GTX 1630 leaks

[williamcll]

Earlier it was suspected that nvidia will release the GTX 1630 in May, but it seems to have either been wrong or delayed as pictures of the actual card only just recently been discovered: Interestingly, colorful's take on this card is the same as the 1650.

 

Might update this article to include actual benchmarks once it comes out.

Quotes

Quote

Colorful has updated its website to list the upcoming GTX 1630 model. The section on the official website is not populated by any graphics card yet, but it clearly confirms the upcoming GTX graphics card. The GTX 1630 is an updated to NVIDIA GeForce 16-series “Turing” series. NVIDIA GTX 1630 is an entry-level GPU with 512 CUDA cores. It relies on TU117-150 GPU based on Turing architecture. Most GTX 1630 models should essentially look identical to GTX 1650 cards, although they will have increased clock speed from 1590 to 1785 MHz (not 1800 MHz as previously reported).

For GTX 1630, the biggest bottleneck is the memory bus of 64-bit. That’s even narrower than GTX 1050 Ti’s 128-bit bus and as a result, GTX 1630 will have even a lower bandwidth of 96 GB/s. Board partners confirmed that GTX 1630 is meant to replace this Pascal graphics card, which is no longer produced. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 launches tomorrow, and it will be available through multiple board partners.

 

My thoughts

Just as the A380 is launched, looks like both Nvidia and AMD are fighting hard against Intel. But colorful's take on this card is too much. I bet most other AIBs will make a Low profile version instead.

 

Sources

https://videocardz.com/newz/colorful-confirms-geforce-gtx-1630-is-coming

[Levent]

Might as well call it MSI Gaming X.

[PeachGr]

Gtx 730 replacement. It's probably for a home theater or other similar applications that needs some graphics compute and cannot rely on an igpu. Just take it for what it is, not everything is for running games

[Fasauceome]

43 minutes ago, williamcll said:

For GTX 1630, the biggest bottleneck is the memory bus of 64-bit. That’s even narrower than GTX 1050 Ti’s 128-bit bus and as a result, GTX 1630 will have even a lower bandwidth of 96 GB/s.

personally I think it's a blunder to label this as GTX instead of GT, but largely for the purposes of product segmentation to reduce consumer confusion (which nvidia clearly doesn't care about so I'm sure this doesn't matter to them)

[williamcll]

4 minutes ago, PeachGr said:

Gtx 730 replacement. It's probably for a home theater or other similar applications that needs some graphics compute and cannot rely on an igpu. Just take it for what it is, not everything is for running games

not the 1030?

[PeachGr]

Just now, williamcll said:

not the 1030?

I always forget that that was a thing probably that one, yeah. Point is that it will be a small form factor piece, with some newer standards that you throw on an old PC and gets some simple tasks done

[GoodBytes]

9 hours ago, PeachGr said:

Gtx 730 replacement. It's probably for a home theater or other similar applications that needs some graphics compute and cannot rely on an igpu. Just take it for what it is, not everything is for running games

Or you know just driving 2x or 3x displays smoothly, especially 4K monitors 60Hz smoothly.

The Intel Core 12th desktop iGPU can't handle a 4K 60Hz if you simply have a large window with acrylic/transparency effect... like Win10 settings app... or... Intel Graphics Command Center app... (Intel iGPU control panel) if transparency is enabled, resulting in the fps of when you scale or move such window drop to 20-30fps.  

 

[PeachGr]

26 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

Or you know just driving 2x or 3x displays smoothly, especially 4K monitors 60Hz smoothly.

The Intel Core 12th desktop iGPU can't handle a 4K 60Hz if you simply have a large window with acrylic/transparency effect... like Win10 settings app... or... Intel Graphics Command Center app... (Intel iGPU control panel) if transparency is enabled, resulting in the fps of when you scale or move such window drop to 20-30fps.  

 

I used to have igpu of i7 4790, and the colors were worst that on a GPU.

Also there is some upscaling and other features for witch Linus usually talks on his plex server mentions (if I remember well)

[Kisai]

3 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

Or you know just driving 2x or 3x displays smoothly, especially 4K monitors 60Hz smoothly.

The Intel Core 12th desktop iGPU can't handle a 4K 60Hz if you simply have a large window with acrylic/transparency effect... like Win10 settings app... or... Intel Graphics Command Center app... (Intel iGPU control panel) if transparency is enabled, resulting in the fps of when you scale or move such window drop to 20-30fps.  

 

I'm not so sure about that.

2 hours ago, PeachGr said:

I used to have igpu of i7 4790, and the colors were worst that on a GPU.

Also there is some upscaling and other features for witch Linus usually talks on his plex server mentions (if I remember well)

Likewise.

 

The main problem, and point of iGPU's is often missed. An iGPU on a desktop is completely useless except for two reasons:

1. 720p/768p gaming/boot iGPU. Don't expect 1080p60 performance on it in anything other than the media acceleration, and even then...

2. The Quicksync just BARELY is good enough to drive 1080p. Drive 4K, or try to encode 1080p60 video on it, and it will have a very very narrow spec it can follow, often just 4.1 (1080p60) main profile, even though it's advertised as supporting a maximum of 5.1 (4Kp60) profile for h.264 and h.265. It will suck back CPU time if you change any parameters.

