Alongside today’s GeForce GTX 1660 Super launch, NVIDIA is also taking the wraps off of one more GeForce Super card. Having already given a Super mid-generation refresh to most of their lineup, they will be giving it to one of their last, untouched product lineups, the GTX 1650 series. The resulting product, the GeForce GTX 1650 Super, promises to be an interesting card when it actually launches next month on November 22nd, as NVIDIA will be aiming significantly higher than the original GTX 1650 that it supplants. And it will be just in time to do combat with AMD’s Radeon RX 5500 series.

NVIDIA GeForce Specification Comparison
  GTX 1660 GTX 1650 Super GTX 1650 GTX 1050 Ti
CUDA Cores 1408 1280 896 768
ROPs 48 32 32 32
Core Clock 1530MHz 1530MHz 1485MHz 1290MHz
Boost Clock 1785MHz 1725MHz 1665MHz 1392MHz
Memory Clock 8Gbps GDDR5 12Gbps GDDR6 8Gbps GDDR5 7Gbps GDDR5
Memory Bus Width 192-bit 128-bit 128-bit 128-bit
Single Precision Perf. 5 TFLOPS 4.4 TFLOPS 3 TFLOPS 2.1 TFLOPS
TGP 120W 100W 75W 75W
(284 mm2)
(284 mm2)
(200 mm2)
(132 mm2)
Transistor Count 6.6B 6.6B 4.7B 3.3B
Architecture Turing Turing Turing Pascal
Manufacturing Process TSMC 12nm "FFN" TSMC 12nm "FFN" TSMC 12nm "FFN" Samsung 14nm
Launch Date 03/14/2019 11/22/2019 04/23/2019 10/25/2016
Launch Price $219 $159 $149 $139

Like the other Super cards this year, the GTX 1650 Super is intended to be a mid-generation kicker for the GeForce family. However unlike the other Super cards, NVIDIA is giving the GTX 1650 Super a much bigger jump in performance. With a planned increase in GPU throughput of 46%, and paired with faster  12Gbps GDDR6 memory, the new card should be much farther ahead of the GTX 1650 than what we saw with today’s GTX 1660 Super launch, relatively speaking.

The single biggest change here is the GPU. While NVIDIA is calling the card a GTX 1650, in practice it’s more like a GTX 1660 LE; NVIDIA has brought in the larger, more powerful TU116 GPU from the GTX 1660 series to fill out this card. There are cost and power consequences to this, but the payoff is that it gives NVIDIA a lot more SMs and CUDA Cores to work with. Coupled with that is a small bump in clockspeeds, which pushes the on-paper shader/compute throughput numbers up by just over 46%.

Such a large jump in GPU throughput also requires a lot more memory bandwidth to feed the beast. As a result, just like the GTX 1660 Super, the GTX 1650 Super is getting the GDDR6 treatment as well. Here NVIDIA is using slightly lower (and lower power) 12Gbps GDDR6, which will be attached to the GPU via a neutered 128-bit memory bus. Still, this one change will give the GTX 1650 Super 50% more memory bandwidth than the vanilla GTX 1650, very close to its increase in shader throughput.

Do note, however, that not all aspects of the GPU are being scaled out to the same degree. In particular, the GTX 1650 Super will still only have 32 ROPs, with the rest of TU116’s ROPs getting cut off along with its spare memory channels. This means that while the GTX 1650 Super will have 46% more shader performance, it will only have 4% more ROP throughput for pushing pixels. Counterbalancing this to a degree will be the big jump in memory bandwidth, which will keep those 32 ROPs well-fed, but at the end of the day the GPU is getting an uneven increase in resources, and gaming performance gains are likely to reflect this.

