[Videocardz] 1650 details

[jpiniero]

Ah so the 1650 mobile has the fully enabled version (1024 cores).

 

[SPBHM]

so, it's not a bad product at all, it's just that the 570 is better perf/$ than pretty much anything,
but the power efficiency of the 1650 is a lot better,
if the 1650 had a little better pricing it would be an easy choice,
right now you have to balance a few things, but I still think it's a valid choice specially if you are constrained by size and power.

well it is a shame that it didn't progress more from the 1050 ti after what over 2 years?

 

[Head1985]

 

[f2bnp]

Nice to see the envelope pushed when it comes to 75W and below GPUs, but the pricing is just atrocious. Somewhat interested to see what a 1650 Ti can bring to the table, but I'd also love to see similar Navi offerings from AMD.

 

[Yotsugi]

but I'd also love to see similar Navi offerings from AMD

You will.

 

[Bouowmx]

The GeForce GTX 1050 does not have the same NVENC capabilities as other Turing models: Reddit

Since the mobile variant gets the full core, I don't think there will be a 1650 Ti (and then the 1660 delivers so much more, considering the total cost of system)

 

[ozzy702]

The GeForce GTX 1050 does not have the same NVENC capabilities as other Turing models: Reddit

Since the mobile variant gets the full core, I don't think there will be a 1650 Ti (and then the 1660 delivers so much more, considering the total cost of system)

1650 TI should be uncut and GDDR6. Yeah, pricing is out of control, and performance hasn't made a huge leap from the 1050TI, but they're also only using 12nm. The 3000 series on 7nm should see a huge jump in performance in that 75w power threshold category, this is a stop gap just like the rest of the 2000 series.

That said, I'll still probably be ordering 40 1650TIs when they are released and I expect them to sell well unless NAVI has a solid offering in the category.

 

[Yotsugi]

That said, I'll still probably be ordering 40 1650TIs when they are released and I expect them to sell well unless NAVI has a solid offering in the category.

They're gonna sell well no matter how good Navi will be.

 

[ozzy702]

They're gonna sell well no matter how good Navi will be.

Well, NAVI will be late to the game and yeah, NVIDIA is gonna NVIDIA, they're a juggernaut. I'm still looking forward to see what AMD brings to the table and am excited for some 7nm goodness.

 

[Yotsugi]

NAVI will be late to the game

Bold statement.

they're a juggernaut

They're very meager compared to the actual semis big boys, but they do have the mindshare required to move DIY units.

 

[amrnuke]

Regardless of performance, card will sell because its in its own category - fastest card with no power connector for an acceptable price. Just like 1050ti and 750Ti before it.

Except the 1650s being benchmarked require a power connector, don't they?

I'll be interested to see what, if any, performance hit occurs on the cards that drop the power connector.

 

[kawi6rr]

According to Tom's Hardware the 1650 is a fail, slower than the 570 and more expensive.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Except the 1650s being benchmarked require a power connector, don't they?

I'll be interested to see what, if any, performance hit occurs on the cards that drop the power connector.

Yeah. After watching those two linked videos (HU and GN) about the GTX 1650, it seems.... wholly unimpressive. Who would have imagined that a brand-new NV card would get it's ass whooped by a 3-year-old (effectively) RX 570 card?

if the 1650 had a little better pricing it would be an easy choice,

Drop the price to $99, it might actually sell well.

Edit: RX 570 4GB models shipping from China are already in that price-range.
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA4RE91E9033&ignorebbr=1

 

[Mopetar]

They're gonna sell well no matter how good Navi will be.

I think Navi sales will be more a factor of price than absolute performance. Anything above the 2060 is priced ridiculously and gives AMD a big opportunity to pick up sales from consumers balking at those prices.

According to Tom's Hardware the 1650 is a fail, slower than the 570 and more expensive.

I'm a little surprised at the performance as it feel short of what I expected. I haven't read or watched any the reviews, but did any of them do more a deep dive to figure out what's holding the card back? The obvious culprit seems like memory bandwidth since the 20xx cards often beat out 10xx counterparts (e.g. 2070 vs 1080) in the higher tier even though the Pascal cards have more cores.

 

[ozzy702]

I think Navi sales will be more a factor of price than absolute performance. Anything above the 2060 is priced ridiculously and gives AMD a big opportunity to pick up sales from consumers balking at those prices.



I'm a little surprised at the performance as it feel short of what I expected. I haven't read or watched any the reviews, but did any of them do more a deep dive to figure out what's holding the card back? The obvious culprit seems like memory bandwidth since the 20xx cards often beat out 10xx counterparts (e.g. 2070 vs 1080) in the higher tier even though the Pascal cards have more cores.

