5500 XT or GTX 1650 for old PC?

[ShrimpBrime]

We got loads of second-hand 12100F (basically the same stuff but 200 MHz slower) for ~60...65 USD. Motherboards are more expensive lmao. 12400F (six cores) is double that. 14100F... 100 USD at the very least. Hardly worth it.

The 14100 is a Raptor Lake P-core. It's not rebranded Alder-Lake. Stock vs stock, the 14100F is faster. Probably does about the same amount of work as a 12400F actually.

You can put 14th gen into anymotherboard that supports 12th gen. Has ddr4 and ddr5 memory controllers. It doesn't require any special board just a bios update.

 

[Macro Device]

Probably does about the same amount of work as a 12400F actually.

i3 is significantly worse in any MT task, Raptor Lake or not. Not worth it. Will recommend 12th gen over this overpriced nonsense any time of the day until it stops being overpriced nonsense.

 

[ShrimpBrime]

i3 is significantly worse in any MT task, Raptor Lake or not. Not worth it. Will recommend 12th gen over this overpriced nonsense any time of the day until it stops being overpriced nonsense.

Yeah 4 threads is a lot to make up for.

My 12400F smokes the 14100F for sure. I do agree. But then again, the 12400F will benchmark up to 1000mhz faster cause it can OC.
And because that's what I do, don't have any real fair stock vs stock comparisons.

12t vs 8t - If you have an OC BCLK capable board, which are usually expensive, the 12400F is a way better buy.
What we need is boards with a clock generator that are not overpriced non-sense.

Here's a few benchmark comparisons 12400F OC vs 14100F Stock
Edit 2, yes I have screen shots for all these too.

GeekBench 3 Single core
12400F OC 4.8ghz = 6863pts
14100F stock 4.5ghz = 6743pts

Cinebench R20 Multi-core
12400F OC 5168mhz = 5561pts
14100F stock 4.5ghz = 3585pts

3DMark CPU Profile 1 thread
12400F OC 4.6ghz = 998pts
14100F stock 4.5ghz = 1002pts

Y-Cruncher Pi-1b (multi core)
12400F OC 4778mhz = 38.431s
14100F stock 4.5ghz = 51.887s
(Edit in Under 60 seconds for a quad is spectacular performance.

Super PiMod 32m (single core)
12400F OC 5220mhz = 5m 57.839s
14100F stock 4.5ghz = 6m 23.603s

 

[lexluthermiester]

My vote: GTX 1650

Reason: 16 lanes. Not recommended to use an 8-lane card for PCI-E 3.0.

Note that the RX 5500 XT only has 8 lanes. Was AMD the first to do that with most of their cards?

The OP has already made the choice of a 1650.

 

[tommesfps]

That's decent suggestion. However..


..are we 100% on this? I'm not sure that motherboard revision has the Xeon microcode in the bios.. It most definitely has it for the 4770.


No need, it's a mute point, the OP has already picked a video card that doesn't need extra power. But for the record, the model the OP has does not have any molex connectors coming from the 320w HP PSU it comes with.

There is nothing you can mute.

Since you still feel the need to answer for the record, feel free to tell what connectors are available.

 

[lexluthermiester]

feel free to tell what connectors are available.

I already have. You must have missed it.

Any other smarmy remarks?

 

[tommesfps]

I already have. You must have missed it.

Any other smarmy remarks?

From this thread alone, you try to advice forum users to not comment with their ego in mind, but when it comes to yourself you run with double standard, please grow up and improve!
Just because YOU wouldn`t tend to encourage people to use SATA to 6pin pcie, that doesn't mean others shouldn`t do it.

 

[lexluthermiester]

From this thread alone, you try to advice forum users to not comment with their ego in mind, but when it comes to yourself you run with double standard,

I only get pissy when provoked. Don't be jerk and we'll get along just dandy.

please grow up and improve!

Take your own advice.

Just because YOU wouldn`t tend to encourage people to use SATA to 6pin pcie, that doesn't mean others shouldn`t do it.

