Nvidia’s new GeForce GTX 1630 is a stripped-down version GTX 1650it’s the same GPU that was released back in April 2019. To put things into perspective, we’re talking about a 3-year-old silicon that, to put it mildly, was pretty pathetic back then, often losing to then-2-year-olds a year older. Radeon RH 570.
Codenamed TU117, this GeForce GTX 200mm2 die is back, but this time with 42% fewer cores (512 cores), 42% fewer texturing units, and half the ROP (16 total). Core clock speed increased by 7%. up to 1785 MHz, but we get an embarrassingly small 64-bit memory bus with 4 GB of GDDR6 memory with only 96 GB / s bandwidth, which is 25% less than the old one. GTX 1650.
Based on these numbers, the GTX 1630 will cost around… $50? We want to say that the original GTX 1650 was a bad $150 price tag when it launched three years ago, and the recently launched AMD Radeon RH 6400 $160 sucks, so for sure something as weak as the GTX 1630 will cost well under $100 in 2022.
Well, apparently not. Rumor has it that this model will cost at least $150, with many models priced between $170 and $200. In fact, EVGA is currently exhibiting its SC Gaming dual fan model for 200 dollarsthis is complete madness.
We kind of figured out the pointlessness of pricing bad products like Radeon RH 6500 HT in the midst of a mining boom, but now that the boom is over and video card sales have slowed to a crawl, we don’t understand what Nvidia is playing here.
In any case, we’ll talk about pricing soon, but for now, let’s go over the specs of the test system. we use our Ryzen 9 5950X GPU benchmarking system – and yes, we know no one is going to pair a budget graphics card with this processor – but the point is to test the performance of the GPU and therefore avoid bottlenecking the processor that could skew the data.
For our low to entry level testing, we typically use medium quality settings, or settings that make sense for a given title. We tested games at 1080p and 1440p, though in this case we’ll focus more on the more relevant 1080p results.
Starting with Assassin’s Creed Valhalla at the medium quality preset, we can see that the GTX 1630 only averaged 32 fps, which is a really pathetic result.
For comparison, the old GTX 1050 Ti was 22% faster, and AMD’s nearly useless RX 6400 was 53% faster when using PCIe 3.0, or about 70% faster on a PCIe 4.0 system, which really confuses Nvidia.
Shadow of the Tomb Raider was released back in 2018, so it’s older than even the TU117 silicon that the GTX 1630 is based on, so we’re testing this game using the highest quality preset. The old GTX 1650 hit 47fps, while the RX 6400 hit 53fps using PCIe 4.0, and the GTX 1630 hit just 30fps. A pitiful result for this new GPU.
Watch Dogs: Legion was downgraded to average, but even here the GTX 1630 was only good for 35fps on average, making the old GTX 1050 Ti almost 10% faster, while the RX 6400 using PCIe 3.0 was a whopping 51 % faster. and we can’t stress enough how boring AMD’s $160 offering is. So what does this say about 1630?
Rainbow Six Siege is the only game we’ve been able to play at over 60fps, and we’re doing it with the ultra quality preset. Performance was actually comparable to the RX 6400, although the GTX 1050 Ti was still 18% faster.
Fans of F1 2021 can expect sub-60fps performance using the “high” quality preset. Here, the GTX 1630 was almost 10% slower than the RX 6400 using PCIe 3.0, and over 30% slower than the budget Radeon GPU using PCIe 4.0. It’s also worth noting that the GTX 1050 Ti was once again much faster, this time delivering a 24% performance boost.
Horizon Zero Dawn is pretty memory intensive, and the result is that the GTX 1630 falls off a cliff, or rather an anthill, as it never had to fall far to begin with. Surprisingly, the GTX 1050 Ti was 31% faster, while the RX 6400 with PCIe 3.0 was 66% faster.
Far Cry 6 performance was poor as you’d expect, although it was at least on par with the GTX 1050 Ti, meaning the RX 6400 was at least 38% faster, or 81% faster when using PCIe 4.0.
Interestingly, the GTX 1630 actually performed “good” in Eternal doom, averaging around 57 frames per second. Overall, still a weak result, but decent compared to Radeon competitors, which are very weak. GTX 1630 fell short GTX 1050 Ti and was slower than the ancient technology that Radeon RH 570.
