Polaris: the RX5500.
But since that one uses the 7nm supply, they're keeping RX580 in the lineup for a little longer.

There's a more general observation as well. This really ends the fairly long period of AMD being seen as the "value choice" in general. Reusing Polaris meant good performance for little money.
But Navi and Turing are very close in this regard - there's no clear "value" winner. And now they've covered the last stand of Polaris.
the 480 (3.5 years ago)/580(2years ago) were all introduced for a $200 pricepoint, now we get same price performance cards. any reason to upgrade?
Click to expand...
Why would there be any reason to upgrade? It's a very similar card (sans power consumption).
But people with a 1050Ti or 1060 3GB could be interested.

ShurikN said:
And all of it happened because of the addition of RT cores, but that's a discussion for another time and another topic...
Click to expand...
If you have some interesting thoughts about RT cores being useless, you have roughly a year (likely less) to share them, so I wouldn't delay it too much. :)
 
point being that in the past you did get performance increase _and_ the power draw reduction. and now similar performance/dollar on 1080p , worse performance/doller 4k (up to -50% is totally beyond me), just better powerdraw/dollar.

so worse performance @ 4k is just uber meeeeh, 1080p so yesterday.
for 4k gaming, you must be into something other than this generations low-end, but the previous gen low-end.
feels like tech regression to me.
 
Asus gtx 1650 super, has a software called Asus gpu tweak. In that software, you can control fan rpm too.
Does this msi card offer something similar?
 
Last edited:
rippie said:
point being that in the past you did get performance increase _and_ the power draw reduction. and now similar performance/dollar on 1080p , worse performance/doller 4k (up to -50% is totally beyond me), just better powerdraw/dollar.

so worse performance @ 4k is just uber meeeeh, 1080p so yesterday.
for 4k gaming, you must be into something other than this generations low-end, but the previous gen low-end.
feels like tech regression to me.
Click to expand...
Or, you know... come with realistic expectations that a $160 budget GPU from either camp isn't going to push 4x the pixels regardless... you're comparing apples to oranges.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top