It's still less capable than the RX 570 4GB. In any case, this really only slightly improves the poor standing of the 1650. I mean, maybe the switch to GDDR6 is just so they don't have to deal with GDDR5 anymore? King_V said:Agreed - this is a little bit of a strange decision for Nvidia. But I'm not sure there's any margin left trying to sell 1650 at those prices. Realistically, GTX 1650 GDDR5 should cost $120 now to warrant a recommendation, GTX 1650 GDDR6 for $140 would be fine, and GTX 1650 Super at $160 is good. Not with an underpowered GPU like TU117, though. I generally recommend that same attitude for Nvidia, but Nvidia does a bit better with 4GB overall. Really, for AMD GPUs, you want 8GB (or RX 5600 XT 6GB) - stay away from 4GB cards. I'm not saying people should upgrade from 570 to a 1650 Super or whatever, but I wouldn't buy a 570 these days, unless it was under $100. It's not an efficient card, and the overall experience is underwhelming, but that's the case for just about every budget GPU. I am super tired of the RX 570 4GB as well. So would my $89 Sapphire Nitro RX480 8g used.Mostly agreed, though I have to say. My $80 used Sapphire Pulse RX570 4g would humiliate this card that costs double. Hey at least it's not 20-25% slower and $40 more than the 3-year-old RX570 this time around. NightHawkRMX said:Cool, maybe Nvidia's new card is now only a few percent behind a 3-year-old RX570 that costs $40 less. Minimum fps doesn't improve quite as much, and the limited 4GB VRAM certainly plays a role in that. While it's not our full test suite, the quick and dirty overclock of the EVGA GTX 1650 GDDR6 improved performance by 7% on average, with a few games showing up to an 8% increase in performance. Tom's Hardware GPU Overclocking Performance Average / 99th Percentile FPS Game
0 kommentar(er)
