Palit GeForce GTX 1650 StormX OC 4 GB

[W1zzard]

The Palit GeForce GTX 1650 StormX OC comes at NVIDIA MSRP of $150, but features an out of the box overclock. It also doesn't require an additional 6-pin power connector, which makes it the easiest upgrade to get more FPS on an older computer without worrying about PSU requirements.

Show full review

 

[jabbadap]

Those video outputs... Not that bad drop in performance than I feared it to be but yeah MSRP is much too high for what you get. Those power numbers makes me wonder do you take measurements on that 3.3V line at all? 66W is max allowed for 12V Watt line pcie slot has.

 

[kastriot]

Great review like always, but price should be 99$ and for RX 570 too

 

[londiste]

ASUS Strix GTX 1650 uses 81/87W (peak gaming and Furmark) and gets 1978/1980MHz (average/median).
Palit StormX GTX 1650 uses 66/66W and gets 1910/1905MHz.
Performance difference is a mere 2-3%.

This is way better than I was expecting.

 

[jabbadap]

ASUS Strix GTX 1650 uses 81/87W (peak gaming and Furmark) and gets 1978/1980MHz (average/median).
Palit StormX GTX 1650 uses 66/66W and gets 1910/1905MHz.
Performance difference is a mere 2-3%.

This is way better than I was expecting.

Looking those Voltage graphs I would say Strix is using higher gpu voltage for keeping clocks stable in all cases, while Palit varies it lot for sustaining given power budget.

 

[Fluffmeister]

Yeah this is more like it, a small compact plug and play card... that sips power and still offers 90% of the RX 570's performance.

 

[londiste]

Looking those Voltage graphs I would say Strix is using higher gpu voltage for keeping clocks stable in all cases, while Palit varies it lot for sustaining given power budget.

Makes sense.
It would be really interesting to know though what the differences exactly are in terms of games. Are there specific games where power limit will kick in sooner and limit performance more?
@W1zzard how do you keep track of frequencies and power? Does the data allow to check the clock speeds and power usage per game?

 

[trog100]

yep just what a 1650 card should be..

trog

 

[notb]

eteknix reviewed the same cards (MSI and Palit) and in their case Palit was basically 10% slower. Weird.
https://www.eteknix.com/palit-gtx-1650-stormx-oc-graphics-card-review/10/

 

[R0H1T]

Not weird at all, they're using 9900k so you'd get a better idea where the GPU's holding the system back.

 

[londiste]

Not weird at all, they're using 9900k so you'd get a better idea where the GPU is holding the system back.

Already deleted the post as I think I was on the wrong track there. Was not commenting on using 9900K but at a surprisingly low power consumption numbers considering the test system. They got 93.3W for power consumption (55.3W idle) in a 9900K-based system. Looking at how they test, it is averaged over first half of Unigine Superposition. The delta here is 38W and GTX 1650 should idle at only a few watts.

 

[cellar door]

Excuse me but WTF? What year is this?

• No DisplayPort output

 

[WikiFM]

Palit GTX 1650 StormX is 35% faster than the GTX 1050 Ti, and 10% behind the Radeon RX 570. This makes the card 12% slower than even GTX 1060 3 GB, 65% slower than GTX 1060 6 GB, and a whopping 50% behind GTX 1660

Really? 65% slower than 1060 6 GB?

 

[W1zzard]

Palit GTX 1650 StormX is 35% faster than the GTX 1050 Ti, and 10% behind the Radeon RX 570. This makes the card 12% slower than even GTX 1060 3 GB, 65% slower than GTX 1060 6 GB, and a whopping 50% behind GTX 1660

Really? 65% slower than 1060 6 GB?

Ah it should be 26%, typo, fixed, thanks!

how do you keep track of frequencies and power? Does the data allow to check the clock speeds and power usage per game?

I assume you mean for the clock vs voltage scatter plot with the blue markers? No way to track "which game"

 

[danbert2000]

This is really the only type of 1650 that makes sense. Small, ITX-compatible, no need for external power. The other models that were reviewed are the equivalent of trying to turbocharge a Prius. You missed the point by taking an efficiency play and trying to wring out all the power.

This is a good peek into what the 1650 is going to mean for gaming laptops. And if Steam Boxes were still a thing, this would be the perfect card. Essentially, a low-powered console-level PC with matching power efficiency and reasonable heat output and sound. I'm tempted to put together a 1650 with a T-class Intel and SFF gold 400 W power supply. This thing would work really well for a LAN PC.

Now, if you have a regular desktop, buy a 570, of course. The price is still too high and/or performance is still too low to make sense without focusing on the efficiency aspect.

 

[B-Real]

So it is about 15% slower than an RX 570 4GB and costs $20 more. Latter is a 2 year old card. Not to speak of the RX570 you bought with 2 AAA titles until about late March - early April. Waiting for the green-eyed ones to defend this crap. This card is the worst of the 20/16 series along with the RTX 2080 and 2080 Ti regarding price/performance, even the RTX 2070 is along. Only the 1660, 1660 Ti and 2060 makes any sense regarding price/performance.

This is really the only type of 1650 that makes sense. Small, ITX-compatible, no need for external power. The other models that were reviewed are the equivalent of trying to turbocharge a Prius. You missed the point by taking an efficiency play and trying to wring out all the power.

This is a good peek into what the 1650 is going to mean for gaming laptops. And if Steam Boxes were still a thing, this would be the perfect card. Essentially, a low-powered console-level PC with matching power efficiency and reasonable heat output and sound. I'm tempted to put together a 1650 with a T-class Intel and SFF gold 400 W power supply. This thing would work really well for a LAN PC.

