Assuming same price, what would you buy?

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

I would buy the Arc, as it has by far the most future potential as Intel's GPU drivers mature, and it offers best in class video encoding and decoding capabilities - that are ahead even on Ampere's at the time.

Now I am thinking about it, same, I need to change my vote, and I would pick it for novelty of having a go etc.

 

[Ruined Mind]

I want the 1630. I need a card that uses a maximum of 75 watts. The RX 6400 would be trapped with PCI-Express 2.0 x4 in my computer, while the 1630 could use the full 16 lanes that I have. The 1650 has a far higher price because only used models are available. A used model won't provide the three-year warranty.

I need a Low-Profile card. The Low-Profile versions of the 1650 have reviews that mention extremely loud fans. While the 1630 has the same 75-watt rating as the 1650, the professionals of TechPowerUp and Guru3D have proven that it uses around 21 to 26 watts fewer than its official rating, so it may be able to avoid the problem of having overly loud fans because they usually will have to cool only around 49 to 54 watts instead of needing to cool the real 75 watts of the 1650. The Low-Profile versions of the 1050 Ti use 75 watts and reviewers have mentioned that their fans are very quiet, but only used models are available, and the engineers of Nvidia will create new drivers for the 1630 far longer than they will create future drivers for the old 1050 Ti.

I don't need the AV1 codec. I don't watch videos. YouTube motivates me to avoid it because every time I've been told to watch a video, the commercials annoyed me. I canceled my TV service a long time ago because I hate commercials. I haven't ever had a desire to record my screen, so the 6400's lack of an encoder doesn't bother me. I know the 1630 has an encoder, but that didn't affect my decision. If Nvidia would remove the encoding hardware and remove ten dollars from the price, I'd be happy.

 

[BigMack70]

4GB of VRAM is a major noob trap in 2022 and not worth any money at all

 

[Ruined Mind]

4GB of VRAM is a major noob trap in 2022 and not worth any money at all

The 2 GB of VRAM of my GT 1030 has allowed me to play all of the games I've wanted with a frame-rate of at least 30. A doubled VRAM size compared to that card is not a trap to me. Buying a new computer that could support a 6 GB card would be a trap to me. I'd waste far more money to buy the better computer and a 6 GB card. The reverse is true for you, that's fine.

You'll say that a frame-rate of less than 60 is disgraceful, but almost all console games throughout history have been trapped below 60, so most humans are disgraceful. And many games have reached 60 FPS for me with low settings.

You may say that I should buy only consoles, but a console won't allow me to change settings to reach a stable 60. A console won't be as cheap as the GTX 1630 or RX 6400. Console games won't have the amazing sales of the Steam store. I absolutely will not pay $60 for games. The maximum I'd consider paying is around $30, but that's extremely unlikely. I'll definitely consider $20.

 

[ppn]

I'll definitely consider $20.

Consider this. for $200 you will have a much better deal next year.
I mean $229 is a 1660 Super in Q4 2019. so what does this make 1630. $200 and now 3 years later should buy you a 4050 at least. None of this is fair.

 

[57thStIncident]

RX 6400. This is meant as a second GPU for VMs, and since gaming GPUs (3-slot) have gotten so fat, I really need a single-slot, lower profile card to leave some airspace to allow cooling the fat gaming GPU.

I wish it offered encoding because it's a possible use case for me but pretty much none of the other cards here are offered as single-slot.

 

[ModEl4]

lol i was staring for 5 straight minutes the poll and couldn't decide at all (in the end i choose ARC 380 6GB, not gaming usage anyway, just to support a 3rd player in the VGA market) for gaming i would choose 1060 6GB if it had warranty (theoretically), if kepler had 9.5 years game ready driver support, I don't see the reason why Pascal wouldn't have at least 8.5 years so for 2.5 years at least i would be covered, RX5500 is a little bit faster but the 4GB is a deal-breaker (slowly you will probably also not be able to find a RX5500 with full vendor warranty anyway)
Maybe Nvidia managers know what they are doing after all, how else are you going to explain the 1630 votes when we have at the same price GTX 1650 option (if power consumption is so crucial just buy a RX6400 at the same price or a ARC 350 at lower price if pci-express version is the problem)

 

[P4-630]

None of the ones listed.

 

[Selaya]

What's the argument for anything other than the 1060?

low profile

 

[AusWolf]

If it's the same price, you can look at either VRAM, or GPU performance.

If you look at VRAM, only the GTX 1060 and A380 have 6 GB, the rest are 4 GB. The A380 isn't out yet for the majority of the world, and initial reports aren't all sunshine and rainbows, so GTX 1060 it is.

If you look at performance, the GTX 1060, GTX 1650, RX 570 and RX 5500 XT are quite close to one another, but the GTX 1060 has more VRAM than the rest, so again, GTX 1060 it is.

The only time the 1060 doesn't hold is when you need a low profile and/or power connector free option, but the poll question didn't specify that. In that case, 6400 or 1650 depending on PCI-e 4.0 availability.

 

[AlwaysHope]

lol i was staring for 5 straight minutes the poll and couldn't decide at all (in the end i choose ARC 380 6GB, not gaming usage anyway, just to support a 3rd player in the VGA market) for gaming i would choose 1060 6GB if it had warranty (theoretically), if kepler had 9.5 years game ready driver support, I don't see the reason why Pascal wouldn't have at least 8.5 years so for 2.5 years at least i would be covered, RX5500 is a little bit faster but the 4GB is a deal-breaker (slowly you will probably also not be able to find a RX5500 with full vendor warranty anyway)
Maybe Nvidia managers know what they are doing after all, how else are you going to explain the 1630 votes when we have at the same price GTX 1650 option (if power consumption is so crucial just buy a RX6400 at the same price or a ARC 350 at lower price if pci-express version is the problem)

That's exactly what I was thinking too when I saw this poll. Fully support a major manufacturer like Intel entering the dGPU market, yet it's still technically an unreleased product for desktop systems.

