The new GTX 1650 Super vs GTX 1660ti

[Max Bentley]

I currently own a GTX 1050ti which i'm going to upgrade. I was originally going to buy the GTX 1660ti but the newly released GTX 1650 Super has me thinking. The 1660ti is a £300 card that pulls around a total system power consumption of 280, whereas the GTX 1650 Super is a £160 card that pulls around an average system power consumption of 220. There is about a 20-25 average fps difference between both cards. The reason i'm bothered about the power is because I own a 400w PSU and therefore I'm a little tentative about buying the 1660ti as it recommends a psu of 450w, whereas the 1650 super recommends 350 (fitting nicely to my system). Now don't get me wrong, the 1660ti is obviously a better card, but is it worth almost double the price for the performance increase? And is it worth making me sleep better at night knowing that I''l have a card that won't potentially break my power supply?

[Mark Kaine]

12 minutes ago, yaboistar said:

addendum: for £300 you can get a Vega56 which is a faster card

I agree but won't he need a bigger power supply then? 

 

And really I think there are many options generally that would perform better than these new Nvidia stop gap cards, at similar prices 

[SavageNeo]

1660 SUPER OR 1660TI. 400watt psu is enough for those, you could get used 1080 or 1070ti around 300bucks and your psu would be enough still

[Max Bentley]

22 minutes ago, yaboistar said:

if your PSU is rated for 400W, then it can supply 400W of power

 

the 1660ti is about 220W as you say, your systme core will add about 80 watts ontop of that and let's call it 15 watts extra for some drives

 

315 watts or thereabouts on peak load. 85 watts short of the power supply's rating - plenty of headroom.

 

i've run a 1080Ti and overclocked 4790k on a 550W psu before where the system power draw was something in the region of 480W - in reality unless you've got some monstrosity of a single GPU that needs three 8-pin connectors and the power supply of a small city to function (see my sig lmao) then you rarely need more than 650W for even the most powerful single GPU setup, even things like the 295x2, radeon pro duo and the titan Z - they're dual-8-pin setups so you could get away with running them on something like a 550-650w psu if you really had to



TL;DR - get the 1660Ti, it will run fine, upgrade your PSU later on

 

 

 

 

 

addendum: for £300 you can get a Vega56 which is a faster card

Thanks for the reply. So basically I should buy the 1660ti but not overclock it or anything due to the relatively small amount of headroom?

[Max Bentley]

2 minutes ago, SavageNeo said:

1660 SUPER OR 1660TI. 400watt psu is enough for those, you could get used 1080 or 1070ti around 300bucks and your psu would be enough still

I'd rather get a new card simply because of trust issues and I'm almost certain the ti is better than the super in terms of power consumption and fps

[SavageNeo]

Just now, Max Bentley said:

Thanks for the reply. So basically I should buy the 1660ti but not overclock it or anything due to the relatively small amount of headroom?

You can try to overclock, if it crashes then it crashes and you restart your system. Its that simple. (if you use msi afterburner, test your oc and only check the "use these setting when startup" when you sure that your oc is stable)

[Otto_iii]

im tired and a bit tipsy, i don't know what your full paragraph asked i read like 60% of it but *@#& the 1650, all of them, for that price you could get a rx580-590 for better performance for $, but 1660, go for it, it actually secures a good place in the market if you get it at a good price

stop buying 50 series cards, im not saying this as a foe i came from a 1050ti as of very recently, get out of the hell hole that is 50 series card, whether its 1050 or 1650, whether that means 1660 or rx590 just get the hell out its terrible, run away while you can, save yourself, the 1650 Super offers nothing worthwhile regardless of the stupid DDR6 ram upgrade, *&$^ing run away

stop buying base level honda civics with hood scoops and GT spoilers, it doesn't make them better sports cars

[Max Bentley]

1 minute ago, SavageNeo said:

You can try to overclock, if it crashes then it crashes and you restart your system. Its that simple. (if you use msi afterburner, test your oc and only check the "use these setting when startup" when you sure that your oc is stable)

Ok, sounds fair enough

[Max Bentley]

