Why does techpowerup have such inaccurate GTX 1650 performance numbers?

[TITAN RTX 4100]

Look at this image, It says that with a gtx 1650, that in 1080p, 1440p, and 4k Are all horrible! The GTX 1650 is the most popular gpu on steam right now! And 99% of people with a GTX 1650 have a 1080p monitor, so how would there be "Very low FPS" at 1080p? Techpowerup, you need to fix these inaccurate performance numbers. The GTX 1650 easily gets 50-60fps, and you techpowerup guys claim it's around 20fps. How inaccurate can you be?
View attachment 275176

 

[eidairaman1]

Nbc

 

[TITAN RTX 4100]

Nbc

What do you mean by that?

 

[claes]

He means he’s a curmudgeon who just shits on people’s threads

“no body cares”

 

[Rithsom]

I noticed that the Recommended Gaming Resolutions were updated for all GPUs in the database about a month or two ago. The recommendations appear to be more conservative now. Most GPUs that were once "green" at a given res are now either "yellow" or "orange". Care to inform us about this change, @T4C Fantasy ?

I am very interested in knowing how these new recommended resolutions were determined.

 

[Lew Zealand]

The other cards around it have the same ratings. Nobody should be picking up any of these cards unless they're stuck with a slot power-only ex-office Dell/HP/etc. machine they want to do some light or older AAA gaming on.

If you have 8-pin PSU power available, start with a used 1660 Super or RX 6600 and move up from there.

 

[GerKNG]

i think that's very accurate. it's for Native 1080p and not upscaled with FSR for example.

Lets say it looks something like this:
green 100+ FPS (max settings)
yellow 60+ FPS (max settings)
orange 30+ FPS (incl. reducing settings)
Red unplayable at min settings.

games like cyberpunk need to run at the lowest settings + FSR to even reach 60FPS. (native 1080p Medium barely runs at more than 30-35 FPS)
Dying Light 2 at 1080p High is with an overclock at ~30 FPS and dropping below.
Not even Elden Ring reaches more than 30-40 FPS at 1080p High.
Farcry 6 needs medium settings (which looks like a PS3 Game) to stay above 40 FPS.
AC Valhalla runs at 25-30 fps with max settings and around 45-55 FPS with medium.

the 1650 is barely a 1080p Card except for E-Sport Games.

 

[Tomgang]

There are different versions of gtx 1650. So first off all, it needs to be pointed out what version of gtx 1650 we are talking about.

There are gtx 1650 with gddr5 and gddr6 memory and gtx 1650 super. For not to forget the mobile versions as well.

Mentioned it as there are quite a different from the slowest to the fastest version.

TechPowerUp

Graphics card and GPU database with specifications for products launched in recent years. Includes clocks, photos, and technical details.

www.techpowerup.com

With that said. I had the slowest 1650 gddr5 version and that is not a fast card by any means. I replace it with rtx a2000 not long a go do to its slow performance. That doesn't mean it is a bad card. It's just to slow and has to little vram for my needs. I needed a faster bus powered card. I will at the same time point out that only the gddr5 and gddr6 version can be bus powered, as far I remember. super needs additional power.

 

[TITAN RTX 4100]

Nobody should be picking up any of these cards unless they're stuck with a slot power-only ex-office Dell/HP/etc. machine they want to do some light or older AAA gaming on.

I highly disagree with you. The GTX 1650 is a great gpu for budget people, and no one has a dumb hp computer anyways, as everyone knows they're trash. The GTX 1650 is a good gpu and on the steam hardware survey, gtx 1650 is the MOST popular gpu.

 

[Mussels]

Look at this image, It says that with a gtx 1650, that in 1080p, 1440p, and 4k Are all horrible! The GTX 1650 is the most popular gpu on steam right now! And 99% of people with a GTX 1650 have a 1080p monitor, so how would there be "Very low FPS" at 1080p? Techpowerup, you need to fix these inaccurate performance numbers. The GTX 1650 easily gets 50-60fps, and you techpowerup guys claim it's around 20fps. How inaccurate can you be?
View attachment 275176

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.

