SPCR

Early look: Great eSport and lower intensity 1080p card. 35% higher fps than GTX 1050 Ti while using 10W more power. ~10% less fps than RX 570 and GTX 1060 3GB but uses far less power (70-85W vs 165-180W and 110-120W, respectively). 75W TDP, but OEM stock OC'ed cards may use more at stress loads. 4GB VRAM. HDMI 2.0b and Display Port 1.4a. Dimensions stated as: a" x b" x c" are from mfgr websites - others are from reviews.


Roundups:



Reviews with acoustic testing:

Asus GTX 1650 Strix OC (9.65" length, 5.12" height, 2 slot (xx"), one 6-pin PEG, passive idle. 2 DP, 2 HDMI). Passive fan hysteresis: fans off with drop to xxC; fans on with rise to xxC. One 4-pin PWM fan header available.
Techpowerup

MSI GTX 1650 Gaming X (9.45-9.84" length, 5.31" height, 2 slot (xx"), one 6-pin PEG, passive idle. 2 DP, 1 HDMI). Passive fan hysteresis: fans off with drop to xxC; fans on with rise to xxC.
Techpowerup
Guru3D

MSI GTX 1650 Aero ITX OC (6.69" length, 4.37" height, 2 slot (1.5"), one 6-pin PEG, No fan stop mode. 2 DP, 1 HDMI).
Hexus

Palit GTX 1650 StormX OC (5.51-5.91" length, 3.90-3.94" height, 2 slot (1.57"), no PEG. 1 DP, 1 HDMI, 1 DVI-D). No fan stop feature.
Techpowerup
Guru3D
Hexus
KitGuru

Zotac Gaming GTX 1650 (6.69" length, xx" height, 2 slot (xx"), no PEG. 1 DP, 1 HDMI, 1 DVI-D). No fan stop feature.
Guru3D

EVGA GTX 1650 SC Ultra Black (7.87" length, 4.53" height, 2 slot (xx"), 6-pin PEG. 2 DP, 1 HDMI). passive idle. Passive fan hysteresis: fans off with drop to xxC; fans on with rise to xxC.
Techpowerup

Gigabyte GTX 1650 Gaming OC (10.43-10.63" length, 4.33-4.65" height, 2 slot (1.57"), 6-pin PEG. 1 DP, 3 HDMI). passive idle. Passive fan hysteresis: fans off with drop to xxC; fans on with rise to xxC.
KitGuru
ComputerBase

Gigabyte GTX 1650 OC (7.68" length, 4.33" height, 2 slot (xx"), no PEG. 1 DP, 2 HDMI). passive idle, but when fans come on they go to full speed b4 settling down. Passive fan hysteresis: fans off with drop to xxC; fans on with rise to xxC.
ComputerBase

MSI Gaming X @ Guru3D and EVGA SC Ultra Black @ Techpowerup added.

Gigabyte Gaming OC @ KitGuru added.

I still think this card is bad because of its pricing, while more efficient than the 570 its performance is lacking for the price point that nvidia released, its acceptable to pay vast amounts on the upper bracket due to no real competition from AMD, but in this lower brackets i feel nvidia should be more competitive, this to me is a sign of disrespect to their customers that are loyal to them, this card should be $100 for it to be a good offering, they should consider releasing a Ti version, above the 570, at this price point and then the none ti at $100, and the entry level for gamer on pc, and to me the partners are overdoing the cards with huge coolers for a lower tdp. One last bad thing nvidia did is that this card dont come with the Turing encoder, as all the other gpus, so i would suggest to anyone to at least go toward the GTX1660 or if the budget is too tight, to go for the 570, there are very nice cards now a days with triple fan coolers that should be able to handle quietly the higher tpd card.

Computex will be a very interesting time, with AMD Ryzen 2, but there are rumors that place the NAVI cards also to be released on June, i personally doubt it, i feel AMD will use all the 7nm sillicone on CPUs and get a bigger market share where it can hurt intel, but would be interesting to see if NAVI will be price competitive to these cards, the early rumors insinuate that it wont have any high end, so these are the typical bracket it should compete.

While the RX 570 might be the cheaper card by $25 (apples to apples comparing a STRIX OC to a STRIX OC, etc), if you use it for gaming or other intensive tasks for 3 hours/day, the cost difference is a wash after two years* due to the 100W difference/ power use...and your PC will be quieter due to less heat/slower fans. I won't get into "they should haves". I think the current processes used just aren't as great as expected and Nvidia seems to have thrown a lot of transistors and die area at the problem (compared to the 1050 Ti). The story is this chip isn't fully enabled..so maybe expect to see a Ti version show up when AMD Navi appears or other competitive threat.

