# MSI GeForce GTX 1650 Super Gaming X



## W1zzard (Nov 22, 2019)

NVIDIA's new GTX 1650 Super is 40% faster than the GTX 1650, which is a huge improvement. The card is priced competitively, too, obsoleting AMD's Radeon RX 580/590 offerings. MSI's Gaming X variant comes with a large cooler that offers great temperatures, extremely low gaming noise, and idle-fan-stop.

*Show full review*


----------



## cellar door (Nov 22, 2019)

So RX 5500 will be $140 - thanks W1zzard! Solid review as always.


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 22, 2019)

cellar door said:


> So RX 5500 will be $140


I have no idea, I guessed on the price points, can't be much lower or higher.


----------



## btarunr (Nov 22, 2019)

Many reviews coming out today, stay tuned


----------



## cellar door (Nov 22, 2019)

btarunr said:


> Many reviews coming out today, stay tuned


Holy moly!


----------



## renz496 (Nov 22, 2019)

personally i think AMD is hoping for nvidia to price their GTX1650S a bit higher. if not they might just as well release the card last month with the price tag of $150 and be done with it.


----------



## Rahmat Sofyan (Nov 22, 2019)

nice performance..

even in 4K, much better from 8GB cards ..

so the conclusion this is the best card for buck rightnow ?


----------



## IceShroom (Nov 22, 2019)

Pitty for those 1660 user. Outdated so soon by a $60 cheaper GPU.


----------



## Turmania (Nov 22, 2019)

Curious to see how AMD will respond to this with RX 5500, cheaper? lower power draw? lets see they so much hyped 7nm, can they deliver? they have not far...


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 22, 2019)

Turmania said:


> Curious to see how AMD will respond to this with RX 5500, cheaper? lower power draw? lets see they so much hyped 7nm, can they deliver? they have not far...


If you read this review, the 5500 is already in there.... power use on the AMD card is a bit more while performance is a bit lower.


----------



## Turmania (Nov 22, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> If you read this review, the 5500 is already in there.... power use on the AMD card is a bit more while performance is a bit lower.


WoW! thanks, didnt know it was out yet! I would not say around 30% more power consumption and 20% less performance  a bit lower though.


----------



## dj-electric (Nov 22, 2019)

Its definitely concerning, from a technology point of view. The RX 5500 displays performance per watt of some "old" Pascal cards.


----------



## JalleR (Nov 22, 2019)

mmmmm I like That Average page  Thx


----------



## gridracedriver (Nov 22, 2019)

where was the performance of the 5500 taken from?


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 22, 2019)

gridracedriver said:


> da dove è stata presa la prestazione del 5500?


English speaking forum... 

He bought an OEM card and tested it.


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 22, 2019)

gridracedriver said:


> where was the performance of the 5500 taken from?


my own card, review will be up later today


----------



## gridracedriver (Nov 22, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> English speaking forum...
> 
> He bought an OEM card and tested it.


Sorry   

So the review comes out also for the 5500?
it would be better to wait for the AIB card, I think the OEM card loses at least 10% of performance compared to custom cards based on downclocking or even more.



W1zzard said:


> my own card, review will be up later today


thank you


----------



## unclesharkey (Nov 22, 2019)

So can we assume that all new cards even in the budget range will have GDDR6 memory?


----------



## Dante Uchiha (Nov 22, 2019)

Turmania said:


> WoW! thanks, didnt know it was out yet! I would not say around 30% more power consumption and 20% less performance  a bit lower though.



What review did you read? I saw 13% more consumption and almost the same performance (a bit worse in some games).










It seems that the RX 5500 is an crap OEM model with reduced clocks. @W1zzard  How can you come to a conclusion in the review without testing all games of the benchmark routine ?


----------



## Turmania (Nov 22, 2019)

I always check Furmark for Power Consumption it might not hold true for most of the games, but it shows what to expect, 103W for this vs 134 for rx 5500. that is almost 30% power consumption. 
Not saying this is bad or good, in fact I really like the rx 5700, non xt versions. but it shows AMD is  couple generations behind even with the new 7nm process at least on the GPU side.


----------



## John Naylor (Nov 22, 2019)

My take aways .... 

1.  Since the 2xx series, AMD has very aggressively overclocked their cards "in the box".  With the Super, it seems, nVidia is echoing this tactic.

2.  I wouldn't expect RTX and DLSS to be available at this price point:

3.  *Thank You* for this !



