MSI GTX 1650 Gaming X 4G
Nvidia’s new GPU brings a modest boost in performance
THE GEFORCE GTX 1650 was inevitable, considering none of the other Turing GPUs can fill the role of a budget graphics card. This is likely the final implementation of the Turing architecture (at least on 12nm). The GTX 1650 uses a new TU117 GPU, which is a smaller and thus less expensive variant of the TU116 that powers the GTX 1660 and 1660 Ti cards. The key differences relative to the 1660 line are in the memory configuration and number of SMs (streaming multiprocessors).
As expected, the GTX 1650 has 4GB of GDDR5, clocked at 8GT/s—the same speed as the GTX 1660 as well as the previous-generation GTX 1060 cards. Four active memory controllers on a 128-bit bus give it 128GB/s of bandwidth, slightly more than the GTX 1050 Ti.
Nvidia is typically conservative with its reported boost clocks, with most cards running well above the given speed. The “stock” GTX 1650 has a boost clock of 1,665MHz. That’s less than the GTX 1060 cards, but roughly 50 percent faster than the GTX 1050. The GTX 1650 is also designed to run without a six-pin PCIe power connector, though factory overclocked cards, like this MSI GTX 1650 Gaming X 4G, have higher clock speeds, and require a six-pin PEG connector.
The rumors on pricing ended up being a bit high. With a recommended price of $149 for the base models, the GTX 1650 is only slightly more expensive than a GTX 1050 Ti. Of course, there’s still room for a $179 GTX 1650 Ti part, and this factory overclocked MSI model comes in at $180.
Nvidia claimed the GTX 1650 would be up to twice as fast as a GTX 950, and 50 percent faster than the GTX 1050, and that was probably a fair estimate, especially since both of those cards only have 2GB VRAM. Overall, the GTX 1650 lands right about where expected. It’s faster than the GTX 1050, by 73 percent at 1080p ultra in our testing. Again, a lot of that is due to the 1050’s limited VRAM, as the GTX 1050 Ti is much closer—the 1650 is about 30 percent faster. The GTX 1060 3GB leads by 9 percent at 1080p ultra, and the RX 570 4GB is in a similar position.
The GTX 970 is only slightly faster (1-3 percent) than the GTX 1650, mostly due to architecture improvements over the past two generations. Newer games tend to favor the GTX 1650, while older games are more likely to favor the GTX 970. In other words, a high-end 145W $330 card from 2014 has morphed into a budget 75W $150 card of today.
The difficulty with budget GPUs is that they never represent anything “new” in terms of performance. Yes, the GTX 1650 is faster than the previous-generation GTX 1050 Ti, but it’s also roughly the same performance as a high-end GPU from nearly five years ago. Now that level of performance is available from a far less expensive 75W TDP card (give or take), and there will eventually be lowprofile card models using the GTX 1650.
It could make sense as a cheap upgrade for an older PC, but it’s not necessarily the best performance or value you can find right now. From a pure value proposition, especially with the discounted GTX 1060 cards still hanging around, along with AMD’s RX 570 and 580, the GTX 1650 comes up short. Eventually, the stock of previous-generation GPUs will dry up, and the GTX 1650 will remain for a couple of years as Nvidia’s budget offering, but that hasn’t happened yet.
The GTX 1650 isn’t a bad GPU by any means. It can hit 60fps at 1080p medium to high quality in most games, and it’s affordable. Just make sure you understand what you’re getting, because if you’re looking at building a budget gaming PC, you’ll almost always be better served by spending a bit more money. For a compact build or something that’s only used for light to moderate gaming, the GTX 1650 is worth a look. But if you upgraded your graphics card any time in the past few years, you’re probably doing fine. Can your card run the games you want to play? If it can’t, it’s fine to think about upgrading, but just because a card is several years old doesn’t mean it needs to be replaced. –JARRED WALTON