 

[Outback Bronze]

unreleased

That's why I couldn't vote for it. No reviews yet.

 

[docnorth]

I would buy the Arc, as it has by far the most future potential as Intel's GPU drivers mature, and it offers best in class video encoding and decoding capabilities - that are ahead even on Ampere's at the time.

This thought crossed my mind too. Looks like small, risky investment that could pay out.

 

[eidairaman1]

I'd only get 2G/4G cards as a display adapter only today (RX560/RX570/580). 6G and up it's gotta be (HD7970/280X) for any gaming (larger frame buffer always helps).

Not enough choices or the ability to select multiple items.

 

[pavle]

GTX 1060: most optimised marchitecture with the most RAM, should be fine. It does have a TDP of 120W compared to 75W of 1630, but it's ~100% faster than 1630 has got only 60% higher TDP.

 

[Dr. Dro]

This thought crossed my mind too. Looks like small, risky investment that could pay out.

Even if it doesn't, it's not like the A380 can't run eSports games well (which is kind of what you want to do on this segment anyway, even the 1630 would be plenty for Valorant or League of Legends), you'd have a dang nice card for HTPC too

 

[Lew Zealand]

If you look at performance, the GTX 1060, GTX 1650, RX 570 and RX 5500 XT are quite close to one another, but the GTX 1060 has more VRAM than the rest, so again, GTX 1060 it is.

IMO any advantage you get at the lower performance tier, you really need to take. Have a look at the 1080p numbers in the 6500XT review and the 5500XT comes out 15% faster than the 1060 with the 570 trailing the 1060 by 5%. The 1650 isn't in there but the 1650 Super ties the 5500XT, so the 1650 will be noticeably slower.

I'll take +15% every time.

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

Assuming same price, what would you buy?​

I didnt see an option for a pepperoni pizza, the 2-for-1 deal, So I picked the Intel option, its a taste of freshness, like a good pizza, and because performance on the rest of them has been hashed and re-hashed and re-re-hashed...

 

[AusWolf]

IMO any advantage you get at the lower performance tier, you really need to take. Have a look at the 1080p numbers in the 6500XT review and the 5500XT comes out 15% faster than the 1060 with the 570 trailing the 1060 by 5%. The 1650 isn't in there but the 1650 Super ties the 5500XT, so the 1650 will be noticeably slower.

I'll take +15% every time.

I don't think you notice 15% anywhere. 115% of 100 FPS is 115 which gives the same experience. 115% of 30 FPS is 34.5 which isn't a lot more. You need at least 50% to really notice it. The 1060 has more VRAM too.

 

[Lew Zealand]

As it turns out with these GPUs, 59 to 68 FPS average (see the review) is right where it's really noticeable and appreciated, especially when you figure that 1% lows are 10fps lower than that. And the most demanding games are also in the 45 to 55fps level of improvement. This is where all those relatively small FPS improvements really make a difference.

 

[AusWolf]

As it turns out with these GPUs, 59 to 68 FPS average (see the review) is right where it's really noticeable and appreciated, especially when you figure that 1% lows are 10fps lower than that. And the most demanding games are also in the 45 to 55fps level of improvement. This is where all those relatively small FPS improvements really make a difference.

Well, if it matters to you personally, fine. I can't feel any difference between 45 and 55 FPS. If it was something like 30 to 55, then hell yes, but the difference we're talking about here is too small.

 

[Luke357]

I'd chose the A380 as the drivers will improve significantly over time possibly even to the point where it will have 1650 Super performance but with added AV1 support and 6GB of VRAM. If the 1650 Super was an option, I would have picked that as I have personally used one before and @ 1080p it has ample performance (not to mention a 16x slot) and will have longer driver support than the 1060.

 

[Lew Zealand]

Well, if it matters to you personally, fine. I can't feel any difference between 45 and 55 FPS. If it was something like 30 to 55, then hell yes, but the difference we're talking about here is too small.

That's probably why I'd make the choice of the 5500XT because I play on lower-specced PCs all the time and 45-55 is a big difference in smoothness for me. I'll be playing at 55fps, which is fine but when I notice the action on screen becoming distractingly choppy, I'll glance at the FPS counter and it'll be dipping to 45 and below. It's somewhat game-dependent of course as esports games need well above 60fps IMO, but then all of better of these cards can do that, especially with appropriate settings.

 

[usiname]

Lol, there are many deluded people here who believe that the A380, a card 20% slower than the 6400, will magically become 30-40% faster with dirvers. Intel has worst driver support for GPUs, face the reallity. Also, what exactly you want to support? The company that has 10x the net income of AMD? The company that receives subsidies in the amount of its income for more than 5 years? The company that lies, cheats and destroys competition not with technology but with fraud? You are funny

 

[AleXXX666]

1060 is used, no warranty. or better yet a 1070 used falls into the same price as 1650 new and 6500 XT new € 179,90, and still very few would buy it.
I even got a 980Ti for that price when OC nearly a 1660 super, and only 200W believe it or not. perhaps 1660 could pull ahead with DLLS.

lol, here is no mark about "USED". that's why my vote for 1060.6.