RX 570 or GTX 1650

[spiroulis]

Hello, im planning to buy a new gpu and my budget is about 150euros. Im between the MSI Radeon RX 570 8GB Armor OC and the Gigabyte GeForce GTX 1650 4GB Windforce OC. Now i researched a bit and i dont see a clear winner.On the one hand, some people are saying that the rx 570 starts malfunctioning after some time, popping black screens and that it also uses more electricity but is more powerful. On the other hand, the windforce version gtx 1650 worries me because it has a higher base clock than the other 1650's i saw and i fear that it is going to overheat and it also has 4gb of vram while the rx570 has 8gb (i dont know if that is going to affect gaming performance).Anywho, i need some guidance.

Thanks in advance.

[Fasauceome]

7 minutes ago, spiroulis said:

.On the one hand, some people are saying that the rx 570 starts malfunctioning after some time, popping black screens and that it also uses more electricity but is more powerful

The armor RX 570 may be crappy, but it doesn't just start malfunctioning a few months after you get it.

 

8 minutes ago, spiroulis said:

On the other hand, the windforce version gtx 1650 worries me because it has a higher base clock than the other 1650's i saw and i fear that it is going to overheat

All Nvidia cards will operate way above their listed spec, if you have any kind of good airflow in your case. GPU boost will take the clocks up when you have decent thermals.

 

The RX 570 has much better performance, so you should get that.

[KaitouX]

Either go for the slightly over budget 1650 Super or the 570, the 1650 non-Super is a bad buy for most people.

[Cyracus]

Well the real issue with AMD is their drivers tend to be pretty terrible. The higher base clock won't make it overheat, besides Nvidia's boosting algorithm will worry about the heat for you (you'd probably be able to push the base clock even higher without heat issues unless you have no ventilation for it.

As for the vram, you may run into games that won't let you set higher graphical settings, or they will and you'll get horrible stuttering. I like pretty games so 4gb vram is too small for me, but would still manage with games today with lower settings.

[GoldenLag]

6 minutes ago, Cyracus said:

Well the real issue with AMD is their drivers tend to be pretty terrible

Its been a while since ive heard any issues in regards to GCN drivers, or even RDNA drivers. 

 

Their launch drivers are bad, but its not like polaris is new. 

 

22 minutes ago, spiroulis said:

Im between the MSI Radeon RX 570 8GB Armor OC and the Gigabyte GeForce GTX 1650 4GB Windforce OC.

Rx 570 is the better choice, however id look for other offerings than the armor models if possible. 

[rodrigoxm49]

27 minutes ago, spiroulis said:

Hello, im planning to buy a new gpu and my budget is about 150euros. Im between the MSI Radeon RX 570 8GB Armor OC and the Gigabyte GeForce GTX 1650 4GB Windforce OC. Now i researched a bit and i dont see a clear winner.On the one hand, some people are saying that the rx 570 starts malfunctioning after some time, popping black screens and that it also uses more electricity but is more powerful. On the other hand, the windforce version gtx 1650 worries me because it has a higher base clock than the other 1650's i saw and i fear that it is going to overheat and it also has 4gb of vram while the rx570 has 8gb (i dont know if that is going to affect gaming performance).Anywho, i need some guidance.

Thanks in advance.

Both are very entry level for these chips. Both have some temps issues and specially RX, if I remember well, have a sighlty lower memory clock than default RX570 models, but nothing to worrying too much. RX570 is significantly better than 1650, so you should buy RX570. If you don't play for long and long hours every day, you shouldn't worry about power efficiency, but only about performance.

 

VRAM at this point means nothing. Both can't handle with bigger resolutions, so it will never be used in a efficiently way.

[spiroulis]

Thank you all for your replies. If i manage to squeeze in the extra 20-30euros do you guys think a gtx 1650 super is an even better choice than the rx570?

[GoldenLag]

1 minute ago, spiroulis said:

If i manage to squeeze in the extra 20-30euros do you guys think a gtx 1650 super is an even better choice than the rx570?

Its not worth spending extra on what i recall as being very similar performance. 