If you're like me, it's the 1650TI that you were basing your expectations on. Uncut chip + GDDR6 could be decent if that's the route they take. The 1650 is certainly disappointing.

 

[Yotsugi]

I think Navi sales will be more a factor of price than absolute performance

No, not really.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Uncut chip + GDDR6 could be decent if that's the route they take. The 1650 is certainly disappointing.

Yeah, if the uncut chip + GDDR6 came out, and was a tad faster than the RX 570, then I could see that card justifying a $150 price, possibly. But certainly not the GTX 1650, as it stands now. $120 max, is what that card is worth.

Edit: Though, I do wonder how much AMD is making these days on $130 RX 570 4GB/$140 8GB cards. And isn't the RX 590, based on a 12nm shrink? Why no down-rev cards based on 12nm yet? Maybe we'll see an RX 570 Mark 2, or an RX 575, or something, basically, an RX 570 based on the 12nm shrink GPU die, with faster clocks than the current RX 570.

Maybe AMD is saving that, for when the GTX 1650ti comes out?

Edit: The clocks on my RX 570 8GB cards are around 1280Mhz core clock, 1750Mhz (x4) GDDR5 memory clock. If AMD could release an RX 575 at around the same price point (maybe $160-170 to start), with clocks in the 1500Mhz range for core clocks, then I think they could see a resurgence.

Maybe the reason that they haven't released that in terms of a stop-gap against the GTX 16xx cards, is because Navi is right around the corner, and targeted at the same target market? (And thus, releasing an updated RX 575 mid-range card would just cause confusion?)

Edit: Butbutbut... the WSA! If the 14nm/12nm Polaris dies are made at GF, then possibly the Polaris RX GPU family could live on longer, at least in certain regions of the world, living on a 12nm shrink, due to costs in fulfilling the WSA agreement? Since Navi is going to be based on 7nm dies made at TSMC, I guess, and probably pricey.

 

[mohit9206]

Yeah, if the uncut chip + GDDR6 came out, and was a tad faster than the RX 570, then I could see that card justifying a $150 price, possibly. But certainly not the GTX 1650, as it stands now. $120 max, is what that card is worth.

The card is worth whatever people are willing to pay for it.

 

[Iron Woode]

Regardless of performance, card will sell because its in its own category - fastest card with no power connector for an acceptable price. Just like 1050ti and 750Ti before it.

the basic models have no power connector but the higher end ones do.

 

[mohit9206]

the basic models have no power connector but the higher end ones do.

Nobody should be buying the higher models its a waste of money. Might as well get RX 580 then.

 

[Iron Woode]

Nobody should be buying the higher models its a waste of money. Might as well get RX 580 then.

I agree but people will buy what they want.

 

[Yotsugi]

Maybe AMD is saving that, for when the GTX 1650ti comes out?

Maybe AMD is, like, preparing a smaller Navi or something.
Also 1650Ti doesn't exist, full TU117 is for mobile.

is because Navi is right around the corner

They've just started commiting gfx10 into AMDGPU, so you have ~3 months left.

Butbutbut... the WSA

The what.
Rome alone should chomp enough wafers per Q after it ramps.
That I/O isn't small (>400mm^2) and in itself is a hefty price for making the best DC processor ever made, but if the price is that, I'll happily take it.

 

[VirtualLarry]

The card is worth whatever people are willing to pay for it.

Well, RX 570 is faster by 10%, and it's selling for $102.99 FS. NEW.

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA4RE91E9033&ignorebbr=1

 

[amrnuke]

Well, RX 570 is faster by 10%, and it's selling for $102.99 FS. NEW.

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA4RE91E9033&ignorebbr=1

I'd argue it doesn't matter how much faster the 570 is than the 1650. nVidia is the only graphics card company many entry gamers know about. And the second they want a GPU to upgrade over the iGPU on their Core i3-4130 because they want to play Civ 6 and Fortnite, this is what they'll scatter for.

The hope is that the competition will help, but I worry that when you have such a large company as nVidia going up against AMD, and their market cap is 4 times larger even though they don't make CPUs, you could end up with loss-leader pricing on their mid to high end GPUs to maintain the mindshare they have.

I have the same worry about AMD vs Intel, AMD is lucky that Intel is struggling so much with stale product releases recently, otherwise it's unclear they'd have gotten the opening they have.

 

[Yotsugi]

otherwise it's unclear they'd have gotten the opening they have.

AMD clearly gunned for bigger fishes with everything Zen2.