> _Video memory size of 4 GB might sound low at first, but you have to consider that pricing matters a lot in this segment. Adding more memory would make the card more expensive, with little or no performance difference at 1080p Full HD. Looking at our performance numbers, we can definitely see reduced FPS at 4K resolution compared to cards with more memory, but I'm not seeing anything in our data that would suggest these cards are memory-bound at 1080p._



It seems low only if one doesn't read TPU and other sitest test results.   TPU testing for the 3GB and 6GB 1060s showed no discernable difference in performance between the 3GB and 6 GB models at 1080p / 1440p ... same for the 680, 770 and 960 2GB and 4 GB models ..... test results show that again her for the 1  650S.

At this point in time, I am getting concerned about nVidia's dominance across too many price niche's ... OK, nVidia grabbed ownership of the  top tier when both the 780 and 780 Ti outperformed AMDs offerings ... but the, with 9xx,  the 970 was a market monster, alone selling more than twice all AMD cards combined.  The with 10xx , the 1060 dominated giving them sole ownership of the top 4 tiers.  The 1060 has the largest market share of any card with 14.95% (580 has 1.6%).   It's also the fastest growing in market share up 0.46% this month.   However never did I think I'd see the day that nVidia would own the sub $200 market segment.  Here's a comparison between the MSI1650 Super against what we can expect from asn MSI 5500 based u rations between MSI 5700

*Performance ... *

MSI 1650 Super = 100% from Performance Summary x (71.1 / 63.6) OC .. = 111.44
Tested 5500 = 94% x (119.6 / 115.1)*  =97.68

MSI 1650 Super has estimated 14% performance advantage overclocked.

* OC results taken from TPUs MSI 5700 test (3.9% is typical of AMD cards.  5700xXT was 3.3%

AIB 5550 is expected to use 31.5% more power than MSI 1650 Super.

*Power ...*

MSI 1650 Super Peak Gaming is 105 watts
Reference 550 is 121 watts x (259 / 227)* = 138 watts

* Power increase for AIB card taken from comparison on reference 5700 and MSI 5700

*Temperature ...*

MSI 1650 Super hits 63C @ Full Load w/ OC
5500 Temps are unknown

*Noise ...*

The MSI 1650 Super hist 0 dbA at idle and 27C under full load
The 5500 hits 27 dbA  at idle and 32C under full load

That makes the 5500 reference 41% louder

The MSI 5700 had the same sound level as the reference 5700 card

Obviously, the projected results above can not be confirmed until specific model testing is performed.   But projections by W1zzard and the above are by no means "a guess" when substantial data sets are available.  This is how science and technical evaluations work.  You base your projections and similar models and when said models perform consistently across various data sets, you can be reasonably confident in your results.


----------



## ShurikN (Nov 22, 2019)

dj-electric said:


> Its definitely concerning, from a technology point of view. The RX 5500 displays performance per watt of some "old" Pascal cards.


The easiest explanation is that AMD sent the shittiest possible silicon to OEMs. I'm guessing the best parts went to Apple, and possibly into other laptops.


----------



## FeelinFroggy (Nov 22, 2019)

IceShroom said:


> Pitty for those 1660 user. Outdated so soon by a $60 cheaper GPU.



The 1660 is not outdated.  The 1660 gets the same FPS today that it did yesterday.  

The difference is performance has gotten cheaper.  And there is nothing wrong with performance getting cheaper.


----------



## John Naylor (Nov 22, 2019)

Turmania said:


> I always check Furmark for Power Consumption it might not hold true for most of the games, but it shows what to expect, 103W for this vs 134 for rx 5500. that is almost 30% power consumption.
> Not saying this is bad or good, in fact I really like the rx 5700, non xt versions. but it shows AMD is  couple generations behind even with the new 7nm process at least on the GPU side.



I do the same ... Furmark is a useful tool but the correct tool should be used for each job.  Furmark is a great tool cooling system evaluation because it provides a consistent loading.  You can evaluate various data points f the load is changing.   ...  setting up fan curves and tweaking you water pump speeds.  But like Prime 95 and other synthetics .... it's a poor tool for testong OC stability or anything relative to actual usage.  If you are trying to evaluate whether spending an extra $15 buying a Platinum model PSU over a Gold ... shouldm you base that decision on ....

a)  A representative load which the PC will actually see pretty much every day for the next 4 years .... it
b)  A synthetic load which the PC will never see after the 1st day or 2.

Yes, Furmark is a valuable tool ... but not for comparing real life power usage.


----------



## Kissamies (Nov 22, 2019)

This is something GTX 1650 should've been already. Anyway, good review like always


----------



## notb (Nov 22, 2019)

IceShroom said:


> Pitty for those 1660 user. Outdated so soon by a $60 cheaper GPU.


