Why does techpowerup have such inaccurate GTX 1650 performance numbers?

[tussinman]

TPU's benchmark suite isn't Esports titles on low settings.

Funny thing about this quote was when my brother when to Thailand all of the gaming cafes had 1650s for the sole purpose of running esports titles on lower settings.

All that says is the 1650 was cheap and readily available

Exactly. Not trying to sound like a snob but majority of the steam survey is high poverty 3rd world countries. There not really the basis of what's truly popular and truly adequate for a developed area

 

[64K]

Wouldn't it make more sense to start a thread asking for feedback on this subject by the Site Owner?

 

[Fouquin]

The 1650 is popular, still usable, but also old and slow by modern standards.
A 2060 super is 2.5x faster, but only one generation newer

The 1650 and 2060 Super are not one generation apart. Those are both the same generation and architecture, Turing, and came out 3 months apart (April and July 2019). The 2.5x performance difference was at least reflected in their prices.

 

[Toothless]

Wouldn't it make more sense to start a thread asking for feedback on this subject by the Site Owner?

Honestly the recommended resolution should mention what kinds of games and settings it mentions. Like, pick a game and use that.

 

[kilo]

JUST LOCK IT PLEASE! NO ONE AGREES WITH ME AND I'VE HAD ENOUGH OF THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree with you. But as time progresses and Joe Shmoe looks at the GPU DB, he'll be unhappy with a GTX 980 for UHD/4k gaming so it gets lowered. There used to be a time when TPU wouldn't even review the highest end hardware as an example of how times change.

 

[Count von Schwalbe]

Honestly the recommended resolution should mention what kinds of games and settings it mentions. Like, pick a game and use that.

That would require periodic retesting of every (at least every DX12) GPU on a regular basis, or using a very dated game for the latest hardware. I think someone looking at upgrading on a tech site is probably more interested in the games that are in W1zzard's test suite than say Hitman or Rise of the Tomb Raider.

 

[Toothless]

That would require periodic retesting of every (at least every DX12) GPU on a regular basis, or using a very dated game for the latest hardware. I think someone looking at upgrading on a tech site is probably more interested in the games that are in W1zzard's test suite than say Hitman or Rise of the Tomb Raider.

Well, reviews are already there. Guess it's pointless in the end to have the "1080, 1440, 4k" etc since the review option is on the same page.

 

[Count von Schwalbe]

Well, reviews are already there. Guess it's pointless in the end to have the "1080, 1440, 4k" etc since the review option is on the same page.

Yes they are, but they all have a different test suite, and even the resolutions have changed over time.

You have to estimate (closely) the relative performance if you want your test suite to remain relevant and keep the amount of testing sane.

If you replace half of your test suite every two generations, you have plenty of indirect comparison points between GPU's of fairly old vintage and the latest and greatest.

 

[qubit]

W1zzard already does thousands of tests a year. We don't wanna inflict even more on the poor guy. Hence, tests evolve with the hardware and direct comparisons with older hardware isn't possible.

 

[W1zzard]

I’ve unlocked the Thread after my post, so that people could comment on what i wrote.

I’m genuinely interested in feedback

Sorry if that upsets you @TITAN RTX 4100. your asking is much appreciated and I’m thinking about ways how to improve the algorithm.

Maybe a dropdown to toggle between aaa games and moba titles (which just changes the requirements ladder for the colored boxes)

 

[Ruru]

Because it gives very low FPS at 1080p in modern titles?
Popular on steam doesn't mean too much, as budget hardware is always going to outnumber higher end hardware, and OLD hardware is going to stick around longer


All that says is the 1650 was cheap and readily available



TPU's benchmark suite isn't Esports titles on low settings.

Exactly. GTX 1060 was the most popular GPU on Steam until recently when 1650 took its place. And my guess is that it was somewhat affordable during the chip shortage, so people bought those (either retail cards or whole OEM systems with a 1650).

 

[dj-electric]

GTX 1650 is a certificate of desolation and stagnation of the entry level to mid range graphics cards market.
Potentially a 100 USD plus change product became one of the only things gamers could buy with their own budget since it came out and the tides of silicon shortage and crypto pushed everything above it far away.

Both AMD and NVIDIA remained completely uninterested in its market, or any 200-300 dollar market for quite a while now and seeing how things go, its not going to change in the near future, so people will keep buying sub GTX 1660 level products for quite a while, at least until Intel decides to sort itself out logistically.

 

[dom99]

I actually own a gtx 1650 low profile.

I bought it in the middle of the chip shortage, it was the only GPU I could find under £200 at the time

Also it is actually the fastest low profile GPU that doesnt require any additional power connector.

So a couple of reasons its popular
1. Available at under £200 during pandemic
2. Low profile
3. Low power
4. No power connectors needed

 

[qubit]

Also it is actually the fastest low profile GPU that doesnt require any additional power connector.

