Turing Discussion Thread

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/nvidia...39161.html

According to Nvidia's official specifications, the GeForce GTX 1650 employs the Volta NVENC instead of the Turing NVENC. Nvidia's decision makes no sense at all especially when the GeForce GTX 1660 and GTX 1660 Ti both feature the Turing NVENC. A possible explanation could be that Nvidia is trying to minimize costs to maximize the profits on the GeForce GTX 1650.

Nvidia states that the Volta NVENC's performance is right in the alley of the Pascal NVENC. However, the Turing NVENC is up to 15 percent more efficient than the Volta NVENC and also brings a few improvements to combat artifacting. It isn't a huge deal-breaker if you don't plan on using the NVENC feature on the GeForce GTX 1650. But then again, if you're paying for a next-generation graphics card, you would expect it to come with the latest features.

https://www.techpowerup.com/254861/nvidi...dia-engine

Turing's NVENC is known to have around 15 percent performance uplift over Volta's, which means the GTX 1650 will have worse game livestreaming performance than expected. The GTX 1650 has sufficient muscle for playing e-Sports titles such as PUBG at 1080p, and with an up-to-date accelerated encoder, would have pulled droves of more amateur streamers to the mainstream on Twitch and YouTube Gaming. Alas, the $220 GTX 1660 would be your ticket to that.

https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/zo...ew,29.html

Little is wrong with what ZOTAC brought to the table with his card, however, Nvidia's price level might once again be bothersome. Right now if you browse around a bit you can get an AMD Radeon RX 570 4GB for 139 EUR/USD and the 8GB version at 149 EUR/USD. Especially the 8GB on that RX 570 gives it a massive advantage. Design wise ZOTAC did well, I mean this is a lovely looking and very compact product. It does not run hot, it's fairly silent and power consumption is low. So once again it's pricing that is going to be a problem. In reality, I find this to be a 99 USD domain card, but yeah we'll have to wait and see how prices are going to develop in the months to come.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/..._X/34.html

MSI is pricing their GTX 1650 Gaming X at "$150-$160", which is only a small increase and very reasonable. In return, you get a much better cooler that is really quiet, idle fan-stop, a large overclock out of the box, and an increased power limit. However, at that price point, the GTX 1650 is simply way too expensive. AMD's Radeon RX 570 can be found online for $130 and offers significantly higher performance. It also comes bundled with two AAA games, which further offsets the card's cost. MSI isn't to blame for this as the problem is simply NVIDIA setting their MSRP much too high. A more realistic price point for the GTX 1650 would be $120, at which point it would achieve price/performance parity with the Radeon RX 570. Compared to AMD's RX 570, NVIDIA's GTX 1650 definitely wins with impressive power efficiency and better temperature and noise levels, but pricing is just too high for that to matter. It also faces strong competition from NVIDIA's own GTX 1060 series, which offers similar or better performance and can be found used for bargain prices. Another competitor is the GTX 1660, which is faster and actually has a 5% better price/performance ratio than the GTX 1650.

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gef...096-6.html

The mainstream graphics market is especially unforgiving. A few frames per second, a few dollars, a few watts of power consumption, or a de-featured encoder can sway comparisons one way or another. That’s bad news for Nvidia’s new GeForce GTX 1650. Depending on the card it’s up against, the 1650 can be made to look great or downright lackluster, which is a problem. The TU117-based GeForce shouldn’t come up so obviously short in any metric.

There’s no doubt that the 1650 is slower than Radeon RX 570. Worse, you can find the Radeon in 4GB trim for $20 less than the least-expensive 1650. We recommend stepping up to an 8GB Radeon RX 570 for a few bucks more. After all, even the higher-capacity version starts $10 cheaper than the base-level GeForce GTX 1650.

When you start eyeballing higher-end partner cards like our GeForce GTX 1650 Gaming OC 4G, Nvidia’s positioning really gets out of whack. Rather than spending $180 on the same class of card, why not spring for a Radeon RX 580 instead? Or, go with a GeForce GTX 1660 for $220. It’s a far better-performing card. This isn't the segment able to tolerate $10 bumps in exchange for a few more megahertz and RGB lighting.
...
GeForce GTX 1650 does well compared to the performance of GeForce GTX 1050 Ti, the original price of GeForce GTX 1060, and Radeon RX 570’s power consumption. It’s just not the all-around winner it could have been. We were big fans of the GeForce GTX 1050, so maybe a card without the six-pin connector would change our minds.