Well, it's called progress. 

Anyway, half a year after launch 1660 remains ~15-20% faster than this for around 35% more.
It's not that different from how Nvidia cards "lose value" normally.
New generation comes out every ~1.5 year and it usually shifts the lineup by a step.

In 2H 2020 we should see a $250 card with performance beyond 1660Ti (maybe halfway to 2060). That's life.
On the other hand, most people game for maybe 5-10 years, so half a year is relatively quite a long time.


----------



## ShurikN (Nov 22, 2019)

Chloe Price said:


> This is something GTX 1650 should've been already.


I have the exact same feeling about every Super card (in relations to their non-super counterpart)


----------



## notb (Nov 22, 2019)

Chloe Price said:


> This is something GTX 1650 should've been already. Anyway, good review like always


1650 is designed to fit 75W of PCIe power budget.


----------



## John Naylor (Nov 22, 2019)

This is life in the PC world ...everything loses value over time ... as does most anything else.  Try trading in your smart phone.  This is a simple fact of life.   if peps could rsist the urge to have the 1st new shiny thing, they would have less buyer's remorse.

productions lines are tweaked as they mature .... bugs found are correted, speed improvements are made.  This is essentially what TI cards have always been.  Changing Ti to Super is nothing more than a word change.  The fat is the 1650 was the best that production line could do at that point in time ... after it matures, they can produce a better product, better products have more value, more vaue warrants higher prices.  But you can't seel a better product with the same name.   A new name makes people feel better about things ... in some instances, it's only in the marketing department's head ... like a pre-owned vehicle, it's still a used car.


----------



## Kissamies (Nov 22, 2019)

notb said:


> 1650 is designed to fit 75W of PCIe power budget.


What I mean that 1650 was just awful in terms of price and performance.


----------



## notb (Nov 22, 2019)

Chloe Price said:


> What I mean that 1650 was just awful in terms of price and performance.


And with each PCIe-powered GPU launch some people criticize the bad price/performance ratio.
And each time other people try to explain that not needing a power connector provides the missing value. Plus, there's always some price flattening in the lower end.

Because "value" has more variables than just price and number of fps.

I used to be the "other people" but repeating this all the time with no effect is really demeaning.


----------



## Kissamies (Nov 22, 2019)

notb said:


> And with each PCIe-powered GPU launch some people criticize the bad price/performance ratio.
> And each time other people try to explain that non needing a power connector provides the missing value. Plus, there's always some price flattening in the lower end.
> 
> Because "value" has more variables than just price and number of fps.
> ...


Not always, 750 Ti had awesome price/performance ratio few years ago


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 22, 2019)

ShurikN said:


> I have the exact same feeling about every Super card (in relations to their non-super counterpart)


Curious if this feeling was the same through GCN and rebranding of the RX 5 series? Do people with this mindset (inc. @Chloe Price) feel the same way about the RX 590?


----------



## Kissamies (Nov 22, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Curious if this feeling was the same through GCN and rebranding of the RX 5 series? Do people with this mindset (inc. @Chloe Price) feel the same way about the RX 590?


That rebranding was ridiculous, RX 480 v3 in its purest form. Rebranding sucks, I don't care the company who does it, it still sucks.


----------



## ShurikN (Nov 22, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Curious if this feeling was the same through GCN and rebranding of the RX 5 series? Do people with this mindset (inc. @Chloe Price) feel the same way about the RX 590?


RX 590 was a rebranded 580, which was rebranded 480. Everyone more or less knew what to expect. Turing was not a rebrand. 2080 matched 1080Ti for the same amount of money, and then it all goes the same down the stack. Only by introducing the Super cards at original non-Super pricing has made the generational leap make sense. Which should have been done from the start.
Don't know how you made the connection... two completely different scenarios.


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 22, 2019)

ShurikN said:


> RX 590 was a rebranded 580, which was rebranded 480. Everyone more or less knew what to expect. Turing was not a rebrand. 2080 matched 1080Ti for the same amount of money, and then it all goes the same down the stack. Only by introducing the Super cards at original non-Super pricing has made the generational leap make sense. Which should have been done from the start.
> Don't know how you made the connection... two completely different scenarios.


These are not directly rebrands, correct. However, the concept of the same arch tweaked for higher performance is what I was going for.

These came out at these speeds for a reason... likely having to do with yields and such. Here they just cut out lesser parts from higher parts filling the gaps and bumping up the relative performance of the line. I guess what I am saying overall is I don't have an issue with what they did, nor do I buy the 'what it should have been' (though with price...lol) concept is all. The generational leap makes complete sense to me... wasn't it pretty similar from the 10 series over 9? There will always be overlap...