Did I say I never do? No I didn't say that. The advice I give is ALWAYS based on the merits of the situation of the moment. This system the OP has is NOT a good candidate for a SATA->PCIe adapter cable. Other systems might be, but not THIS one.

You're making assumptions and expecting people to take a leap of faith on tick and why? Just because you say so? My advice was based on known workable factors and options that WILL work in this system. Your advice was slap-happy nonsense that might maybe work IF things are just right. That's the difference.

Now, are we done here?

 

[arc2350]

Hi everyone!
A lot has changed since the start of discussion, so I would be glad to share with you what happened and ask for one more advice! I have ordered the card, which was said to be GTX-1650-O4G, but after the delivery when unboxing I saw... 6-pin connector! Yeah, the card in reality was GTX-1650-O4G-P. So... i returned it, but also decided to have some fun and build a new PC, my brother gave me his old case with good, 550W PSU and SSD storage, now I want to buy an MSI B550-M pro vdh mobo, Ryzen 5600 and 16 GB of RAM and build a more modern and much faster PC while being cost-efficient. I've also extended budget for a GPU, so that apart from old games I can play games like Age of Empires IV or Age of Wonders 4 with an ease and on high settings.

So, the question is - what would be the most "optimal" choice, I take into consideration such an options with following prices in my country:

- RTX 3050 - 206 $
- RX 6600 - 223 $
- RTX 4060 - 318 $

Performance/price seems to be spot on with the RX 6600, I heard a lot of good staff about it - it's fast for the price (best in its budget), energy efficiency is perfect, really good GPU. BUT. Here is the but - I read a lot of complaints on various forums, YT etc. about AMD drivers. I know in the past they were problematic, after all these years I thought issues should mostly be gone. What do you think? I don't want to have any frame drops, crashes in new games, but mostly in older games. Internet seems to be suggesting there are a lot of them, reviews on the other hand for cards like RX 6600 are generous. That's why I consider also RTX 3050, which is bit cheaper, but more than that less performant (still enough for me though), and the RTX 4060 - which is faster, even more efficient than 6600, has all the good NVIDIA features, but is more expensive (still in my "new" budget, but veeery streched). I would love to spend less money and have a card like RX 6600, but if paying more for peace is worth it, I can do it. Advice me please is it worth it, should I be worried about the AMD drivers and save a bit or spend more-than-a-bit more on NVIDIA GPUs.

 

[eidairaman1]

Hi everyone!
A lot has changed since the start of discussion, so I would be glad to share with you what happened and ask for one more advice! I have ordered the card, which was said to be GTX-1650-O4G, but after the delivery when unboxing I saw... 6-pin connector! Yeah, the card in reality was GTX-1650-O4G-P. So... i returned it, but also decided to have some fun and build a new PC, my brother gave me his old case with good, 550W PSU and SSD storage, now I want to buy an MSI B550-M pro vdh mobo, Ryzen 5600 and 16 GB of RAM and build a more modern and much faster PC while being cost-efficient. I've also extended budget for a GPU, so that apart from old games I can play games like Age of Empires IV or Age of Wonders 4 with an ease and on high settings.

So, the question is - what would be the most "optimal" choice, I take into consideration such an options with following prices in my country:

- RTX 3050 - 206 $
- RX 6600 - 223 $
- RTX 4060 - 318 $

Performance/price seems to be spot on with the RX 6600, I heard a lot of good staff about it - it's fast for the price (best in its budget), energy efficiency is perfect, really good GPU. BUT. Here is the but - I read a lot of complaints on various forums, YT etc. about AMD drivers. I know in the past they were problematic, after all these years I thought issues should mostly be gone. What do you think? I don't want to have any frame drops, crashes in new games, but mostly in older games. Internet seems to be suggesting there are a lot of them, reviews on the other hand for cards like RX 6600 are generous. That's why I consider also RTX 3050, which is bit cheaper, but more than that less performant (still enough for me though), and the RTX 4060 - which is faster, even more efficient than 6600, has all the good NVIDIA features, but is more expensive (still in my "new" budget, but veeery streched). I would love to spend less money and have a card like RX 6600, but if paying more for peace is worth it, I can do it. Advice me please is it worth it, should I be worried about the AMD drivers and save a bit or spend more-than-a-bit more on NVIDIA GPUs.

