Power, Temperature, and Noise

As always, we'll take a look at power, temperature, and noise of the GTX 1650, though the 'mini' design shouldn't hold any surprises.

GeForce Video Card Average Clockspeeds
Game GTX 1650 ZOTAC
GTX 1650 OC Gaming
Boost Clock 1665MHz 1695MHz
Battlefield 1 1855MHz 1880MHz
Far Cry 5 1847MHz 1886MHz
Ashes: Escalation 1826MHz 1829MHz
Wolfenstein II 1860MHz 1905MHz
Final Fantasy XV 1867MHz 1837MHz
GTA V 1886MHz 1905MHz
Shadow of War 1857MHz 1863MHz
F1 2018 1855MHz 1875MHz
Total War: Warhammer II 1865MHz 1902MHz
FurMark 1629MHz 1672MHz

Power Consumption

Idle Power ConsumptionLoad Power Consumption - Battlefield 1

Load Power Consumption - FurMark

As for idle power consumption, the GTX 1650 falls in line with everything else, with total system power consumption reaching 83W. With contemporary desktop cards, idle power has reached the point where nothing short of low-level testing can expose what these cards are drawing.

Meanwhile at full load, the power consumption disparity between the RX 570 and GTX 1650 is one of the key factors in a direct comparison. Better – but not always – performance can be had for an additional ~75W at the wall, which maps well to the 150W TBP of the RX 570 over the 75W slot-power-only GTX 1650. Though the greater cooling requirements for a higher power card does means forgoing the small form factor.

Temperature

Idle GPU Temperature

Load GPU Temperature - Battlefield 1

Load GPU Temperature - FurMark

Temperatures all appear fairly normal, as the GTX 1650 stays very cool under load.

Noise

Idle Noise Levels

Load Noise Levels - Battlefield 1

Load Noise Levels - FurMark

While the GTX 1650 may have good power and temperature characteristics, the noise is not as clean, if only because entry-level cards don't come with 0db fan idling technology, and SFF cards often have to deal with small shrill fans at relatively high RPM. The GTX 1650's fan isn't the worst, but it's not a standout best either. If anything, it looks to be the result of preferring cooling over acoustics, given the very low load temperatures.

Compute & Synthetics Closing Thoughts
POST A COMMENT

124 Comments

View All Comments

  • philehidiot - Friday, May 3, 2019 - link

    Over here, it's quite routine for people to consider the efficiency cost of using AC in a car and whether it's more sensible to open the window... If you had a choice over a GTX1080 and Vega64 which perform nearly the same, assume they cost nearly the same, then you'd take into account one requires a small nuclear reactor to run whilst the other is probably more energy sipping than your current card. Also, some of us are on this thing called a budget. $50 saving is a weeks food shopping. Reply
  • JoeyJoJo123 - Friday, May 3, 2019 - link

    Except your comment is exactly in line with what I said:
    "Lower power for the same performance at a similar enough price can be a tie-breaker between two competing options, but that's not the case here for the 1650"

    I'm not saying power use of the GPU is irrelevant, I'm saying performance/price is ultimately more important. The RX 570 GPU is not only significantly cheaper, but it outperforms the GTX 1650 is most scenarios. Yes, the RX 570 does so by consuming more power, but it'd take 2 or so years of power bills (at least according to avg American power bill per month) to split an even cost with the GTX 1650, and even at that mark where the cost of ownership is equivalent, the RX 570 still has provided 2 years of consistently better performance, and will continue to offer better performance.

    Absolutely, a GTX1080 is a smarter buy compared the to the Vega64 given the power consumption, but that's because power consumption was the tie breaker. The comparison wouldn't be as ideal for the GTX1080 if it costed 30% more than the Vega64, offered similar performance, but came with the long term promise of ~eventually~ paying for the upfront difference in cost with a reduction in power cost.

    Again, the sheer majority of users on the market are looking for best performance/price, and the GTX1650 outpriced itself out of the market it should be competing with.
    Reply
  • Oxford Guy - Saturday, May 4, 2019 - link

    "it'd take 2 or so years of power bills (at least according to avg American power bill per month) to split an even cost with the GTX 1650, and even at that mark where the cost of ownership is equivalent, the RX 570 still has provided 2 years of consistently better performance, and will continue to offer better performance."

    This.

    Plus, if people are so worried about power consumption maybe they should get some solar panels.
    Reply
  • Yojimbo - Sunday, May 5, 2019 - link

    Why in the world would you get solar panels? That would only increase the cost even more! Reply
  • Karmena - Tuesday, May 7, 2019 - link

    So, you multiplied it once, why not multiply that value again. and make it 100$? Reply
  • Gigaplex - Sunday, May 5, 2019 - link

    Kids living with their parents generally don't care about the power bill. Reply
  • gglaw - Sunday, May 5, 2019 - link

    wrong on so many levels. If you find the highest cost electricity city in the US, plug in the most die hard gamer who plays only new games on max settings that runs GPU at 100% load at all times, and assume he plays more hours than most people work you might get close to those numbers. The sad kid who fits the above scenario games hard enough he would never choose to get such a bad card that is significantly slower than last gen's budget performers (RX 570 and GTX 1060 3GB). Kids in this scenario would not be calculating the nickels and dimes he's saving here and there - they'd would be getting the best card in their NOW budget without subtracting the quarter or so they might get back a week. You're trying to create a scenario that just doesn't exist. Super energy conscious people logging every penny of juice they spend don't game dozens of hours a week and would be nit-picky enough they would probably find settings to save that extra 2 cents a week so wouldn't even be running their GPU at 100% load. Reply
  • PeachNCream - Friday, May 3, 2019 - link

    Total cost of ownership is a significant factor in any buying decision. Not only should one consider the electrical costs of a GPU, but indirect additional expenses such as air conditioning needs or reductions in heating costs offset by heat output along with the cost to upgrade at a later date based on the potential for dissatisfaction with future performance. Failing to consider those and other factors ignores important recurring expenses. Reply
  • Geranium - Saturday, May 4, 2019 - link

    Then people need to buy Ryzen R7 2700X than i9 9900K. As 9900K use more power, runs hot so need more powerful cooler and powerful cooler use more current compared to a 2700X. Reply
  • nevcairiel - Saturday, May 4, 2019 - link

    Not everyone puts as much value on cost as others. When discussing a budget product, it absolutely makes sense to consider, since you possibly wouldn't buy such a GPU if money was no object.

    But if someone buys a high-end CPU, the interests shift drastically, and as such, your logic makes no sense anymore. Plenty people buy the fastest not because its cheap, but because its the absolutely fastest.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now