The drawback to all of this, then, is power consumption. While the original GTX 1650 is a 75 Watt card – making it the fastest thing that can be powered solely by a PCIe slot – the Super-sized card will be a 100 Watt card. This gives up the original GTX 1650’s unique advantage, and it means builders looking for even faster 75W cards won’t get their wish, but it’s the power that pays the cost of the GTX 1650 Super’s higher performance. Traditionally, NVIDIA has held pretty steadfast at 75W for their xx50 cards, so I’ll be curious to see what this means for consumer interest and sales; but then again at the end of the day, despite the name, this is closer to a lightweight GTX 1660 than it is a GTX 1650.

Speaking of hardware features, besides giving NVIDIA a good deal more in the way of GPU resources to play with, the switch from the TU117 GPU to the TU116 GPU will also have one other major ramification that some users will want to pay attention to: video encoding. Unlike TU117, which got the last-generation NVENC Volta video encoder block for die space reasons, TU116 gets the full-fat Turing NVENC video encoder block. Turing’s video encode block has been turning a lot of heads for its level of quality – while not archival grade, it’s competitive with x264 medium – which is important for streamers. This also led to TU117 and the GTX 1650 being a disappointment in some circles, as an otherwise solid video card was made far less useful for video encoding. So with the GTX 1650 Super, NVIDIA is resolving this in a roundabout way, thanks to the use of the more powerful TU116 GPU.

Moving on, the GTX 1650 Super is set to launch on November 22nd. And, while NVIDIA does not directly call out AMD in its production descriptions, the card’s configuration and timing makes a very compelling case that this is meant to be NVIDIA’s answer to AMD’s impending Radeon RX 5500. The first Navi 14-based video card is set to launch to retail sometime this quarter, and in their promotional material, AMD has been comparing it to the vanilla GTX 1650. So adding a GTX 1650 Super card allows NVIDIA to get ahead, in a fashion, by making available another (relatively) cheap card that, knowing NVIDIA, they expect to outperform what AMD has in the works. Of course the proof is in the pudding, so to speak, and at this point we’re waiting on both AMD and NVIDIA to actually launch their respective products before we can see how the competing cards actually stack up.

The other major wildcard here will be pricing. While NVIDIA is announcing the full specifications of the GTX 1650 Super today, they are withholding pricing information. This admittedly isn’t unusual for NVIDIA (they rarely release it more than a few days in advance), but in this case in particular, both NVIDIA and AMD seem to be playing a bit of a game of chicken. Neither side has announced where their card will be priced at, and it would seem that each is waiting on the other to go first so that they can counter with the best possible position for their respective card. Though with NVIDIA’s card not set to launch for another month, and AMD’s card more indeterminate still, we’re all going to be waiting for a while regardless.

At any rate, we’ll have more to talk about over the next month or so as the GTX 1650 Super and the rest of this holiday season’s video cards start hitting store shelves. So stay tuned.

Q4 2019 GPU Pricing Comparison
Radeon RX 5700 XT $399 GeForce RTX 2060 Super
Radeon RX 5700 $329 GeForce RTX 2060
  $279 GeForce GTX 1660 Ti
  $229 GeForce GTX 1660 Super
  $219 GeForce GTX 1660
Radeon RX 590 $199  
Radeon RX 580 $179  
Radeon RX 5500 ? GeForce GTX 1650 Super
  $149 GeForce GTX 1650
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • PeachNCream - Tuesday, October 29, 2019 - link

    Not bad, but its a pity about the 100W TDP.
  • hojnikb - Tuesday, October 29, 2019 - link

    Yeah, if this was a 75W card, it would be awesome :)
  • peevee - Tuesday, October 29, 2019 - link

    Don't you need 6-pin connector on 1650 anyway? 75W is theoretically provided by the slot, but it is combined on all PCIe voltages, and if the card wants almost all of it on 12V to convert to whatever CPU and memory need, the slot is not going to be enough.
  • mirei - Tuesday, October 29, 2019 - link

    The fact is half of the 1650 cards on the market don't have 6-pin connector slot.
    You can just browse Newegg or Amazon to verify if you don't believe.
  • AshlayW - Tuesday, October 29, 2019 - link

    No. Many GTX 1650 models are available with no extermal power connectors.
  • Samus - Wednesday, October 30, 2019 - link

    You don't want to get into the situation AMD got into awhile back with "75W" cards blowing out PCIe slots.