1 minute ago, Otto_iii said:

im tired and a bit tipsy, i don't know what your full paragraph asked but *@#& the 1650, all of them, for that price you could get a rx580-590 for better performance for $, but 1660, go for it, it actually secures a good place in the market if you get it at a good price

stop buying 50 series cards, im not saying this as a foe i came from a 1050ti very recently, get out of the hell hole that is 50 series card, whether its 1050 or 1650, whether that means 1660 or rx590 just get the hell out its terrible, run away while you can

sounds like you very much dislike the 50 series lol

[Otto_iii]

its 160-180$ here and 15-20% behind AMD/Radeon offerings here, so yes i louthe it becuase when i bought my 1050ti i had the option to bought a RX570 (often 120$ now and still superior to most 1650 variants) for same price as far worse 1050ti at the time (over a year ago) because i was a dumbass and bought a 1050ti because of brand loyalty to Nvidea.   This isn't completely AMD vs Nvidea though, if you can get any version of a 1660, its going to be superior to anything save 5700 series in said current price bracket, which is because sadly the 5700 is in a completely different price-bracket (wasn't always, but AMD fucked up and stopped selling 290$ 5700s when they could of ate up the entire mid-range market with that)

Just for love of god don't buy a 1650, the faster ram doesn't make it a card it physically can't be, the tiny inadequate die size is still the same

[Mark Kaine]

1 minute ago, Max Bentley said:

sounds like you very much dislike the 50 series lol

Well that could be because it's very low end. 

 

I had 1050ti and liked it, but ultimately I had to buy a better card 6 months later because the performance just didn't cut it in current gen games. 

 

I'd say 50 cards are really just ok if you exactly know what you want and don't mind lowering settings (depending on title by a lot!)

 

For everyone else it's just really poor value,  even tho the card objectively may be "ok(ish)"

[Max Bentley]

1 minute ago, Mark Kaine said:

Well that could be because it's very low end. 

 

I had 1050ti and liked it, but ultimately I had to buy a better card 6 months later because the performance just didn't cut it in current gen games. 

 

I'd say 50 cards are really just ok if you exactly know what you want and don't mind lowering settings (depending on title by a lot!)

 

For everyone else it's just really poor value,  even tho the card objectively may be "ok(ish)"

Yeah I completely agree. However I've used the 1050ti for almost a year now and I'm still getting decent frames (e.g Modern Warfare I can get an average of 60 on medium to high). But it's still a low end card which i ultimately look forward to replace so i can start playing current gen games at high/ultra settings and get above 60fps (something which the 1650 super and the 1660ti can do). My 1050ti is also starting to under perform now and have many lag stutters. something it didn't use to do a few months ago. 

[Man]

1 hour ago, yaboistar said:

if your PSU is rated for 400W, then it can supply 400W of power

 

Not necessarily. Read on...

 

1 hour ago, Max Bentley said:

The reason i'm bothered about the power is because I own a 400w PSU and therefore I'm a little tentative about buying the 1660ti as it recommends a psu of 450w, whereas the 1650 super recommends 350 (fitting nicely to my system).

Rated peak output is just one side of the story. Personally, I don't even consider it a part of the story, as it's usually consist of deceitful information, unless we are talking about well reputed, established brands. 

 

I rely on the amperage of 12v rail(s) because GPU and CPU, the two most power hungry components in any system, rely solely on the 12v rail. Take a look at this PSU's output label:

 

 

Notice how this PSU is rated at quote/unquote "450W", yet provides just "120W" (12V x 10A = 120W) on the main 12v rail. It's pathetic, despite the rated 450W output. I wouldn't trust that PSU with a 35W Pentium III running solo, let alone a modern gaming PC. 

55 minutes ago, Otto_iii said:

but *@#& the 1650, all of them, for that price you could get a rx580-590 for better performance for $

The 1650S is slightly better than the RX580, and isn't all that much behind the RX590. As a matter of fact, this thing is DANGEROUSLY close to GTX980 according to Tech Power-up and Game Debate, yet draws just 100W. 

 

So tell me everything about how awful Nvidia's x50 line-up is!

 

 

[Max Bentley]

2 hours ago, Man said:

I rely on the amperage of 12v rail(s) because GPU and CPU, the two most power hungry components in any system, rely solely on the 12v rail. Take a look at this PSU's output label:

 

 

Notice how this PSU is rated at quote/unquote "450W", yet provides just "120W" (12V x 10A = 120W) on the main 12v rail. It's pathetic, despite the rated 450W output. I wouldn't trust that PSU with a 35W Pentium III running solo, let alone a modern gaming PC. 

I see. My psu has 360w on the 12v rail, is that enough for the 1660ti? Considering i have an i5 8400 six core and (would) have a 1660ti, this shouldn't draw near enough the 360w, right?

[Man]

12 hours ago, Max Bentley said:

I see. My psu has 360w on the 12v rail, is that enough for the 1660ti? Considering i have an i5 8400 six core and (would) have a 1660ti, this shouldn't draw near enough the 360w, right?

