Synthetics

Moving on to synthetic performance testing, there shouldn’t be any surprises here. This is the 4th TU116 card we’ve looked at – albeit the first with just a 128-bit memory bus – so its behavior is generally well understood.

Synthetic: TessMark - Image Set 4 - 64x Tessellation

Synthetic: Beyond3D Suite - Pixel Fillrate

Synthetic: Beyond3D Suite - Integer Texture Fillrate (INT8)

Synthetic: Beyond3D Suite - Floating Point Texture Fillrate (FP32)

Synthetic: Beyond3D Suite - INT8 Buffer Compression

Synthetic: Beyond3D Suite - FP32 Buffer Compression

With synthetic performance, we see the GTX 1650 Super benefitting significantly with tessellation throughput, most likely due to the inclusion of more GPCs to house the greater SM count. This still leaves it behind the GTX 1660 cards, but relatively close overall. Meanwhile we see just a slight uptick in pixel throughput, reflecting the fact that while the card has a good deal more memory bandwidth than the regular GTX 1650, for this simple (and generally well compressible) test, it doesn’t add much.

Compute Power, Temperature, & Noise
POST A COMMENT

67 Comments

View All Comments

  • guachi - Friday, December 20, 2019 - link

    The 1650S overall is the card to get if buying a new card. But I'd still recommend a used 570 or 580 (and maybe a new 570 if you get one in sale).

    Polaris will never die.

    I just wouldn't buy THIS 1650S. The noise. Ouch! 50dB?

    No.
    Reply
  • lmcd - Friday, December 20, 2019 - link

    It's a convenient size, enough so that airflow in my case will result in better overall acoustics in my case compared to a larger card. Agreed that there's better designs yet but this isn't as awful as you're implying. Reply
  • Spunjji - Monday, December 23, 2019 - link

    50db is terrible under any circumstance. Reply
  • lmcd - Friday, December 20, 2019 - link

    Gonna be honest I don't quite understand why the 1050 Ti and 1060 3GB both need to be in this graph set while the 1070 didn't make it in. Usually there aren't performance regressions from one generation to another, so it's more interesting to compare a higher card from the previous generation to a lower card from the current generation. Reply
  • Ryan Smith - Friday, December 20, 2019 - link

    The 1070 was a $350 card its entire life. Whereas the 1050 Ti and 1060 3GB were the cards closest to being the 1650 Super's predecessor (1050 Ti was positioned a bit lower, 1060 3GB a bit higher). So the latter two are typically the most useful for generational comparisons.

    At any rate, this is why we have Bench. So you can use that to make any card comparisons you'd like to see that aren't in this article itself. https://www.anandtech.com/bench/GPU19/2638
    Reply
  • catavalon21 - Saturday, December 21, 2019 - link

    In doing so, it paints an interesting light for those of us who do not upgrade every generation. While the 970 can't be compared directly to it in Bench, it's interesting to see how many benchmarks show it besting the 980 - which was a $550 card when it debuted. Maybe the RTX series cards are worthy of their criticisms for gen-over-gen improvement in performance per dollar, but not this guy. Yes, I know 980 was 2 generations ago, but still. The 980 takes some of the benchmarks, especially CUDA, but across the board, the 1650S competes very well. For a card to have 980-like performance for $160 at 100 watts, I'm impressed. Reply
  • The_Assimilator - Saturday, December 21, 2019 - link

    No you're wrong, according to forum keyboard warriors there's been no improvement in price/perf in the last half decade because they can't get top-tier performance for $100. ;) Reply
  • Spunjji - Monday, December 23, 2019 - link

    That we're only seeing a price/performance improvement over Pascal more than half-way into the Turing generation kinda proves those "keyboard warriors" correct, though. It's nice, but it was annoying when on release a large chunk of the press decided to sing songs about how new boundaries of performance were being pushed (true!) while downplaying how perf/$ remained still or regressed (equally true). Throwing up some straw men now doesn't change that. Reply
  • Spunjji - Monday, December 23, 2019 - link

    The 1060 6GB already beat out the 980 under most circumstances - at worst it was roughly equal. That was a very nice perf/$ improvement indeed for a single generation, and it's where we got most of the gains the 1650 Super is now building on.

    The 2060 is an instructive example of how the RTX series disappointed in that regard, as the cost increase roughly matched the performance increase and its RTX features are arguably useless.
    Reply
  • Kangal - Saturday, December 21, 2019 - link

    Thanks for the review Ryan.
    But I have to go against you on the mention of 4GB VRAM capacity for 2020. You have forgotten something very important. Timing.

    Sure, PC Gaming makes a lot more money than Console Gaming (and Mobile Gaming is even larger!!), but that is because the wealth is not distributed fairly, it's quite concentrated. Whereas the Console Market is more spread out, so publishers can make profits more universally and over a longer timeframe. On top of that, there's the marketing and the fear of piracy. Which is the reason why Game Publishers target the consoles first, then afterwards port their titles to PC... even though originally they developed them on PC!

    I needed to mention that above background first to give some clarification. Games for 2020 will primarily be made to target the PS4, and they might get ported to the PS5 or Xbox X. Or even those launch titles for the PS5/XbX, they will actually be made for the PS4 first, and had enhancements made. Remember the 2014 games which were still very much PS3/360 games?

    And it will take AT LEAST a full-year for the transition to occur. So games in Early 2022 will still target the PS4, which means their PC Ports will be fine for current day low-end PCs. I mean even with the PS5 release, the PS4 sales will continue, and that's a huge market base for the companies to simply ignore. And even in the PC Market, most gamers have something that's slower than a GTX 1660 Ti. Besides, low VRAM isn't too much of an issue, most of the time the game will only require 3GB RAM to run perfectly. If you have more available, say 8GB, then without any changes from your end, you will see it now start using say 6GB of VRAM. That's Double! And you didn't even change the settings! Why? Most games now use the VRAM to store assets it thinks it might use later on, so that it doesn't have to load them when required. This is analogous to how Mac/Linux uses System RAM, as opposed to say Windows does. If it does have to load them, performance will take a momentary dip, but perfectly playable.

    And even if the games now require more VRAM by default to be playable, in most cases that problem too can be solved. You can change individual settings one-by-one and see which has the most effect to the graphical fidelity, and how much it penalises your VRAM/RAM usage, and your framerates. I mean look at lowspecgamer, to see how far he pushes it. Though for a better idea, have a look at HardwareUnboxed on YouTube, and see how they optimise graphics for the recently released Red Dead Redemption 2 (PC) game. They fiddled with the graphics to get a negligible downgrade, but boosted their framerates by +66%.

    So I think 4GB VRAM will become the new 2GB VRAM (which itself replaced the 1GB VRAM), but that doesn't mean they're compromising on the longevity of the card. I think 4GB will be viable for the midrange upto 2022, then they're strictly just low-end. Asking gamers to get 8GB instead of 4GB for these low-midrange cards is not really sensible at the prices... it is exactly like asking the GTX 960 buyers to get the 4GB Variants instead of the 2GB Variants.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now