----------



## ShurikN (Nov 22, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> The generational leap makes complete sense to me... wasn't it pretty similar from the 10 series over 9? There will always be overlap...


In terms of price/performance, absolutely not.
980Ti launched at 650USD, 1080Ti @700USD. And the performance difference was huge.
2080 launched at around the same price, yet was 5% faster at best. The entire price/perf for Turing was abysmal at launch. Only with the Super cards has it become acceptable.  This can mostly be attributed to the move from 28 to 16nm, but the process that NV used for Turing is not new, and yields must have been good.
And all of it happened because of the addition of RT cores, but that's a discussion for another time and another topic...


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 22, 2019)

ShurikN said:


> In terms of price/performance, absolutely not.


I was only talking performance. We all know the pricing is off my man. 

EDIT: Forget it.. Chloe mentioned $ but just now saw it... I moved the goalposts in my head to only performance. My fault!

EDIT2: The performance difference between flagships was also less, yes. Yields may have been good, but regardless its a game that is always played... more so when yields are lower, of course.


----------



## _Flare (Nov 23, 2019)

I switched to a RX570 8GB (155 Euros incl Shipping) from a GTX 980 a while ago, because 4GB just didn´t allow me to set the highest texturedetails, wich make a big difference in the look, but not primary in needed performance.
This card being faster but not having 6GB or more, just disqualifies it in my opinion.
A 8GB RX570 can be had for 139 Euros incl. shipping and totally eliminates the need for more VRAM in the performance-segment of the market.
GTX 1650 non-super and 1050Ti and RX570 4GB are more expensive than same RX 570 8GB, wich makes even those obsolete in my opinion.

If AMD wants to release a new consumer card here in germany with less than 8GB it needs to beat their own actual offerings.


----------



## Darksword (Nov 23, 2019)

If you're willing to spend $180.00 on a GPU a used GTX 1070 would be the way to go over this.


----------



## Thuban (Nov 23, 2019)

4 gigs of ram? Meh...

FAIL.

With Windows 10 constantly evolving its display graphics model, there is so much more you can do with the extra vram... 4 gigs is perfect for streaming ultra hd content from Netflix but that’s about it. Should of come at least with 6, given its increased horse power over the 1650.


----------



## Dirtdog (Nov 23, 2019)

IceShroom said:


> Pitty for those 1660 user. Outdated so soon by a $60 cheaper GPU.


I got a 1660 near launch.  How is it outdated by this new card?  It is still quicker and still has 50% more memory.  You can still buy the same card new today for 25% more than what a 1650 Super costs, which arguably is still better value than buying a 4GB card in 2019, nearly 2020.

Also in at least one game, for whatever reason, the 'outdated' 1660 destroys the 1650 Super: 71% faster at 1080p in Wolfenstein II.









						MSI GeForce GTX 1650 Super Gaming X Review
					

NVIDIA's new GTX 1650 Super is 40% faster than the GTX 1650, which is a huge improvement. The card is priced competitively, too, obsoleting AMD's Radeon RX 580/590 offerings. MSI's Gaming X variant comes with a large cooler that offers great temperatures, extremely low gaming noise, and...




					www.techpowerup.com
				




The headline figure that the 1660 is only 11% faster than a 1650 Super is misleading because in some individual games the lead is significant (like 30%) and that's now, this will only increase in future as more games demand more video memory than the 4GB the 1650 Super is hobbled with.


----------



## rippie (Nov 23, 2019)

"..obsoleting AMD's Radeon RX 580/590 offerings.."
uh wait what? @ 4k gaming the 1650 super duper aint so super, and on 1080p gaming they are not too far off each other, and i can buy them both for same price.
so how obsoletering is this? did i miss something? confused

btw am i the only one flabbergasted on the price?
the 480 (3.5 years ago)/580(2years ago) were all introduced for a $200 pricepoint, now we get same price performance cards. any reason to upgrade?


----------



## notb (Nov 24, 2019)

rippie said:


> "..obsoleting AMD's Radeon RX 580/590 offerings.."
> uh wait what? @ 4k gaming the 1650 super duper aint so super, and on 1080p gaming they are not too far off each other, and i can buy them both for same price.
> so how obsoletering is this? did i miss something? confused


You're getting the same performance for the same price, but with half of RX580's power consumption.

In fact AMD has their own replacement for the aging Polaris: the RX5500.
But since that one uses the 7nm supply, they're keeping RX580 in the lineup for a little longer.