 

[wolf]

The GTX 1650 is a great gpu for budget people

While I wouldn't go rushing out to buy one these days, they're certainly a decent LP or Laptop option, I have access whenever I need to a 8750h/1650 laptop and am still impressed how much performance you can squeeze out of about ~50w on the 1650.

 

[tabascosauz]

I noticed that the Recommended Gaming Resolutions were updated for all GPUs in the database about a month or two ago. The recommendations appear to be more conservative now. Most GPUs that were once "green" at a given res are now either "yellow" or "orange". Care to inform us about this change, @T4C Fantasy ?

I am very interested in knowing how these new recommended resolutions were determined.

The changes have happened at least a couple times I think. When I bought the 1070 way back, it was still green at 1440p I think. Soon after I think it was yellow, nowadays it's orange.

Fair enough that it roughly reflects the viability of the card for new games. The changes pretty closely reflected my experience with the 1070 over the course of 3 years. My 2060 Super also went from green at 1440p to yellow currently. 3070 Ti is still green at 4K but I certainly wouldn't use it at that, and it's getting pretty close (a few of the immediately slower cards are dipping into the yellow).

I think it's still based on 60Hz performance, but not sure.

I highly disagree with you. The GTX 1650 is a great gpu for budget people, and no one has a dumb hp computer anyways, as everyone knows they're trash. The GTX 1650 is a good gpu and on the steam hardware survey, gtx 1650 is the MOST popular gpu.

No one says it's not a great GPU. No one says it's unplayable. No one says you can't buy one. It's just a rough reference as to where the GPU stands in relation to new games, with minimal tweaking or optimization. Not sure why you're getting so up in arms about this.

 

[TITAN RTX 4100]

Well, that's not the only incorrect thing. In fact, On the RTX 40 series listing, it shows the 4050 and 4060 with the EXACT same specs. And what is that reason for then?

 

[qubit]

qubit breaks out the popcorn. Darn stuff goes flying everywhere.

First world problems.

 

[Rithsom]

The changes have happened at least a couple times I think. When I bought the 1070 way back, it was still green at 1440p I think. Soon after I think it was yellow, nowadays it's orange.

Fair enough that it roughly reflects the viability of the card for new games. The changes pretty closely reflected my experience with the 1070 over the course of 3 years. My 2060 Super also went from green at 1440p to yellow currently. 3070 Ti is still green at 4K but I certainly wouldn't use it at that, and it's getting pretty close (a few of the immediately slower cards are dipping into the yellow).

I think it's still based on 60Hz performance, but not sure.

I could definitely see that as being the way that the recommended resolutions have changed over the years for the 1070 and other cards. It makes sense given the ever-increasing demands of new games.

As for whether or not the 1650 is a competent 1080p card, I think that we all need to remember that this is an enthusiast site largely dedicated to reviewing new hardware with new workloads. A baseline has to be drawn somewhere, and unfortunately, that means leaving the 1650 in the dust, so to speak.

Maybe a footnote should be added to the GPU database that specifies the types of games that the recommended resolutions are based off of. It might help with clearing up some confusion.

 

[Count von Schwalbe]

The GTX 1650 is a good gpu and on the steam hardware survey, gtx 1650 is the MOST popular gpu.

Yes. Very true.
However:

Sub 45 FPS in modern games is reason to mark it orange, IMHO. Is it conservative? Certainly! Is it deliberately so? Most likely. W1zzard has to assume "worst case scenario" for this kind of thing, or people will join to bash him after they buy one expecting 60+ FPS in modern games.

Remember, the test suite for the 1650 had AC: Odyssey, Far Cry 5, the Witcher 3, etc cetara. Now the testing is done with AC: Valhalla, CP2077...

Games change, and not everyone on Steam has the latest games or hardware. Some may be ok with the 38FPS a 1650 can provide in modern games. Honestly, I might be - played through Borderlands 3 on a card around a GTX 650 in performance. It still doesn't change that it is not an ideal card for modern games at 1080p.