Well, the 1660Ti has a real world power consumption of just 115W at peak (Guru3D) whereas the i5-8400 is rated at 65W, so they need around 16A @ 12v. So in 'theory' you'll be fine, as long as your PSU can reliably deliver a minimum of 25 amps on the 12v, as some mobo ICs, casing fans, SATA storage devices and optical drives also rely on the 12v rail, although they shouldn't draw more than a few amps (~5A at most).

[Max Bentley]

2 hours ago, Man said:

Well, the 1660Ti has a real world power consumption of just 115W at peak (Guru3D) whereas the i5-8400 is rated at 65W, so they need around 16A @ 12v. So in 'theory' you'll be fine, as long as your PSU can reliably deliver a minimum of 25 amps on the 12v, as some mobo ICs, casing fans, SATA storage devices and optical drives also rely on the 12v rail, although they shouldn't draw more than a few amps (~5A at most).

Cheers, I'll probably buy the 1660ti then

[Otto_iii]

On 11/23/2019 at 9:38 AM, Man said:

So tell me everything about how awful Nvidia's x50 line-up is!

Its not that awful but as somebody who tries to push about 144hz at 1080p or ideally little to no dips in frame-rates i found a rx590 is just bearly not good enough and 1650 Supers in same performance tier here.  With Nvidea any of the 1660s or a used 1070 is there for you, i just find the 50s, even the 1650 Super right below exactly where one would want if trying to push those frames, even if you turn most settings down to low, as i do, with few exceptions like textures.   I'd admire the power usage and that for the money, unlike the RTX cards, its good value, but just feels like its just just bad enough to leave one wanting, as is the rx590 at this point. 

[Man]

7 hours ago, Otto_iii said:

Its not that awful but as somebody who tries to push about 144hz at 1080p or ideally little to no dips in frame-rates i found a rx590 is just bearly not good enough

Even the RTX 2060S isn't good enough to push that many frames in modern AAA titles at 1080p. 

 

Besides, frame rate is also prone to law of diminishing returns. There isn't THAT much difference between 60 and 144 FPS, but despite that you'll need over 2x stronger hardware to reach that point. 

 

60Hz is the sweetest spot for gaming, although I do prefer 75-85Hz for internet browsing.

[Otto_iii]

Okay yes, the 1650 Super is great if you are just playing 60-75hz, and 75hz i can respect in particular if not 60hz.  I've done all 3, 75hz is more noticable then you'd think and closer to being irrelevantly different from 144hz then 60hz is.  For that its great.

My point, and ill go back to this as much as need be, is i went from a 1050ti to a RX590 (same tier performance as 1650 Super, just less efficient power draw) and it was noticeable, but didn't feel worth it. 

9 hours ago, Man said:

Even the RTX 2060S isn't good enough to push that many frames in modern AAA titles at 1080p. 

Thats not true at all, i think you are forgetting how much a lot of settings tank frames and how most reviews just run ultra when any slightly more competitive person, even if not a great player, is going to turn things down just because the smoothness of more consistent frame times make the game 10x nicer to play. If its a FPS, rhythm game, more serious racing game or literally anything fast paced where timing matters this is how most people set things up, even if its just turning down shadow and lighting detail thats enough to bump frames dramatically. 

Likewise before i mention monitors, even in the most recent LTT review it was noted how actual FPS, even if it can't be displayed by say a 60hz monitor is a huge deal. 
 

9 hours ago, Man said:

There isn't THAT much difference between 60 and 144 FPS,

 

There is a huge difference, play at 60fps on a decent 144hz monitor and it looks like stuttering the entire time, hurts your eyes, this exact issue stopped me from playing Halo Forge. However the blurryness of certain 60hz monitors with lower response times you can't see it as a stutter, just blurry, so it atleast doesn't hurt ones eyes.   I can respect a argument for lower Hz monitors for value without losing much quality, Acer makes a great sub 100$ 1080p IPS 75hz monitors, in the 19" inch SB220Q and 23" inch SB230, and i'd happily recommend that to anybody working on a budget build, especially if color are important to them, but there is still a big difference if you are doing anything fast paced.  Likewise if we are going to argue diminishing returns 75hz to 144hz isn't a massive deal, but 60hz really is. 

To go back to my original point, which yes i made a bit too enthusiastically, but i went from a 1050ti to a RX590 and it was a improvement but still felt distinctly lacking, like why did i even bother, but again i own a 144hz TN panel, if OP doesn't, and doesn't plan to, then its not a big deal.  If he does though even the 1660, or a cheap 5700, maybe 2060 (throw used 1070s and Vega cards in there) is a way better option, its a distinct and obvious upgrade rather then "well this feels less worse"