That makes me wanna buy one.

 

[HD64G]

Since most gamers exist in China and India than everywhere else, and their income is much lower than in the West countries, in order to have a PC they need the most basic GPU as this 1650. So, populartity in this case hasn't anything to do with its ability to play modern titles but with its price being low enough to be bought where the vast majority of PC gamers exist.

 

[Outback Bronze]

Also it is actually the fastest low profile GPU that doesnt require any additional power connector.

You'll find the RX 6400 LP will probably win out if its running pci-e 4.0 @ 4x, but close all the same.

 

[ObscureAngelPT]

I have a GTX 1650 Super, which is slightly improved over the actual 1650, and I can confirm that ATM it's a e-sports card or a 30 FPS card or a FSR card

Regarding e-sports, it's just a fine card, altough warzone, needs to be on minimum due to it's lack of VRAM and even so performance can drop to lower than 60 FPS near the river.

As for any other title, The Callisto Protocol for example, needs to run with a 30FPS lock using FSR Quality and medium settings, 60 FPS is archieavable but some areas are just way too much for the 1650 Super to handle.
Without FSR eventually the game will stall with lack of VRAM and framerate drops to 3 FPS until I restart a save point, just decided to play with FSR and save VRAM.

The Witcher 3, used to run without a single drop with high settings and medium foliage distance.
With the new update and using DX11, most of the equivalente settings were bumped up, like for example shadows and foliage distance don't match the older settings, including draw distances which are much higher in the new version, so basically, I need to run with a mix of medium high, with shadows on Low to get those perfect stable 60 FPS.

NFS Unbound.. Medium settings, textures on low to get those 60 FPS, yes textures on low, in some areas the 1650 super runs out of vram and framerate just dip insanelly.

Uncharted Legacy of Thieves.. Low Textures (which are horrible) or eventually runs out of VRAM and looks like a mess.

A Plage Tale Requiem, Low Settings around 40-50 FPS (just locked it to 30 FPS)
Steelrising needs to go to low settings to have 60 FPS

It's still a nice card and I can play pretty much anything with acceptable graphics, but it's a card that made sense 3 years ago for 1080P users that weren't demanding about what they want, it was a 1080P card for medium high settings and with not a bright future.

Today it's definily an e-sports card that can play >2 years old games at medium/high settings without big compromises, but condemned as soon as UE5 starts to be massivelly adopted or new consoles only games starts to release more often.

I have choosed this card because I do run a benchmark channel and wanted to be upgrading between low end cards each release to keep it fresh, what i didn't knew was that covid and Crypto and greed in GPU market was about to transform the prices and a 3050 or a 6500 would cost 300 bucks instead of 150 as usual.

So I just decided to not upgrade, I don't want to support this gargabe industry.

 

[Ruru]

That makes me wanna buy one.

I'd go for RX 6400 myself if I'd need a low-profile one.

 

[BSim500]

I’ve unlocked the Thread after my post, so that people could comment on what i wrote. I’m genuinely interested in feedback

For feedback - Really, there really is no perfect system. I've owned a 1050Ti, 1650S and 1660 and know what they can and can't do (a 1650 is a 1050Ti +20% or so). My GTX 1660 could score red for The Callisto Protocol (30fps @ 1080p) or very green for The Talos Principle (+120-170fps @ 1440p). There's no simple traffic light system that can reflect such a huge disparity on a platform where there's 70,000 titles available and some are significantly better optimised than others. I believe the point the OP was trying to make, is that it's often common for low-end GPU's to score more in the real-world than tech sites award them via real-world low-end gaming = turning settings down to Medium vs the need for Ultra benchmarking for consistency (eg, forcing 'uses 5GB VRAM' preset on a 4GB GPU won't be how low-end gamers actually play), hence why I posted earlier linking to this test by someone testing 2022 games on GTX 1650 on Medium, and yet the OP was angry at that too for trying to help him, so in the end I really don't know what 'help' he was looking for...

It's certainly unreasonable to expect you to benchmark every game at every setting on every GPU going back 5x generations. Probably the best you can do is always retain a couple of older but popular games (eg, CS:GO + maybe one or two DX11 titles, Divinity Original Sin 2 is fine) in your suite so that low VRAM GPU's can actually have some valid measurements. As for benchmarking newer games on older GPU's, it's just one of those things where unless you're willing to add Medium preset scores, it's probably in the OP's interest to look for benchmarks that specifically focus on that as APU / laptop gamers have long learned.