People always try to pull the stigma of drivers etc. The only 1s who go on to to comment are complainers, the rest are gaming on their rx6600s.

 

[Dr. Dro]

Hi everyone!
A lot has changed since the start of discussion, so I would be glad to share with you what happened and ask for one more advice! I have ordered the card, which was said to be GTX-1650-O4G, but after the delivery when unboxing I saw... 6-pin connector! Yeah, the card in reality was GTX-1650-O4G-P. So... i returned it, but also decided to have some fun and build a new PC, my brother gave me his old case with good, 550W PSU and SSD storage, now I want to buy an MSI B550-M pro vdh mobo, Ryzen 5600 and 16 GB of RAM and build a more modern and much faster PC while being cost-efficient. I've also extended budget for a GPU, so that apart from old games I can play games like Age of Empires IV or Age of Wonders 4 with an ease and on high settings.

So, the question is - what would be the most "optimal" choice, I take into consideration such an options with following prices in my country:

- RTX 3050 - 206 $
- RX 6600 - 223 $
- RTX 4060 - 318 $

Performance/price seems to be spot on with the RX 6600, I heard a lot of good staff about it - it's fast for the price (best in its budget), energy efficiency is perfect, really good GPU. BUT. Here is the but - I read a lot of complaints on various forums, YT etc. about AMD drivers. I know in the past they were problematic, after all these years I thought issues should mostly be gone. What do you think? I don't want to have any frame drops, crashes in new games, but mostly in older games. Internet seems to be suggesting there are a lot of them, reviews on the other hand for cards like RX 6600 are generous. That's why I consider also RTX 3050, which is bit cheaper, but more than that less performant (still enough for me though), and the RTX 4060 - which is faster, even more efficient than 6600, has all the good NVIDIA features, but is more expensive (still in my "new" budget, but veeery streched). I would love to spend less money and have a card like RX 6600, but if paying more for peace is worth it, I can do it. Advice me please is it worth it, should I be worried about the AMD drivers and save a bit or spend more-than-a-bit more on NVIDIA GPUs.

RTX 4060 is easily twice the GPU the other two are. But between the 6600 and the 3050 (8 GB) I will pick the 3050 any day. It's not faster, but it's definitely got the better software support.

If you can afford the 4060 - don't look back. Compared to the other two, it is on a league all its own.

People always try to pull the stigma of drivers etc. The only 1s who go on to to comment are complainers, the rest are gaming on their rx6600s.

Can't game if amdkmdag.sys froze my PC

 

[eidairaman1]

RTX 4060 is easily twice the GPU the other two are. But between the 6600 and the 3050 (8 GB) I will pick the 3050 any day. It's not faster, but it's definitely got the better software support.

If you can afford the 4060 - don't look back. Compared to the other two, it is on a league all its own.



Can't game if amdkmdag.sys froze my PC

Yeah moving from nv is why due to sabotage

 

[lexluthermiester]

- RTX 3050 - 206 $
- RX 6600 - 223 $
- RTX 4060 - 318 $

Of those I would spend the extra and go with the 4060. It's easily the best card of the bunch and will last you the longest.

 

[Vayra86]

radeon driver is over bloated with uneeded software so that will not help an older cpu

geforce driver is lighter on resources in my own experiences

Dx11 nvidia runs with lower cpu overhead, Dx12 AMD wins instead.

 

[lexluthermiester]

For reference, the following numbers paint a picture.

