lmao @ 1650 series, such a joke...

[xSOSxHawkens]

Gets trashed by RX-570 from 2017 at lower price.

lolz

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHALv7fpb54


EDIT

LMAO part 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gm7oyg_s-8k

"HORRIBLE VALUE"

lolololol

Even NV knew this would be a crap card, thats why the blocked the drivers :D :D

"Pointless Product"

"Dead on arrival"

[Bad 💀 Motha]

Bottom line, always look at in depth reviews from tech community before buying such new hardware. Not sure why we need to have this ridiculous topic created which is just causing alot of fan boy bashing non-sense. Yes the 1650 is a low end card, so what, don't buy if it doesn't perform as good as you want, very simple really.

[Astraea Kisaragi]

1650 isnt a bad card, but price tag is quite high compared what brings to table. 1050 Ti had 40% more performance as GTX 750 Ti and had double memory size. 1650 is like 20% better and has just the same 4GB
This looks more a upgrade to non-Ti 1050 2GB and costs even more as the 1050 Ti did back then. Maybe 1650 Ti will fare better, but again for what money. I thought crypto mania was over.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

Yes I agree, sounds more practical to price gtx 1650 at around 100$

Seems price is set to what it is more because it's new and part of the 16xx series, rather then it being priced more along the lines of actual performance.

[xSOSxHawkens]

Dont get me wrong...

If NV has pushed this with an MSRP of 120 for the 6 pin units and 100 for the 75w units I would be 110% suggesting this card to everyone on a budget.

but...

Instead they give a card thats *barely* an upgrade and *even strip NVENC encoding*!!!!

And want 150+ for it...

^^^THAT^^^ is such a joke that its the reason for this thread and these posts. Its not about if its a good or bad card, its about NV having stupidly poor pricing.

[vadim]

I agree, GTX 1650 looks interesting. When we haven't many choices for graphics that doesn't need external power, GTX 1650 is clearly the best. At the same time it has level 7.5 compute capabilities, while GTX 1050 (as almost all other Pascal chips) supports only 6.1.
That makes GTX 1650 perfect card for GPGPU programming.

[xSOSxHawkens]

vadim の投稿を引用：

I agree, GTX 1650 looks interesting. When we haven't many choices for graphics that doesn't need external power, GTX 1650 is clearly the best. At the same time it has level 7.5 compute capabilities, while GTX 1050 (as almost all other Pascal chips) supports only 6.1.
That makes GTX 1650 perfect card for GPGPU programming.

Sorry, but yet again the AMD counter card is the better option.

RX570 does the following in TFLOPS:

5.095 FP16/ 5.095 FP32 / 318.5 (GFLOPS) FP64

Meanwhile a 1650 pulls just

5.967 FP16 / 2.984 FP32 / 93.24 (GFLOPS) FP64....


So basically, you get slightly better, but about the same if all you want is half precision calculations, but if you want true floating point or double precision you are screwed hard on the NV card...

The *only* arguement to be made for the 1650 would be if you lacked *any* way to power the RX. But given the RX card can easily be powered from a molex to 6pin in even a Pentium 4 OEM Box, that arguement is only worth about the 3 bucks the adapter would cost, not much.

(only other argument would be for CUDA, in which case shame on you for locking yourself into a walled garden eco-system instead of using the many available counter options (OpenCL/DirectCompute, etc))**

So... How is it the best option again when the 1650 is horendously slow at GPGPU by comparison to AMD counter cards?...



https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-rx-570.c2939
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/geforce-gtx-1650.c3366

[vadim]

xSOSxHawkens の投稿を引用：

Sorry, but yet again the AMD counter card is the better option.

RX570 does the following in TFLOPS:

5.095 FP16/ 5.095 FP32 / 318.5 (GFLOPS) FP64

Meanwhile a 1650 pulls just

5.967 FP16 / 2.984 FP32 / 93.24 (GFLOPS) FP64....


So basically, you get slightly better, but about the same if all you want is half precision calculations, but if you want true floating point or double precision you are screwed hard on the NV card...

I said about programming. Not about RUN programs. Those two things are totally different. No one in the sane mind would use either of these cards for real compute tasks.
But it pretty usual thing when someone uses different devices to write program and to actually run it.

[xSOSxHawkens]

vadim の投稿を引用：

xSOSxHawkens の投稿を引用：

Sorry, but yet again the AMD counter card is the better option.

RX570 does the following in TFLOPS:

5.095 FP16/ 5.095 FP32 / 318.5 (GFLOPS) FP64

Meanwhile a 1650 pulls just

5.967 FP16 / 2.984 FP32 / 93.24 (GFLOPS) FP64....


So basically, you get slightly better, but about the same if all you want is half precision calculations, but if you want true floating point or double precision you are screwed hard on the NV card...

I said about programming. Not about RUN programs. Those two things are totally different. No one in the sane mind would use either of these cards for real compute tasks.
But it pretty usual thing when someone uses different devices to write program and to actually run it.

fair enough...

I would still think that the more powerfull option would be the better abse to program from, but that is admitadly coming from a non-programer.

[FireFox]

Not to mention they gimped the encoder with the Volta NVENC.