In any case, I can't give a recommendation for the RX 570 just because it's a power pig.

*$.012/kW-H.

Palit StormX OC @ Guru3D and MSI Aero ITC OC @ Hexus added. I think I might change my name to Steve OC....

CA_Steve wrote:In any case, I can't give a recommendation for the RX 570 just because it's a power pig.

*$.012/kW-H.

I guess we all have different priorities and preferences, not trying to change your opinion, but there is an interesting video that was just released,

Replying to Comments: GTX 1650, It's Better than RX 570 because of... Power, Power & Power

Thx. I got through maybe 8 min of it. His perspective is basically: 570 gives more fps and is cheaper, power use doesn't matter except for maybe a small percentage of people. My perspective is: power use matters as it affects heat and noise. So, different viewpoints, different conclusions. <shrugs>. Hopefully, Navi will provide a better fps/W...

Gigabyte OC and Gaming OC @ ComputerBase added.

CA_Steve wrote:Thx. I got through maybe 8 min of it. His perspective is basically: 570 gives more fps and is cheaper, power use doesn't matter except for maybe a small percentage of people. My perspective is: power use matters as it affects heat and noise. So, different viewpoints, different conclusions. <shrugs>. Hopefully, Navi will provide a better fps/W...

Exactly, I feel like SCPR is that small percentage of people. We care about power consumption / heat more than the average user, because we know it generally takes more noise to deal with that heat. Personally, I'm more interested the 1650 for this reason, but I'm not really a gamer and my ryzen 2400g still does what I need it to, so I likely won't buy any GPU (unless I get more into gaming / editing, which could happen).

Nice find. So, if you undervolt/underclock the 570 to meet 1650 performance levels, the power drops down to ~88W from 150W. In the same ballpark, now (71W for the 1650).

Undervolting the 1650 might be able to widen that gap again, though probably only by another ~5-15W. Undervolting is definitely worthwhile for those willing to tinker and keep the software running to apply the settings—I saved a good 15% of power draw while making my card quite a bit easier to cool and maintaining good boost clocks

CA_Steve, can you please explain what do you mean with "Passive fan hysteresis: fans off with drop to xxC"?

Does this mean that we can control the speed of the fan with the graphics card software, and it permits the fan to go off, when under a certain temperature?

thank you

It's not under your control, per se. If a card has a passive fan mode, it's thermally controlled. Let's say you boot up your PC and do some web browsing. It's a light 2D load and the GPU temps stay low. So, the fan stays off. Then, you start up a game, the GPU temp goes above 60C or whatever this card's limit is, and the fans kick on. You quit the game and the GPU temp drops. The hysteresis is how far below 60C the temp has to drop before the fans turn off.

ok, but regarding the MSI GeForce GTX 1650 Aero ITX OC, in a MSI forum, they say:

"No, it is not possible to lower the fan speedbelow the preset minimum. Fan off is not possible."

thank you

Yep - that slipped by me when I captured the review. Text updated.

Hello,

When you say the Asus has a 4 pin fan header available, does that mean in addition to what it uses for its fan, or do you mean it uses that 4 pin header for its cooling?

Asus let's you use the Gfx card to control an external PWM fan (like say the input chassis fan in front of the card)..

What about a new topic with the Geforce 1650 Super?
thank you

plan to, when I get a chance..as well as the new AMD card.

Seems palit is releasing their passive GTX 1650 KalmX

cool

Abula wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 07, 2020 11:25 am

Seems palit is releasing their passive GTX 1650 KalmX

Is it worth paying the extra $ for the passive version of 1650, when a premium 0db-fan 1650-S card could be had for similar $ ? That would have made some sense at least before the 1650-S was released...

I had been considering their 1050 Ti passive card...but sold at 145-150 EUR, when MSI Gaming-X 1650-Super is being sold at 180-185 EUR, considering their difference in performance, I would call it a bad investment, especially at this point in time.

I hope it doesn't take them a year to release a passive 1650-Super at least...that's the only promising thing I can think of about this release, that we might get a fanless 1650-S...but not at the end of 2020 or early 2021, would be equally useless.

Probably won't be a 1650 Super KalmX as the power use would be around 90W. 50-75W is typically the limit for OEM passive designs. I'd expect this 1650 KalmX to need some directed fan airflow (like from frontal case fans) in order to keep temps in line.

What do you think normal temps under load are going to be for 1650 KalmX?

Without directed airflow from the front fans: 80-90C.

With directed airflow: 60-70C

Give or take 10C