 

[Sithaer]

For feedback - Really, there really is no perfect system. I've owned a 1050Ti, 1650S and 1660 and know what they can and can't do (a 1650 is a 1050Ti +20% or so). My GTX 1660 could score red for The Callisto Protocol (30fps @ 1080p) or very green for The Talos Principle (+120-170fps @ 1440p). There's no simple traffic light system that can reflect such a huge disparity on a platform where there's 70,000 titles available and some are significantly better optimised than others. I believe the point the OP was trying to make, is that it's often common for low-end GPU's to score more in the real-world than tech sites award them via real-world low-end gaming = turning settings down to Medium vs the need for Ultra benchmarking for consistency (eg, forcing 'uses 5GB VRAM' preset on a 4GB GPU won't be how low-end gamers actually play), hence why I posted earlier linking to this test by someone testing 2022 games on GTX 1650 on Medium, and yet the OP was angry at that too for trying to help him, so in the end I really don't know what 'help' he was looking for...

It's certainly unreasonable to expect you to benchmark every game at every setting on every GPU going back 5x generations. Probably the best you can do is always retain a couple of older but popular games (eg, CS:GO + maybe one or two DX11 titles, Divinity Original Sin 2 is fine) in your suite so that low VRAM GPU's can actually have some valid measurements. As for benchmarking newer games on older GPU's, it's just one of those things where unless you're willing to add Medium preset scores, it's probably in the OP's interest to look for benchmarks that specifically focus on that as APU / laptop gamers have long learned.

I also had a RX 570 4GB for almost 3 years paired with a 2560x1080 res UW monitor and that card is barely faster than a 1650 in most games and I gamed away on it more/less fine until the newer games either forced me to low or simply had issues cause of the Vram. 'ahem Horizon Zero Dawn for example..'

I guess if someone is okay with playing older games or new ones at lower res/settings/fps it can still be an okay-ish card or its for ppl who mainly play easy to run E-sport games. 'I don't play those so I needed a faster GPU'

Also correct me if I'm wrong but Steam statistics has the mobile varian of the GPU listed under the same category or at least it used to be like that.
Could be another reason why the 1650 is now the most used card there.

 

[ObscureAngelPT]

I have been mostly a low end/mainsteam gamer.
For most games medium settings nowadays aren't really that bad, some games even on low looks great, like Mafia 3/Mafia Definitive Edition where the low preset on this ones are equivalent/better than consoles offerings.

It depends on the games really, some UE4 games on medium lack SSR and AO, others even on low include all of this stuff and just refine the resolution each preset.
My previous feedback is just for today games, my catalogue is a mix of new titles with older titles and not all titles want to be a benchmark in graphics.

Recently I also completed an indie title called The Entropy Centre (Awesome Portal game style btw, you should try it) which is a UE4 title that manages to look very good in some instances, and I was able to play at high / Epic textures all the way through the game without a dip below 60 FPS, and it's a game that debut 1 or 2 months ago, obviously it's a much more simplier game visually, but proves that not all games wants to kill your GPU XD

At the same time, I've been loosing contless hours on Persona 4 Golden, and obviously any iGPU can run this.


Again The Callisto Protocol is fine aside from the 30 FPS lock that I'm using.
But games like the uncharted The legacy of thieves is a no go since the textures on low looks just horrible, NFS Unbound, low textures kind manages but I still preffer to wait for a better card, A Plague Tale Requiem even on low looks superb, I don't mind playing it like that at all, I don't feel any major cut between low and higher settings unless refinements of stuff, like more grass or slightly better resolution shadows, not a big deal for me really.

But like I said, as soon as games starts to push into UE5 and newer consoles hardware, it's the end of newer titles for this card, unless you cut significally the quality, developers will want to use Lumen and I'm affraid the 1650 Super might not handle it at framerates we want, disabling it will make the game look weird since developers will surely strive and plan all that atmosphere for lumen and not withou it, so playing without it will just look odd for sure.

I just installed the fortnite the other day with the UE5 update just to have a general ideia of the performance, and lumen and nanite even with TSR just threw the 1650 Super to sub 60 FPS territory with visible frametime spikes due to lack of VRAM (not shader comp sutters since I've made many runs before).

 

[Ripcord]

Why would anyone buy a 1650 when the 6500xt is cheaper and faster

 

[dgianstefani]

The 1650 is also incredibly prolific in cheap "gaming" laptops - hence the steam survey data.

You can get a sub $600 laptop with a decent CPU and a 1650 - all the kids out there who beg their parents for gaming machines get these - and the broke.

 

[Sithaer]

The 1650 is also incredibly prolific in cheap "gaming" laptops - hence the steam survey data.

You can get a sub $600 laptop with a decent CPU and a 1650 - all the kids out there who beg their parents for gaming machines get these - and the broke.

Yup, assumed the same but I wasn't sure if thats still the case with the Steam data/survey.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

I do find it funny when you have thread's on the performance of low end cards that Most use and people bemoan the AAA game's tested on high settings.
Then in the next thread we all are expected to be using Raytacing and dlss to get 60fps on high end card's.

And in all cases some see they're use case as the only one that is valid.