Chinese GPU Targets GeForce GTX 1650 Performance

Zhihui
(Image credit: Zhihui)

Zhihui Microelectronics, a China-based developer of graphics processors, has introduced its first GPU. The graphics chip targets a performance level to that of Nvidia's GeForce GTX 1650 while promising a higher energy efficiency. 

Zhihui's IDM929 graphics processor is based on the company's proprietary IDMV architecture, but the company does not disclose its feature set. The only things we know is that the GPU has a pixel fill rate of 19.2 GPixels/s, a texture fill rate of 76.8 GTexel/s and compute performance of 2.5 TFLOPS (presumably FP32), which is comparable to that of Nvidia's GeForce GTX 1650 (which was released in mid-2020). The graphics processor also supports video decoding in H.264, MPEG2, MPEG4, VC-1, DivX, and VP6 formats. Meanwhile, the unit has four display engines and supports DVI, HDMI, and D-Sub/VGA interfaces. 

The GPU is made using a 14nm-class process technology, which could possibly mean that it is made by Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corp. (SMIC). It has a clock frequency of up to 1.2 GHz, which is a relatively low frequency for a chip made on a 14nm node. It is possible that at 1.2 GHz, the chip has a very low power consumption.  

From a performance point of view, it is unlikely that the IDM 929 will join the ranks of the best graphics cards for gaming, but since this is the first GPU from Zhihui, it was unlikely to compete against top graphics boards from AMD and Nvidia. Still, performance of GeForce GTX 1650 is enough for office PCs and even for basic home theater PCs. 

Zhihui Microelectronics is a new name in the rapidly developing Chinese GPU industry, but its main investor Hangzhou Guoxin Technology is a relatively well-known developer of embedded system-on-chips for applications like TVs. That said, it is possible that Zhihui will target primarily embedded applications, at least initially. Meanwhile, Zhihui and Guoxin intend to offer a platform consisting of a CPU and GPU, though it is not directly said whether it will be aimed at PCs or embedded applications.

Anton Shilov
Freelance News Writer

Anton Shilov is a Freelance News Writer at Tom’s Hardware US. Over the past couple of decades, he has covered everything from CPUs and GPUs to supercomputers and from modern process technologies and latest fab tools to high-tech industry trends.

  • And before all the political remarks, I am glad that there will at last be some competition as these get better and better, because I might want to buy a dedicated graphics card again someday. Currently they are way too expensive for me to purchase.

    I just hope they’re more affordable
    Reply
  • usertests
    Is the GTX 1650 around the performance of the Radeon 780M iGPU in Phoenix?
    Reply
  • peachpuff
    the GPU has a pixel fill rate of 19.2 GPixels/s, a texture fill rate of 76.8 GTexel/s
    Haven't seen these type of specs in a while, what does the 4090 do?
    Reply
  • InvalidError
    2.5 TFLOPS32 slips right between the 1050Ti's 2.1 and 1650's 2.9.

    Kind of depressing how something much slower than the 1650 Super (4.4 TFP32) still sounds remotely worth being excited about today.

    usertests said:
    Is the GTX 1650 around the performance of the Radeon 780M iGPU in Phoenix?
    The 780M is 8.9 TFP32, completely destroys the 1650 on paper compute power. In terms of actual performance though, what few benchmarks are available look like it is barely even. Could be teething issues or acute memory bandwidth starvation.
    Reply
  • PlaneInTheSky
    WOW. I looked up the price of the 1650, which is a 4-year-old card, that launched for $150.

    A 4-year-old GTX 1650 now costs $200.....wtf.

    I don't care who does it, China or Timbuktu, but the faster these rotten companies like Nvidia and AMD get competition, the better.
    Reply
  • healthy Pro-teen
    PlaneInTheSky said:
    WOW. I looked up the price of the 1650, which is a 4-year-old card, that launched for $150.

    A 4-year-old GTX 1650 now costs $200.....wtf.

    I don't care who does it, China or Timbuktu, but the faster these rotten companies like Nvidia and AMD get competition, the better.
    Atleast AMD's offerings are better, depending on the region you could get an RX6600 at around this price that is basically an RTX 2070.
    Reply
  • InvalidError
    PlaneInTheSky said:
    A 4-year-old GTX 1650 now costs $200.....wtf.
    Nvidia hasn't made any useful GPU aimed at the sub-$200 crowd in years, you are paying for whatever crumbs are left.

    It sucks but also makes sense: there isn't much profit to be made selling $150 GPUs that are barely ahead of modern IGPs, so nobody wants to be there. At $200, manufacturers can afford the extra 50sqmm of die area needed to double entry-level performance while still making decent (edit: as in much better than they would at $150) margins, which is where I believe the formerly $150 entry-level will settle at once the GPU greedflation bubble pops.
    Reply
  • King_V
    PlaneInTheSky said:
    WOW. I looked up the price of the 1650, which is a 4-year-old card, that launched for $150.

    A 4-year-old GTX 1650 now costs $200.....wtf.

    I don't care who does it, China or Timbuktu, but the faster these rotten companies like Nvidia and AMD get competition, the better.
    Nvidia and AMD, you say?

    You mean like how, for a little over $200, you can get an RX 6600 that trades blows with a 1080Ti?

    Let's even say that the Sapphire Pulse RX 6600, at $250, is our reference point. In 2016 dollars, that's about $200.
    Reply
  • InvalidError
    King_V said:
    Let's even say that the Sapphire Pulse RX 6600, at $250, is our reference point.
    If I wanted to spend $250 on a GPU, I'd be really tempted by the A750. Not thrilled with its power-efficiency and not particularly impressed by drivers yet either, though they appear to be improving faster than I expected.
    Reply
  • King_V
    InvalidError said:
    If I wanted to spend $250 on a GPU, I'd be really tempted by the A750. Not thrilled with its power-efficiency and not particularly impressed by drivers yet either, though they appear to be improving faster than I expected.
    I'll admit that I find the Intel intriguing, mostly because it's the new kid on the block, and I kind of like the idea in general. But, yeah, I'll agree on both points - the power efficiency is, well, awful, but the drivers look like they're making it a very serious priority, and I'm impressed.

    Then again, I probably wouldn't pay $250 for a 6600, I'd go for a 6600 XT or 6650 XT around that price (unless the coolers on those particular models were awful/loud)
    Reply