The 6-pin model supported core and memory overclocking and the memory went a little further, this saw a 12% boost in performance, placing the GTX 1650 just behind a stock GTX 1060 3GB. Leaving the core frequency untouched but boosting the GDDR5 memory frequency by 18% improved frame rates in World War Z by 7%, not an amazing overclock from the base model but if I tried to overclock the cores it was a 1-2% increase at best. However, as mentioned earlier the GTX 1650 is very memory bound, so much so that you have to underclock the core heavily before you see a noticeable decline in performance. For testing we have just a few games running in our usual GPU test bed that includes a Core i9-9900K clocked at 5 GHz with 32GB of DDR4-3200 memory.įirst up we have World War Z and here out of the box performance between the two Gigabyte GTX 1650 models is basically identical which might seem a bit odd given the 6-pin model is clocked 6-7% higher. Once overclocked the Gigabyte GTX 1650 Gaming OC peaked at 91 watts and averaged an operating frequency of 2070 MHz which was quite impressive. We were able to boost the memory frequency by 17% and as you’re about to see that lead to some fairly impressive performance gains.Īs expected, the cards that could pull more power from the PSU overclocked better and we’ll look at those results in a moment. However, we quickly discovered that the GTX 1650 is extremely memory bound, so if you spend the small power budget available on the 75 watt model by overclocking the 4GB of GDDR5 memory, this leads to more substantial gains. Even that was a bit iffy though, pushing the GPU load to 69 watts. The card’s power limit is locked at 100% and at most we were able to squeeze another 15 MHz out of the core. Given those limitations overclocking the base model isn’t possible. Therefore out of the box we saw a peak GPU load of 67 watts whereas the Gaming OC model hit 72 watts. When gaming the base model typically boosted to 1830 MHz, while the 6-pin model hit 1950 MHz.īecause the base model is limited to the 75-watt power delivery of the PCI Express x16 slot it can’t clock higher as it would be running out of spec and doing so could risk damaging the motherboard. Out of the box the base model targets a boost clock speed of 1710 MHz, while the bigger version aims for 1815 MHz. The Gaming OC version in the other hand is retailing for $180, so it's 16% more expensive. In terms of pricing, the smaller version without the 6-pin PCIe power connector costs $155, so a mere $5 over the MSRP. For context, the Gigabyte Gaming OC version we used in our original review is 36% longer and 76% heavier. We’ve since purchased the Gigabyte GTX 1650 OC, a 195mm-long graphics card that weighs all of 377 grams and most crucially, has no external power connector. The models we reviewed before provided by MSI and Gigabyte did require the external 6-pin power connector, placing them in direct competition with something like the cheaper and faster Radeon RX 570. The other advantage to not using much power is the GTX 1650 can be configured to not use any external power. With that said, the handful of GTX 1650 cards we’ve seen so far run cool and quiet despite their unimpressive looking coolers. The opposite can also happen, where AIB partners try to maximize profit and slap a crushed down coke can on the thing and it will run at 70 degrees. Using less power means cooler and quieter graphics cards, or at least it potentially can. The only possible advantage the GTX 1650 has is its power efficiency. That didn’t come to happen though, as the GTX 1650 struggles to match the value of even the faster RX 580. The Radeon RX 570 is a great value gaming graphics card, but as great as it is, we were hoping we’d evenly get a Turing based GPU that was even better. It obliterates the GTX 1050 Ti and it’s been cheaper to buy ever since cryptocurrency mining cooled off. For some time now AMD’s Radeon RX 570 has been, or at least should have been, the go-to option for budget conscious gamers. Last week we checked out the new GeForce GTX 1650 for the first time and we were disappointed with what we found.
0 kommentar(er)
