Gigabyte GTX 1650 OC 4G Review

[tinytomlogan]

The next addition to the crowded mid-range Nvidia cards is the GTX 1650 and we've got Gigabyte's take on it in the office. Is it a bargain?

Gigabyte GTX 1650 OC 4G Review

 

[AngryGoldfish]

I'm kind of torn whether reviewers should focus on the unique card itself—the shroud, the fans, the quality, etc—or the GPU. On the one hand pretty much all shrouds and designs manufactured today by the likes of EVGA and Powercolor are adequate, and what distinguishes them from one another is usually a mere few degrees or a few decibels. Pay more, get more bling, get more cooling. Pay less, get less bling, get less cooling. It's quite simple really. So reviewing them on that merit seems like a tedious almost inconsequential thing, and instead reviewing it on the GPU itself would be more apt. But then once you've reviewed it you shouldn't have to review it again since performance will be the same.

I think your method of focusing on the card and not the GPU is fairest. I'm more in favour of that.

 

[WYP]

I'm kind of torn whether reviewers should focus on the unique card itself—the shroud, the fans, the quality, etc—or the GPU. On the one hand pretty much all shrouds and designs manufactured today by the likes of EVGA and Powercolor are adequate, and what distinguishes them from one another is usually a mere few degrees or a few decibels. Pay more, get more bling, get more cooling. Pay less, get less bling, get less cooling. It's quite simple really. So reviewing them on that merit seems like a tedious almost inconsequential thing, and instead reviewing it on the GPU itself would be more apt. But then once you've reviewed it you shouldn't have to review it again since performance will be the same.

I think your method of focusing on the card and not the GPU is fairest. I'm more in favour of that.

It's a tricky thing, as ultimately there are two ways to look at it. As reviewers, we need to inform people whether or not a graphics card is a good implementation of a specific GPU and whether or not that GPU is the best graphics card at its price point.

I think it says a lot that Nvidia didn't give reviewers pre-launch drivers for the GTX 1650. Ultimately, the pricing problem is an Nvidia problem, but you can't really say that Gigabyte made a bad card here.

The GTX 1650 is a very interesting card, especially when considering it as a low power HTPC GPU, or as part as an ultra-compact system with relatively little airflow. This is a great card for throwing into an old OEM PC that needs a decent low power GPU for PC gaming.

 

[tinytomlogan]

I'm kind of torn whether reviewers should focus on the unique card itself—the shroud, the fans, the quality, etc—or the GPU. On the one hand pretty much all shrouds and designs manufactured today by the likes of EVGA and Powercolor are adequate, and what distinguishes them from one another is usually a mere few degrees or a few decibels. Pay more, get more bling, get more cooling. Pay less, get less bling, get less cooling. It's quite simple really. So reviewing them on that merit seems like a tedious almost inconsequential thing, and instead reviewing it on the GPU itself would be more apt. But then once you've reviewed it you shouldn't have to review it again since performance will be the same.

I think your method of focusing on the card and not the GPU is fairest. I'm more in favour of that.

Ive just finished retesting an RX570 (had to get AMD to send one, all my originals went back to vendors)

So we will have a GPU focused review next week