Moving on to Resident Evil Village, we tested using the “balanced” quality preset, which is a medium-type option. The GTX 1630 was only capable of 32fps on average, making the GTX 1050 Ti 22% faster, while the RX 6400 was an absurd 88% faster using PCIe 3.0.
Things didn’t improve in Death Stranding, where the GTX 1050 Ti was 20% faster than the GTX 1630 and the RX 6400 was 75%. Even more horrendous results for Nvidia’s new, but not entirely new, entry-level graphics card.
As we expected, the GTX 1630 performed horribly when testing Hitman 3, averaging just 27fps at medium quality settings, making the GTX 1050 Ti 52% faster and the GTX 1650 111% faster.
Finally we have Cyberpunk 2077 and this time the GTX 1630 can match the 1050 Ti, but with an average of just 22fps at 1080p at medium quality settings, it was completely unplayable.
GeForce GTX 1630, like 1650, is a 75W graphics card, which means it can forgo external power and just get what it needs from a PCIe x16 slot. However, for unknown reasons, Gainward has installed a 6-pin PCIe power connector on their “Ghost” model, which means external power is required for use with this model.
Essentially, the GTX 1630 shouldn’t have any external power, although like the GTX 1650, it’s possible the PCIe-only models will be even slower, though of course the 1630 is slow as hell. In any case, the GTX 1630 draws only slightly less power than the GTX 1630. GTX 1050 Tithat is, the performance per watt is somehow worse.
12 games on average
Moving on to the 12-game average, we can see how inadequate the GTX 1630 is for gaming, delivering an average of 37fps, which means GTX 1050 Ti typically 16% faster, and RX 6400 almost 40% faster with PCIe 3.0 or just over 60% faster with PCIe 4.0. GTX 1650 also typically 65% faster and the old RX 570 is almost 80% faster.
Given the data we’ve just seen, the cost per frame seems a little pointless as you clearly shouldn’t be buying a GeForce GTX 1630, but let’s take a look anyway and have a quick discussion. It’s rare for a new entry-level GPU to perform so poorly, but the 1630 is something very special – and clearly not in a good way.
If this new GPU becomes available for $150, it will be a disaster, representing the worst price we’ve seen in a long time. That price means it costs just over $4 a frame, which is 18% more than the already useless one. GTX 1650 and 22% compared to the RX 6400 using PCIe 3.0, or 43% more expensive than a PCIe 4.0 configuration.
Right now we recommend gamers spend at least $330 on Radeon RH 6600. Yes, it’s a little over double the price, but it’s actually a useful GPU that offers great gaming experience with almost 4x the performance of the GTX 1630. What’s scary is the fact that some GTX models The 1630 can sell for up to $200, resulting in a frame cost of $5.40, a 90+% increase over the RX 6400 using PCIe 4.0.
Calculating how much a GTX 1630 would have to cost to match the no longer impressive RX 6400 using PCIe 4.0, the answer to that question is $105. Then to match RX 6600 it can’t cost more than $87. But given that you’ll be playing most games at low quality settings, the GTX 1630 should be even cheaper, no more than $70 seems reasonable to us.
What have we learned
The GeForce GTX 1630 is a complete shame if sold as a gaming graphics card. We don’t see a single redeeming feature to speak of, and if it doesn’t go on sale for less than $100, it should be ignored or used creatively for some Nvidia memes.
If you’re after a sub-$200 graphics card, you’re better off turning to the aftermarket for now. Looking on eBay you will find GTX 1650 Super cards are regularly sold for around $150. It’s as cheap as we think the GTX 1630 will be available for and 1650 Super offers approximately 125% more performance.
For those who do not want to go to second-hand stores, it is better to dig deeper and cough up money for Radeon RH 6600which, as we have just shown, is significantly better, despite costing just over $300.
Finally, if you need to buy a brand new one and want to spend less than $200, get Radeon RH 6400. This is a significantly better product despite being crap itself. Nvidia has done the seemingly impossible with the GTX 1630 by making the terrible Radeon product look somewhat better by comparison.
We can’t wait for the DDR4 GTX 1630 version, which will no doubt be quietly phased out in a few months. Up until this time, it was the worst GPU we’ve seen in a while.
Credit: www.techspot.com /