There's a more general observation as well. This really ends the fairly long period of AMD being seen as the "value choice" in general. Reusing Polaris meant good performance for little money.
But Navi and Turing are very close in this regard - there's no clear "value" winner. And now they've covered the last stand of Polaris.


> the 480 (3.5 years ago)/580(2years ago) were all introduced for a $200 pricepoint, now we get same price performance cards. any reason to upgrade?


Why would there be any reason to upgrade? It's a very similar card (sans power consumption).
But people with a 1050Ti or 1060 3GB could be interested.



ShurikN said:


> And all of it happened because of the addition of RT cores, but that's a discussion for another time and another topic...


If you have some interesting thoughts about RT cores being useless, you have roughly a year (likely less) to share them, so I wouldn't delay it too much.


----------



## rippie (Nov 24, 2019)

point being that in the past you did get performance increase _and_ the power draw reduction. and now similar performance/dollar on 1080p , worse performance/doller 4k (up to -50% is totally beyond me), just better powerdraw/dollar.

so worse performance @ 4k is just uber meeeeh, 1080p so yesterday.
for 4k gaming, you must be into something other than this generations low-end, but the previous gen low-end.
feels like tech regression to me.


----------



## webdigo (Nov 25, 2019)

Asus gtx 1650 super, has a software called Asus gpu tweak. In that software, you can control fan rpm too.
Does this msi card offer something similar?


----------



## jabbadap (Nov 25, 2019)

webdigo said:


> Asus gtx 1650 super, has a software called Asus gpu tweak. In that software, you can control fan rpm too.
> Does this msi card offer something similar?



MSI Afterburner. All of those third party programs uses nvapi, but none of them can override vbios minimum fan speed.


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 25, 2019)

rippie said:


> point being that in the past you did get performance increase _and_ the power draw reduction. and now similar performance/dollar on 1080p , worse performance/doller 4k (up to -50% is totally beyond me), just better powerdraw/dollar.
> 
> so worse performance @ 4k is just uber meeeeh, 1080p so yesterday.
> for 4k gaming, you must be into something other than this generations low-end, but the previous gen low-end.
> feels like tech regression to me.


Or, you know... come with realistic expectations that a $160 budget GPU from either camp isn't going to push 4x the pixels regardless... you're comparing apples to oranges.


----------



## webdigo (Nov 25, 2019)

jabbadap said:


> MSI Afterburner. All of those third party programs uses nvapi, but none of them can override vbios minimum fan speed.


So its better to just use msi afterburner, as it can override minimum fanspeed?


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 25, 2019)

webdigo said:


> So its better to just use msi afterburner, as it can override minimum fanspeed?


Use what you prefer that gets the job done. Most applications like this work on any card.


----------



## jabbadap (Nov 25, 2019)

webdigo said:


> So its better to just use msi afterburner, as it can override minimum fanspeed?



No it can't, all of them are third party apps including Afterburner. Nvidia does not have OC capabilities on control panel anymore and even if it has even that could not go under bios limits.  Nvidia has API called nvapi to third party developers to do OC applications like MSI Afterburner, Asus GPU Tweak or Evga's Precision X.


----------



## webdigo (Nov 25, 2019)

jabbadap said:


> No it can't, all of them are third party apps including Afterburner. Nvidia does not have OC capabilities on control panel anymore and even if it has even that could not go under bios limits.  Nvidia has API called nvapi to third party developers to do OC applications like MSI Afterburner, Asus GPU Tweak or Evga's Precision X.


Hmmm okay. So regardless if I go with this msi card or perhaps a asus strix gtx 1650 super, the outcome will be the same?
And then it just boils down to who has the most quiet fans and lowest avaliable fan speed setting?


----------



## jabbadap (Nov 25, 2019)

webdigo said:


> Hmmm okay. So regardless if I go with this msi card or perhaps a asus strix gtx 1650 super, the outcome will be the same?
> And then it just boils down to who has the most quiet fans and lowest avaliable fan speed setting?



Some have IDLE fan stop, like this reviewed msi or your mentioned Asus Strix. So they can be forced to run even passive if one really wants. If silence is important for you, both of them are great choices albeit quite expensive ones.


----------



## webdigo (Nov 28, 2019)

jabbadap said:


> Some have IDLE fan stop, like this reviewed msi or your mentioned Asus Strix. So they can be forced to run even passive if one really wants. If silence is important for you, both of them are great choices albeit quite expensive ones.


It seems like the Asus strix gtx 1650 super have no direct pcb cooling applied. Like for vrm and memory.
Unlike this msi card here does.

So I can only assume this msi card, is the safer betting?


----------