 

Trust me, I've tried Quicksync on 3rd, 4th, 7th, 9th, and 11th gen Intel parts. It's always a disappointment, usually falling over as soon as soon as the scene gets too complicated. On the 3rd and 4th gen, the h.264 performance is terrible, only good for decoding, and only if it's the primary GPU. On the 7th-10th gen parts, the iGPU is usually passible as long as you stick to 1080p only. As soon as you try to play "UHD" content, or encode 4K content, it falls over. 

 

Basically it's baseline for playing video without a dGPU, everything else is just kind of a joke. So a "GTX 1630" is basically for one market, the one who doesn't use 4K monitors, doesn't need video encoding support, and can get away with only a 1080p performance.

 

Honestly the entire computer industry would suck less if companies wouldn't try to sell us all their broken crap as "below the minimum requirements of the OS", I get the sentiment about not wanting to waste broken dies, but at a certain point, cut your losses. The intel iGPU's basically exist for laptops. The desktop parts are not intended to be used for anything but media decoding when the CPU is used in devices without a dGPU. The laptop iGPU parts often exceed what the desktop iGPU is capable of.

 

At best, Quicksync has utility for video editing, when used on conjunction with a dGPU. At worst, you get a weak decoding engine intended for playback of a single video stream at 4K. Better hope you closed your web browsers, cause a video ad will eat that.

 

As I've mentioned before, Windows should bring back the Windows Experience rating in some form, stick it on the lock screen, so demos in the store show you what you're actually buying. The old Windows Experience is based on a 720p experience, unfortunately.

[ouroesa]

So this is really a GT2020?

[Quackers101]

this is sooo, 2014

oh nearly 10 years ago? daum

[Sauron]

On 6/27/2022 at 7:40 PM, PeachGr said:

It's probably for a home theater or other similar applications that needs some graphics compute and cannot rely on an igpu.

those barely even exist anymore (who buys a home theater machine without an iGPU?) and if you're repurposing an old machine you should look into a used quadro nvs 510, those go for about 20 bucks on ebay and they have 4 4k 60 dp outputs

[Ydfhlx]

On 6/28/2022 at 8:55 AM, Kisai said:

The main problem, and point of iGPU's is often missed. An iGPU on a desktop is completely useless except for two reasons:

1. 720p/768p gaming/boot iGPU. Don't expect 1080p60 performance on it in anything other than the media acceleration, and even then...

2. The Quicksync just BARELY is good enough to drive 1080p. Drive 4K, or try to encode 1080p60 video on it, and it will have a very very narrow spec it can follow, often just 4.1 (1080p60) main profile, even though it's advertised as supporting a maximum of 5.1 (4Kp60) profile for h.264 and h.265. It will suck back CPU time if you change any parameters.

The main point of iGPU is so people who don't game don't have to get a separate GPU. And that's quite a big market. It's perfectly fine for people who just want to check their emails or some web page. Or even do some work in word or excel.

[SimplyChunk]

What i still don't get though.  Why have they put a 6pin on a 75W card?  This little 1630 has been such a dissapointment for me.  I was expecting a LP 1030 DDR5 replacement (to replace my G210 in my iTX build) and it's nothing like i was hoping.  The 1030 when that came out. Even GN said it could 'game' in a sense and it could run lighter stuff like doom 2016 at 1080p60 no problem.  But this with a 6pin power just means it's dropped off the radar for me now.  and the price doesn't even bare thinking about

[GoodBytes]

58 minutes ago, SimplyChunk said:

What i still don't get though.  Why have they put a 6pin on a 75W card?  This little 1630 has been such a dissapointment for me.  I was expecting a LP 1030 DDR5 replacement (to replace my G210 in my iTX build) and it's nothing like i was hoping.  The 1030 when that came out. Even GN said it could 'game' in a sense and it could run lighter stuff like doom 2016 at 1080p60 no problem.  But this with a 6pin power just means it's dropped off the radar for me now.  and the price doesn't even bare thinking about

I won't be surprised if originally Nvidia made this GPU as a possible reply for AMD low end GPU and Intel entry GPU... But turned out that:

• They are too late, GPU market is recovering 
• Intel had delayed it's GPU released even further .
• Turned out to be slower then expected.
• Be full 16x and more feature complete than AMD low end GPU

What makes this GPU a failure, is that Nvidia has a problem of not being able to sale a graphics card for cheap. Their pricing is always too high.

[Kisai]

11 hours ago, Ydfhlx said:

The main point of iGPU is so people who don't game don't have to get a separate GPU. And that's quite a big market. It's perfectly fine for people who just want to check their emails or some web page. Or even do some work in word or excel.

Nope. You can not game on an iGPU unless you're playing 15 year old games. The DESKTOP iGPU is far weaker than the laptop versions. Please read what I actually said before saying misinformation.

 

Nobody uses the iGPU to game, because it has performance weaker than gaming on their smartphone. Or do you really think people buy i7's and i9's but then not buy a dGPU because they think the iGPU is good enough? Nobody in their right mind believes that.

[Ydfhlx]

14 hours ago, Kisai said:

Nope. You can not game on an iGPU unless you're playing 15 year old games. The DESKTOP iGPU is far weaker than the laptop versions. Please read what I actually said before saying misinformation.

 

Nobody uses the iGPU to game, because it has performance weaker than gaming on their smartphone. Or do you really think people buy i7's and i9's but then not buy a dGPU because they think the iGPU is good enough? Nobody in their right mind believes that.

Glad that we agree, because that's precisely what I said. It's for people who don't game.