Nvidia geforce gtx 1650 1080p#
Nvidia geforce gtx 1650 manual#

While the GTX 1650 still isn't hitting a consistent average of 60fps here, it's jolly well doing a much better job of it here than it was on Ultra. Otherwise, it's getting dangerously close to the wrong side of 30fps here, with the biggest casualty being Assassin's Creed Odyssey, which averaged just 29fps overall in its internal benchmarking tool.įortunately, both cards are much more comfortable on High quality settings, which are outlined below.

Indeed, the only games the GTX 1650 can really handle with any degree of competence on Ultra quality settings is Forza Horizon 4 and, to a lesser extent, Shadow of the Tomb Raider (albeit only with its basic SMAA anti-aliasing option enabled).

While the GTX 1650 is stumbling around the low 30s in a lot of games, the GTX 1060's general stomping ground is much higher up in the region of 50fps, often see-sawing either side of it depending on the game in question. Admittedly, the GTX 1650 was never intended to be an Ultra quality card at this resolution, but the difference is pretty stark. Starting with each card's Ultra performance, you can see below that in most cases there's a clear 10-15fps gap between the two cards at 1920x1080, giving the GTX 1060 a significant lead over its 16-series cousin.

Nvidia geforce gtx 1650 1080p#

Nvidia GTX 1650 vs 1060: 1080p performance The Zotac, on the other hand, is at the lower end of the GTX 1650 price spectrum, making it more of a baseline experience than anything else. As a result, these GTX 1060 speeds are probably among the best you can expect to see from this particular type of card. The latter, I should note, isn't actually available to buy any more, but when it was available, it was one of the fastest GTX 1060 cards you could buy. Today, I’ve got the Zotac GeForce GTX 1650 OC and Asus' GeForce GTX 1060 6GB 9Gbps Edition.

Nvidia geforce gtx 1650 manual#

Paired with my Intel Core i5-8600K CPU and 16GB of Corsair Vengeance 2133MHz RAM, I’ve seen what each card can do on Ultra, High and Medium settings at 1080p, and Medium at 1440p (because realistically you’re not going to be pushing either card any higher than that), and taken an average frame rate either from their own built-in benchmarks or from my own repeated manual gameplay tests to see how they stack up against each other. The games in question are Assassin’s Creed Odyssey, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, Total War: Warhammer II, Monster Hunter: World, Final Fantasy XV (with Nvidia’s fancy HairWorks, TurfEffects, VXAO and ShadowLibs effects turned off), Forza Horizon 4, The Witcher III and Metro Exodus (albeit only on Medium settings because neither card can handle its benchmarking tool on anything more strenuous). The idea is to see what it takes to get a decent 60fps in each game, and how far each card is able to stretch itself before things get too choppy for comfort. Just like before, I’ve run each card through my general games benchmarking suite at 1920×10×1440 resolutions to see how they perform across different graphics quality settings.

How much difference does that extra 2GB of memory add to the equation? Let's find out. Well, wonder no more, as I've put both cards head to head to find out which one can lay claim to the pointiest average frame rate graphs. We've already seen how the new Nvidia GeForce GTX 1650 compares to its most immediate predecessor, the GTX 1050 Ti (have a read of our GTX 1650 vs 1050 Ti article for the complete skinny), but have you ever wondered how it stacks up to today's most popular graphics card, Nvidia's 6GB GTX 1060?