 

The 1650 and 1650 super usually arent good cards for their price. And if your PSU cant handle a rx 570, it most likely shouldnt be powering anything but an iGPU system (with some exceptions offcourse)

[spiroulis]

9 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

Its not worth spending extra on what i recall as being very similar performance. 

 

The 1650 and 1650 super usually arent good cards for their price. And if your PSU cant handle a rx 570, it most likely shouldnt be powering anything but an iGPU system (with some exceptions offcourse)

alright i guess ill go for the rx570, but why not the armor edition?

[GoldenLag]

4 minutes ago, spiroulis said:

alright i guess ill go for the rx570, but why not the armor edition?

The cooler is one of the ones that are notably loud. If there are other offerings at the same price id perhaps consider those. 

[Cyracus]

15 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

Its been a while since ive heard any issues in regards to GCN drivers, or even RDNA drivers. 

 

Their launch drivers are bad, but its not like polaris is new.

Sorry, I mistyped, meant to say they can be pretty horrible. I know conjecture, but have had multiple driver issues with AMD, they usually got sorted by the next driver or the one after that but it can be a drag.

20 minutes ago, rodrigoxm49 said:

VRAM at this point means nothing.

It depends on the game and how high you wanna push the dials, particularly things like texture res and view distance, 4gb is enough to push most games to max, but certain games like shadow of mordor or gtaV you just can't, they're in the minority, but they do exist

[KaitouX]

40 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

Its not worth spending extra on what i recall as being very similar performance. 

 

The 1650 and 1650 super usually arent good cards for their price. And if your PSU cant handle a rx 570, it most likely shouldnt be powering anything but an iGPU system (with some exceptions offcourse)

The 1650 Super performs closer to the 580 while using significantly less power than the 570, which also mean that it can be quieter/cooler especially when using lower quality coolers. It is usually worse than the 570 when looking at pure FPS/$ but that depends a lot on the exact prices, and obviously how much the person pays for electricity and how much the extra heat/noise is going to bother them could change how important the FPS/$ metric is for them.

The 1650 is just bad for the price together with the 5500XT.

[GoldenLag]

25 minutes ago, KaitouX said:

The 1650 Super performs closer to the 580 while using significantly less power than the 570

Worth noting the 570 and 580 were allready close performers, but thanks for the correction. 

 

And usually the 580 is priced about the same as the 1650 super. Tho neither id call typically good value due to the 1660 being a thing. 

 

Edit: depending on pricing the 1650 super may be a better pick than the 580. Tho depends a lot on local market conditions. 

[rodrigoxm49]

1 hour ago, Cyracus said:

Sorry, I mistyped, meant to say they can be pretty horrible. I know conjecture, but have had multiple driver issues with AMD, they usually got sorted by the next driver or the one after that but it can be a drag.

It depends on the game and how high you wanna push the dials, particularly things like texture res and view distance, 4gb is enough to push most games to max, but certain games like shadow of mordor or gtaV you just can't, they're in the minority, but they do exist

8GB costs the same than 4GB nowadays, so why not buy 8GB cards, right? I'm not against it.

 

But I will explain why RX570 its not benefited from more than 4GB and this is the right spot for that level of performance.

 

RX570 is a VGA card that can't barely have comfortable performance at 1080p@60FPS on modern AAA campaign games. I know very well because I have one similar model in one of my PCs (RX470@1400Mhz).

 

Texture needs VRAM. Yes, you're right. But 1080p resolution doesnt have any benefits from anything above High on any game, even Shadow of Mordor. These Very High and Ultra texture resolutions are made for 1440p or 2160p. I think Digital Foundry have a veru good video abou it, but they're not alone. It's like open a 4k videos on 720p monitor. There's no benefits at all.

 

Most of modern games on RX570 need to be adjusted on Medium and this is due to GPU limitation, not VRAM. So commonly the limitation is the GPU, not the VRAM.

 

GTA5 I can easily max out without any stuttering here or wait for loading textures. It's a old game that 4GB@1080p is enough. 2GB cards have problem on this game, not 4GB cards.

 

View Distance doesn't take too much VRAM, is much more about GPU and CPU processing.