Skip to main content

Nvidia GTX 1650 Ti Specs Listed in Benchmark Results

GeForce GTX 1650

GeForce GTX 1650 (Image credit: Nvidia)

The rumor mill on an upcoming Nvidia GeForce GTX 1650 Ti had been running dry since the graphics card's first appearance in a Eurasian Economic Commission (EEC) filing in April. Now, as spotted today by a hardware leaker on Twitter, we're seeing a Geekbench 5 entry added last week that corroborates the GTX 1650 Ti's speculated specifications.

The listing places the GTX 1650 Ti alongside the unreleased Intel Core i7-10750H, a six-core, 12-thread processor. The 'H' suffix means that the CPU is a mobile chip meant for laptops, so the GTX 1650 Ti here is most likely a mobile variant as well. As the GTX 1650 and GTX 1650 Mobile have shown us, the specifications between the desktop and mobile versions of Nvidia's graphics cards can vary.

(Image credit: Primate Labs Inc.)

Nvidia's TU117 die has 16 Streaming Multiprocessors (SM) for 1,024 CUDA cores. The GTX 1650 employs the TU117 silicon but only has 14 of the 16 SMs enabled, which puts 896 CUDA cores at the graphics card's disposal. The Geekbench 5 listing says the GTX 1650 Ti has 16 Compute Units, implying that the graphics card has the fully-enabled TU117 die for 1,024 CUDA cores.

The GTX 1650 Ti seemingly features a 1.49 GHz boost clock and 4GB of GDDR6 memory. Remember, if this is mobile version as believe, it's possible and likely that the desktop version will have higher clock speeds. 

As for the memory interface, the GTX 1650 and GTX 1650 Super both feature a 128-bit memory bus. We expect the Ti version to have the same. Sadly, Geekbench 5 doesn't list the memory speed.

The graphics card in question put up a OpenCL score of 44,246 points on Geekbench 5. The GTX 1650 Mobile typically scores up to 42,000 points, so we're roughly looking at a 4.8% difference for this specific benchmark. 

Of course, we'll need to take these unconfirmed results with a grain and salt. Additionally, this card hasn't been released yet, so there's still time for improvement.

  • King_V
    If there's a desktop version, exactly where is this going to slot in?
    Reply
  • AlistairAB
    Oh god no... the current cards all all way too close together as is. Remember when the 1070 and 1080 and 1080 ti were all 25 percent apart each? Now we have the 2070S, 2080S, and 2080 Ti all on average 15 percent fps apart. Pointless to buy anything above the 5700 XT right now. And I won't even get started about the low end where everything from the 1650 Super (insert 5 models here) to 1660 super are 5 percent apart.

    We got the 1650 Super, then the 5600 XT/RTX2060, then the 5700 XT. 3 levels of performance, and every other card is pointless already.
    Reply
  • WarWolverineWarrior
    Laptop buy the 1660ti
    Desktop buy the 5700xt
    Reply
  • InvalidError
    AlistairAB said:
    Oh god no... the current cards all all way too close together as is. Remember when the 1070 and 1080 and 1080 ti were all 25 percent apart each? Now we have the 2070S, 2080S, and 2080 Ti all on average 15 percent fps apart.
    GPU performance improvements have slowed down a lot over the last couple of years, performance at any given price point used to increase by 30-50% year-on-year. If performance isn't going up as fast as it used to be, you have less headroom left to maintain widely-spaced tiers and things get tighter.

    I don't mind having more choices as long as they offer a clear and sensible price-performance progression.
    Reply
  • gggplaya
    I really hope they make this in a half height card like the 1050ti. HTPC and NAS users have been clamoring for a updated turing half height card.
    Reply
  • King_V
    gggplaya said:
    I really hope they make this in a half height card like the 1050ti. HTPC and NAS users have been clamoring for a updated turing half height card.
    I think that this would be unlikely, the non-Super, non-Ti 1650, maybe, given its 75W power envelope. But the Super does, and the Ti will, be more power hungry. I'm not sure how practical cooling that would be in half-height form-factor.
    Reply
  • gggplaya
    King_V said:
    I think that this would be unlikely, the non-Super, non-Ti 1650, maybe, given its 75W power envelope. But the Super does, and the Ti will, be more power hungry. I'm not sure how practical cooling that would be in half-height form-factor.

    Yea but unfortunately the regular 1650 does not have Turing NVENC, instead relying on Volta nvenc. The 1650 super and ti would have Turing nvenc.
    Reply
  • cryoburner
    King_V said:
    If there's a desktop version, exactly where is this going to slot in?
    That's the same thought I first had, until I saw they were talking about laptop hardware. If this is something actually coming to market at this point, then I suspect it will be mobile only. On the desktop, there's only around a 15% performance difference between a 1650 SUPER and a 1660, so there wouldn't really be room for another product in there, especially with the 1660 also offering additional VRAM for as little as $200 now.

    More importantly, the 1650 SUPER is based on the same TU116 processor as the 1660, 1660 SUPER and 1660 Ti, and has 25% more graphics cores than a full TU117 processor would have, so there's no way a 1650 Ti built on that chip could even come close to the 1650 SUPER's level of performance. It would have to be around 15-20% slower than a 1650 SUPER, and that doesn't really fit with their existing naming conventions this generation. So, I can't see a 1650 Ti happening on the desktop.

    AlistairAB said:
    Oh god no... the current cards all all way too close together as is. Remember when the 1070 and 1080 and 1080 ti were all 25 percent apart each? Now we have the 2070S, 2080S, and 2080 Ti all on average 15 percent fps apart. Pointless to buy anything above the 5700 XT right now. And I won't even get started about the low end where everything from the 1650 Super (insert 5 models here) to 1660 super are 5 percent apart.

    We got the 1650 Super, then the 5600 XT/RTX2060, then the 5700 XT. 3 levels of performance, and every other card is pointless already.
    Assuming one is running games at resolutions where they are not CPU-limited, a 2080 Ti tends to be around 20-25% faster than a 2080, and a 2080 in turn around 20-25% faster than a 2070. The SUPER cards kind of filled in the gaps though, while bringing price reductions with them. Still, a 2080 Ti can be around 40% faster than a 2070 SUPER when not limited by CPU performance, and close to 50% faster than a 5700 XT. If someone really wants to game at native 4K and has money to burn, there's substantially more performance to be had there.

    And there's certainly more than a 5% performance difference separating each card between the 1650 SUPER and the 1660 Ti. The only place that might be true is when comparing the 1660 Ti with the SUPER variant, but that's more of a price reduction of TI-level performance than anything. Going from the 1650 SUPER to the 1660 can be a 10-15% performance difference, plus additional VRAM that should keep the card relevant longer, and the jump between the 1660 and the 1660 Ti provides a similar performance difference, even if that's been filled in with the 1660 SUPER now. Again though, the 1660 Ti is up to around 30% faster than a 1650 SUPER. And as I pointed out already, chances are the 1650 Ti isn't even coming to the desktop.

    Really, it should be seen as a positive having levels of cards priced relatively close together though, as it allows people to fit as much graphics performance into their build as they can afford, rather than having $100+ separating each performance level.
    Reply