 

[hat]

The numbers don't lie. W1zzard isn't out there fudging numbers because he hates the GTX1650. It just happens to be the most widely used card. Not everyone can afford a 4090, you know... in fact, most people can't. It's popular because it's cheap and it works just well enough for people who are okay with playing older titles, low resolution, and/or reduced settings. That doesn't make it a fast card.

 

[rethcirE]

Techpowerup, you need to fix these inaccurate performance numbers.

"Fixing" implies there is something wrong with the data provided. There's nothing to fix there.

It's simply not what you want to hear/read. The only fixing that needs to occur is within your realm of expectations from this GPU. You believe it to be something it's not, despite the data. Fix that.

 

[Mussels]

Well, that's not the only incorrect thing. In fact, On the RTX 40 series listing, it shows the 4050 and 4060 with the EXACT same specs. And what is that reason for then?

placeholder info since the cards dont exist?
It literally says "They WILL exist"


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

They also lack DLSS support, which is going to make something like the 2060 super outperform it by far more in supported titles (which these days, is a lot of them)

 

[TITAN RTX 4100]

placeholder info since the cards dont exist?
It literally says "They WILL exist"


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

They also lack DLSS support, which is going to make something like the 2060 super outperform it by far more in supported titles (which these days, is a lot of them)

Well they would NOT have the SAME specs!

Why does everyone do this to me, If you disagree then don't post anything here.

 

[DrCR]

Why does everyone do this to me, If you disagree then don't post anything here.

If that’s your expectation from life, you’ve set yourself for a lifetime of misery.

 

[Mussels]

Well they would NOT have the SAME specs!

Why does everyone do this to me, If you disagree then don't post anything here.

You hurt yourself on this one - no one else did that.
If this is something you experience more than just here, think about the way you approached this with demands for action to be taken without asking "why is it this way?"

Why are only people allowed to post if they agree with you? How could that possibly work, ever?

 

[W1zzard]

Gtx 1650 has always been a fairly slow card by modern standards, look at the original reviews, look at new data. It will not reach 60 fps in demanding games at high settings, not even close. No doubt, it’s a workable card for csgo and other light games.

It’s popular because it’s affordable. And then people realize you can’t play cyberpunk with it and either buy a faster card, which is much more expensive, or play another game, or buy a console

We‘ve updated the gpudb colored boxes scoring system a few months ago, after some people commented that the reports are much too optimistic

There’s thousands of cards in our database, no way to test them all, not even own them all, so i wrote an algorithm that estimates performance and ranks the cards to assign the colored boxes.

The goal is not to be perfect, which isn’t possible, because game selection has a huge effect, but close enough so that people know what to expect and look up reviews when not sure

 

[qubit]

Yeah, interpreting benchmark results can be notoriously tricky as they depend on so many variables, including the CPU that drives them.

For example, my RTX 2080 SUPER isn't especially considered to be a 4K card - except that it is. Perhaps on top demanding games at max quality settings like in TPU reviews it will run out of puff and chug along, but turning the settings down and / or running less demanding games, it flies. On top of that, I've recently bought a G-SYNC monitor, which makes hitting those top frame rates much less important than before, giving me a silky smooth experience. So much so, that I no longer feel it's imperative to upgrade my ancient 2700K just yet, since a lot of games still get well above 60fps, nearer 100-120fps even, so gaming is still good on it. It's struggling a bit on the latest CoD though to be fair and the days of W10 are numbered, so the upgrade is still gonna happen, but I can afford to wait a bit longer for it.

 

[ShiBDiB]

I highly disagree with you. The GTX 1650 is a great gpu for budget people, and no one has a dumb hp computer anyways, as everyone knows they're trash. The GTX 1650 is a good gpu and on the steam hardware survey, gtx 1650 is the MOST popular gpu.

It's the most popular because it used to be an acceptable very cheap GPU. It's no longer worth purchasing tho because it is so far behind in terms of power and features.

I'm also not sure why this has you so triggered, this has to be a troll right?