Radeon RX 6600 vs Radeon RX 6600 XT vs GeForce RTX 3050 8GB vs GeForce RTX 4060 [videocardbenchmark.net] by PassMark Software

 

[Solid State Soul ( SSS )]

I would choose a 1650, make sure its the gddr6 version

 

[Kumicho]

Hi guys! I need your advice. I know it looks like an obvious question, but for me the answer isn't such. I have an old PC, which I bought as an after-lease one. It is an HP EliteDesk 800 G1 which following configuration:

• HP 18E4 mobo
• Intel Core i5-4570 CPU
• GeForce GT 1030 GPU
• 2 x 8 GB DDR3-1600 RAM

Now i have that PC for simple task, watching YT and playing old games. Now I would like to spend just a little bit of money to upgrade the GPU to play games, which I wanted to play some time ago but didn't had time, especially Witcher 2, then Witcher 3, Dragon Age II, Dragon Age Inquisition, now maybe Age of Empires III DE, Total War series from Napoleon to Shogun and Rome 2 etc. + games like Warzone 2, Apex Legends maybe. For more recent titles and for a main gaming mashine I want to buy a PS5.

Now - I want to spend around 80$ for an used GPU, which will help me to play games fine (older games as Witcher 2 maxed out in 1080p). And in this price range here in my country I can buy cards like RX 5500 XT, GTX 1650 GDDR6, RX 580, GTX 1060. For pure perfomance I think both Radeons are the winners. BUT... well, the rest of the PC is pretty old and not gaming-tier. So the CPU will be a bottleneck. That's why I think maily about the first 2 cards. Powerful enough, very efficent, especially GeForce. Like a sweet spots for that config.
And here is my dilemma. 5500 XT seems to be a pure winner. Same money, more performance - easy choice over regular 1650. But I've read some topics which say that Radeons can have problems with old DX11 or even older games, that for this old CPU GeForce is better, less overhead, that AMD drivers are bad, that in general NVIDIA cards are better for other tasks not related with GPU. So my point is - looking at this config, what do you think? Is it really a truth? I want to have a seamless experience. Will my PC use the potential of RX 5500 over the GTX 1650? Or will they perform at the same level? If so, is this Turing card better suited for old games and won't suck in Warzone 2.0 also?

Would be grateful for your advices!

I got that exact same system but with the i7-4770 and 32gb of ram. I also play Napoleon and shogun 2 which runs fine with everything maxed out(except for unit size to small) here is the limitation we have. Only 70 watt cards without external power connector would fit. And you are better off uploading to a cheap AM4 pc rather than spending any more money on this junk. Even my i7 bottlenecks the rtx 3050 6gb on 1440p on newer games. Forget playing warzone 2. Would dip into the 25's and 30's due to the cpu bottleneck. With really bad shuttering too. Save up. Get a better pc with support for windows 11

The piece of junk in question---

 

[Lew Zealand]

I got that exact same system but with the i7-4770 and 32gb of ram. I also play Napoleon and shogun 2 which runs fine with everything maxed out(except for unit size to small) here is the limitation we have. Only 70 watt cards without external power connector would fit. And you are better off uploading to a cheap AM4 pc rather than spending any more money on this junk. Even my i7 bottlenecks the rtx 3050 6gb on 1440p on newer games. Forget playing warzone 2. Would dip into the 25's and 30's due to the cpu bottleneck. With really bad shuttering too. Save up. Get a better pc with support for windows 11

100% on that 3050-6GB being bottlenecked by a 4770. I'm using a i7-6700K in an Optiplex with a 3050-6GB and depending on the game, the GPU's just chilling waiting for the CPU to deliver the frames in some games. That said, I also have a 5600 XT in a i7-4790 Optiplex which is even more GPU overkill and what it allows is to turn up graphical settings at 1080p in single player games or even run those at 1440p/60fps.

But for MP titles where more fps is always better, these CPUs can't deliver the frames. An example of that is Rocket League, the i7-4790 can barely do 100fps with Vsync on (which is OK, much better than 60fps) but not 144, no matter how good your GPU is. It rummages around in the 110-120s even at lowest settings, you simply need a better CPU to deliver the fps. Haven't tried the 6700K on a 144fps monitor yet but want to, it may have enough with the increased IPC and clocks.