    I think this 100W rating and the associated 12v connector is wisely erring on the side of caution. It sucks for business PC's where the PCIe aux connector is often missing, but that isn't the target market for this card. Besides, you can always convert a Molex if need be.
  • Dragonstongue - Wednesday, October 30, 2019 - link

    my how folks forget...Nvidia was many many many times in the past well beyond pci-sig limits..NOT JUST AMD

    for fudge sakes.

    Nvidia wants to throw stones and enforce consumers to do the same...

    @$#@#$@ the only real ones "as of late" that have stayed within or close to limits Nv wise was SOME not ALL from 750 to last 2 gens...main reason why IMHO is because they decide that instead of putting better capacitors and such (as they should, seeing the price they pretty much will ask for..heavy handed to their AIB as well) is due to fancy extra chips, software etc...not directly because of "superior design methodology"

    yes was "bad" on AMD as they did it, no excuses for that....however...again not all that long ago, direct from Nvidia "mouth" here use these often times very very flaky dual molex to pci-e some research Nvidia is NOT as "saint" as they want everyone to believe...


    x1000 generation they did VERY good at keeping power in check (@#$ with design to make sure of it, not the full truth, with them never is, likely never will be)
    x2000 .... nuff said, have performance to back it up, sure, but power went up quite a bit especially on the RTX based ones.

    I digress.

    just cause it is written on the box "TDP 75w" or whatever, does NOT always mean it will not or cannot go well past it (in some cases) ... x1000 x2000 are among their "best" in decades, if not ever to not blow past their own ratings.......

    AMD needs to do more to ensure same thing, absolutely, careful whom you "thrown stones at" or likely your wasting stones on those whom they should have been thrown at (and hard) instead of a "rare" problem.....
  • xrror - Tuesday, October 29, 2019 - link

    I mean, I think I'd trust even the smallest Dell SFF PSU to be able to handle the extra 25W coursing through that SATA power to 6-pin adapter you'd need in there.

    If an extra 25W is what fries your machine, you were probably SOL before you should have ever considered performance.

    If not for games, then they still have the old 1650 for the spreadsheet warriors?
  • AshlayW - Tuesday, October 29, 2019 - link

    True: a SATA connection can happily give more than 25W on 12V, I think it's more like 60W. If you didn't overclock it (not sure it would be even allowed to OC that fair with how the power limits are these days) it'd be fine. I just hope, that we can get Half-height (LP) versions of the card. You can quite easily put the 6-pin on the back of teh card and it'd fit nicely in some slim m-ATX cases that a lot of Dell desktops come in. With 128-bit memory, you only need 4 chips, so that can allow smaller PCBs, but the TU116 silicon is a fair bit larger than the TU117, so IDK.

    Make it happen Nvidia (board partners)!
  • Samus - Wednesday, October 30, 2019 - link

    I agree. Most PC's with 300-watt PSU's will run this card fine. Probably even 250-watt PSU's.

    The platform power of most iGPU business PC's is around 100W under FULL load, which is why I find it amazing they often still have 220-watt and 250-watt PSU's. Business PC's used to have PSU's as low as 120-watts but more typically 150-watt and 180-watt. Since those power output ratings are increasingly hard to come by in the OEM channel, I think most systems have 250-watt PSU's because they are the most economical to purchase at scale as nobody is making anything less than that.

    ~65-watt TDP (around 80-watt TDP-up) for an i5-9400
    ~20-watt for motherboard, RAM and components (minus USB accessories)
    ~5-watt for SSD
    ~10-watt for power conversion loses running a >200-watt PSU under 50% load.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now