Cranking up the settings to 1080p ultra doesn't help the 4GB card, as you'd expect. Performance drops by 32% and average framerates are now just 54.6 fps. There are still games where the EVGA GTX 1650 GDDR6 can break 60 fps, but there are many more where it can't — and three of the games, Borderlands 3, Metro Exodus, and Red Dead Redemption 2 — are dangerously close to falling below 30 fps.
The overall standings don't change much, however. The EVGA 1650 GDDR6 card is still 13% faster than the GTX 1650 GDDR5 and 16% slower than the GTX 1650 Super. It does gain some ground on the RX 5500 XT 4GB card — it's only 10% slower now, at least in part because AMD GPUs seem to need a bit more VRAM than their Nvidia counterparts. The RX 5500 XT 8GB's lead widens, however, delivering 24% better performance than the 1650 GDDR6 at 1080p ultra.
If you're curious, we've also listed the overall performance charts for the various GPUs at 1440p and 4K at the bottom of the page. Just say no to 4K if you're on a budget GPU, and probably even if you're on a high-end GPU. 1440p medium doesn't look too bad, averaging 53.7 fps. 1440p ultra causes a 30% drop to just 37.4 fps, however, and cranking the resolution even higher is just asking for pain. 4K medium is basically out of reach in most games, with average performance of 28.0 fps. Or, if you're a glutton for punishment, 4K ultra is hanging out with the teens at a mere 18.9 fps.
Nine Game Average
The Division 2
Far Cry 5
Final Fantasy XIV
Forza Horizon 4
Red Dead Redemption 2
Shadow of the Tomb Raider
1440p Medium/Ultra and 4K Medium/Ultra Gaming Performance
MORE: Best Graphics Cards
MORE: Desktop GPU Performance Hierarchy Table
MORE: All Graphics Content
Hey at least it's not 20-25% slower and $40 more than the 3-year-old RX570this time around.
Not impressed at all. My $80 used Sapphire Pulse RX570 4g would humiliate this card that costs double. So would my $89 Sapphire Nitro RX480 8g used.
In any case, this really only slightly improves the poor standing of the 1650. It's still less capable than the RX 570 4GB. The only saving grace is significantly lower power draw. But "higher price and lower performance" tends to not be a strong selling point at this level, especially if a PCIe connector is going to be needed anyway.
EDIT: also, I didn't realize that the 5500 XT 8GB was as close to the 1660's performance as that. I had for some reason thought the gap between them was wider.
Really, for AMD GPUs, you want 8GB (or RX 5600 XT 6GB) -- stay away from 4GB cards. I generally recommend that same attitude for Nvidia, but Nvidia does a bit better with 4GB overall. Not with an underpowered GPU like TU117, though. Realistically, GTX 1650 GDDR5 should cost $120 now to warrant a recommendation, GTX 1650 GDDR6 for $140 would be fine, and GTX 1650 Super at $160 is good. But I'm not sure there's any margin left trying to sell 1650 at those prices.
GTX 1660 is mostly tied with RX 590 (just a hair faster overall), which is also just a hair faster than the RX 5500 XT 8GB. It can vary by game -- Metro Exodus, RDR2, and Strange Brigade all seem to like the extra VRAM bandwidth of 590 more than other games -- but they're all very close. The 590 does use quite a bit more power, though.
Yeah, agreed there. Still, at one point a couple of months ago, a new RX 570 4GB was going for $99.99... considering that's with a full warranty, it was a pretty impressive deal. I haven't seen it less than $119.99 these days. Ironically, it's Nvidia's unreasonable 1650 pricing that's keeping the RX 570 viable. Though I suppose a GDDR5 version of the 1650 that has no need for a PCIe connector might get sales just based on that for smaller systems with smaller PSUs.
Yep - and, I'd have to say that, at, assuming the same price at a 5500XT 8GB, the R590 is a really hard sell given that high level (officially 225W) of draw.
I wholeheartedly agree, and that is a problem that AMD brought on themselves. But, at least for AMD, they're getting a sale either way.
Nvidia is almost driving people away from the 1650 and toward the AMD Polaris cards. It seems like they don't HAVE to lose the low-end, but are choosing to do so.
The saving grace for them is the 1650 Super, which both cannibalizes the 1650/GDDR5 and 1650/GDDR6, along with giving a better price/performance than the Polaris cards and direct competition against the 5500XT
Also, the 1660 (when discounted). Though, that might be considered straddling between low-and-mid range.
5700 is only 10% faster than the 5600 XT (and costs 13% more, so still reasonable). 2060 is 4% slower but costs 11% more. And it only gets worse from there. 5700 XT is probably the next best step, and it's 10% faster than the 5700 but costs 21% more. 2060 Super costs 5% more than 5700 XT and is about 11% slower. Or 2070 Super is 5% faster than the 5700 XT but costs 36% more!
Honestly, right now it's hard to get excited about anything below the RX 5600 XT -- it offers a tremendous value proposition at the latest prices. You can make a case for just about any GPU with the right price, but performance and price combined with efficiency I'd definitely consider the 5600 XT, especially if you can find it on sale for $250 or so. Same with RX 5700. Of course, right now I'd also just wait and see what Ampere and RDNA2 bring to the party.