Now, if you have a regular desktop, buy a 570, of course. The price is still too high and/or performance is still too low to make sense without focusing on the efficiency aspect.

Nope. None of the 1650s make sense. And there are mini ITX version of the RX570 too (Sapphire Pulse, for example).

 

[PLAfiller]

Those video outputs...

My first thought. I have two displays: one DP and one HDMI. You can use adapters with the card...but come on.

 

[80-watt Hamster]

Excuse me but WTF? What year is this?

• No DisplayPort output

That's the great thing about a healthy market with lots of options: somebody probably makes what you want. In fact, TPU reviewed one of only two Palit 1600-series cards without DP; they offer 4 1650 models with it.

 

[Casecutter]

Great review like always, but price should be 99$ and for RX 570 too

Completely agree this is so devoid of outputs, while just a lump of aluminum what-a-rip.

Why is the price of a 1050 Ti $170?
Those released with MSRP of $139, own at least that what TPU own Database indicates. While Tom's review at the time said. "expect GeForce GTX 1050 and 1050 Ti to shake up the space between $100 and $150. Nvidia tells us that its vanilla 1050 should start at $110, while the 1050 Ti sells from $140".

A thoroughly "decontented" and pedestrian build card, now being 8% more money and like 25% faster after some 2-1/2 years is lackluster.

 

[danbert2000]

So it is about 15% slower than an RX 570 4GB and costs $20 more. Latter is a 2 year old card. Not to speak of the RX570 you bought with 2 AAA titles until about late March - early April. Waiting for the green-eyed ones to defend this crap. This card is the worst of the 20/16 series along with the RTX 2080 and 2080 Ti regarding price/performance, even the RTX 2070 is along. Only the 1660, 1660 Ti and 2060 makes any sense regarding price/performance.





Nope. None of the 1650s make sense. And there are mini ITX version of the RX570 too (Sapphire Pulse, for example).

Nobody wants a mini-ITX 570. They are too hot for the performance and they still need a power connector. The 1650 has a place where it makes sense, so does the 570. The 570 makes sense unless you need lower heat output and a small PSU and/or no power connectors to your card. AMD has some viable cards in the 570 and Vega 56, but mini-ITX builds in SFF cases with small PSUs is not that use case. You look like an AMD supporter, that's great. Just don't let your biases get in the way of facts. Like the fact that AMD doesn't have a reasonable low-power option and Nvidia does. Most people don't care about low power, but those that do will not get a 570, that's for sure.

 

[catulitechup]

That's the great thing about a healthy market with lots of options: somebody probably makes what you want. In fact, TPU reviewed one of only two Palit 1600-series cards without DP; they offer 4 1650 models with it.

Good date

Palit GTX 1650 StormX+ have display port

http://www.palit.com/palit/vgapro.php?id=3254&lang=en&pn=NE5165001BG1-1170F&tab=sp

 

[steen]

...but price should be 99$ and for RX 570 too

Given BOM of this card, MSRP should indeed be $99. Slug HS with single 2-pin voltage controlled fan, w/o sense. They even deleted the differential grounds from the PCIE connector. RX570 4GB has BOM closer to Asus 1650 Strix MSRP $180. TU117 is an interesting lower power part that could be useful as a single slot card, esp for htpc. Shame NVENC is not Turing gen.

 

[ZeroFM]

Excuse me but WTF? What year is this?

• No DisplayPort output

For low-end who the hell you need DP ?

 

[A.Stables]

Ah it should be 26%, typo, fixed, thanks!


I assume you mean for the clock vs voltage scatter plot with the blue markers? No way to track "which game"

Speaking of corrections on the opening of the article on -page you state

"The chip is endowed with all of the new 10bpc HDR video decoding hardware acceleration introduced with "Turing", so it has a solid resume for your living room. "

?? is this correct. as this article It is said no Turning NVENC
https://www.techpowerup.com/254861/...-nvenc-encoder-packs-voltas-multimedia-engine

Nobody wants a mini-ITX 570. They are too hot for the performance and they still need a power connector. The 1650 has a place where it makes sense, so does the 570. The 570 makes sense unless you need lower heat output and a small PSU and/or no power connectors to your card. AMD has some viable cards in the 570 and Vega 56, but mini-ITX builds in SFF cases with small PSUs is not that use case. You look like an AMD supporter, that's great. Just don't let your biases get in the way of facts. Like the fact that AMD doesn't have a reasonable low-power option and Nvidia does. Most people don't care about low power, but those that do will not get a 570, that's for sure.

Agreed I think its a good card (no PCIE and performance wise) but way overpriced in this current market, I thought it was a gap in AMD's product stack (as the 560 is not comparable) but.. Moving forward I wonder how next gen APU's perform in regards to this product, as this may be the nail in low end turning. This is the game changer i think a lot of system builders are expecting and enthusiasts.

 

[jabbadap]

Speaking of corrections on the opening of the article on -page you state

"The chip is endowed with all of the new 10bpc HDR video decoding hardware acceleration introduced with "Turing", so it has a solid resume for your living room. "

?? is this correct. as this article It is said no Turning NVENC
https://www.techpowerup.com/254861/...-nvenc-encoder-packs-voltas-multimedia-engine




Agreed I think its a good card (no PCIE and performance wise) but way overpriced in this current market, I thought it was a gap in AMD's product stack (as the 560 is not comparable) but.. Moving forward I wonder how next gen APU's perform in regards to this product, as this may be the nail in low end turning. This is the game changer i think a lot of system builders are expecting and enthusiasts.

It has Volta's nvenc and Turing's nvdec, so yes it is correct. It can do actually full 12bpc hw decoding, so it's actually better than W1zzard's says.