Gainward GeForce GTX 1630 Ghost

[Udyr]

That's not low profile.

Closest to what you can get in single slot for these GPUs.

 

[AusWolf]

Closest to what you can get in single slot for these GPUs.

It's not even single slot. It only has a single slot backplate, but the cooler needs two slots, which is the worst construction, imo, as the backplate offers no structural support whatsoever (not that you need it for a plastic shroud, but still).

 

[ModEl4]

PNY's got your back, homie.

PNY GeForce® GTX 1650 XLR8 Gaming Overclocked Edition

The GeForce GTX 1650 is built with the breakthrough graphics performance of the award-winning NVIDIA Turing™ architecture. With up to 2X the performance of the GeForce GTX 950, it’s a supercharger for today’s most popular games, and even faster with modern titles.

www.pny.com

For commercial SFF you will need low profile versions, like the MSI GTX 1650 GT V809-3250R (168x69x37mm) but the problem is the TBP imo (especially if you don't have warranty anymore for your system)

 

[Lew Zealand]

PNY's got your back, homie.

PNY GeForce® GTX 1650 XLR8 Gaming Overclocked Edition

The GeForce GTX 1650 is built with the breakthrough graphics performance of the award-winning NVIDIA Turing™ architecture. With up to 2X the performance of the GeForce GTX 950, it’s a supercharger for today’s most popular games, and even faster with modern titles.

www.pny.com

That's neither single slot nor low profile, which is the point about the RX 6400. It does serve a specific set of use cases that this 1650 can't, even with it's technical compromises. It should just be $30-60 cheaper.

 

[Udyr]

For commercial SFF you will need low profile versions, like the MSI GTX 1650 GT V809-3250R (168x69x37mm) but the problem is the TBP imo (especially if you don't have warranty anymore for your system)

You're correct, and the lowest TBP I've seen for these is 75W. However, depending on the SFF size, you could argue the PNY would fit some of them, cause unfortunately it's either a low profile dual slot or single not but not such a low profile.

And to those saying this is not single slot/low profile: I'm aware of it. The original comment was more of a tongue-in-cheek (the homie should've given it away).

 

[simlife]

this card is massively weaker then the ps4... from 2013.... a memory bandwith of 96 GB/s... the ps4 was 176...

 

[AusWolf]

And to those saying this is not single slot/low profile: I'm aware of it. The original comment was more of a tongue-in-cheek (the homie should've given it away).

Ah, so you're saying that the closest you can get to a single slot, low profile, passively cooled, sub-75 W GTX 1630 is a dual slot, normal height one with a fan and a 6-pin power connector. I get it.

 

[Udyr]

Ah, so you're saying that the closest you can get to a single slot, low profile, passively cooled, sub-75 W GTX 1630 is a dual slot, normal height one with a fan and a 6-pin power connector. I get it.

And where does in ModEI4's comment say it has to be passively cooled?
But we're getting unnecessarily off-topic now. Have a good one

 

[grammar_phreak]

The POWER of a GTX 660ti..... 10 years later.

 

[AusWolf]

And where does in ModEI4's comment say it has to be passively cooled?
But we're getting unnecessarily off-topic now. Have a good one

I didn't get your joke, you didn't get mine. I guess we're even now.

The POWER of a GTX 660ti..... 10 years later.

Yep. It could be fine for a HTPC if it came in low profile without a power connector, and for $50-80 max. Though I have a feeling that all of this is pretty steep thing to ask for.

 

[ModEl4]

this card is massively weaker then the ps4... from 2013.... a memory bandwith of 96 GB/s... the ps4 was 176...

Probably you're joking, but actually GTX 1630 is at least +35% faster than PS4's GPU and if you take account the potential CPU difference (e.g. i5 8400 or i3 10100F vs 1.6GHz jaguar 7 core) at PS4 resolution (mostly 900p the last years) & settings the difference can be huge for any game that isn't optimized well for jaguar (very few i would guess)
bandwidth isn't comparable, PS4 has shared memory and GCN architecture needs a lot more memory bandwidth (GTX 1650 super achieves same performance level as RX580 with half the bandwidth and RX580 has much more memory savings features implemented than 2013 PS4's APU)

 

[GeorgeMan]

That GPU could have been great if (a) it released a couple of years ago, (b) cost ~79$, (c) had similar power requirements to the GT1030 it replaces.
But unfortunately none of these conditions are met so it's yet another stagnated "You want 213% performance increase over the old gen? You pay 213% more money", just for the low end GPU market now. Disgusting.

 

[Frick]

Gamers: "the 6400 is the worst graphics card of the decade"

Nvidia: "hold my beer"

Gamers absolutely suck. The 6400 has problems, but performance is not one of them. It's basically a replacement for the RX550, and seen as such it's pretty great.

This card though... Not great. It uses way to much power, and it's way to expensive.

 

[W1zzard]

Could you please explain this? What's wrong with GTX 1660 Super and RTX 2060 both of which have 6GB of VRAM which is exactly the same as RX 5600 XT? GTX 1060 is suddenly 4 times faster than GTX 1660? Um, what?

I suspect it has to do with the memory management techniques used by these cards. Maybe, for performance reasons, they allocate memory in a certain way that's faster, but less space efficient, etc.

 

[AusWolf]

For anyone interested (please don't be), I've just found the first card you can pre-order in the UK. It's more expensive than a 6400, a 6500 XT, or even a 1650!

 

[progste]

How is this worse than a gtx 1650 while costing 150$??

 

[laszlo]

Nvidia HQ: "the special 'gpu launch' operation is going as planned; we'll end this operation when AMD will stop fighting and surrender"

 

[Chrispy_]

huh. i posted the ATX* spec, so . . . i don't think you did.

actually PCI-SIG since atx covers PSUs not add in cards. (section 9 in attached)

You linked PCI-Express SIG spec, which is nice if you're a motherboard maker, but my beef is with case compatibility and enclosures which is clearly the realm of the ATX spec. Cases are built to ATX/mATX/MITX standards, not PCI-SIG standards.

It's potayto potahto anyway - the 4mm difference in slot height between ATX 2.2 and PCIe SIG is referring to the other end of the height dimension, which I'm not interested in since it isn't relevant for case/enclosure compatibility. All that matters (and my original point) is that cards aren't supposed to peek out above the expansion bracket. That's the spec, whether you use ATX, PCIe, VESA, or anything else; All standards agree on that.

How is this worse than a gtx 1650 while costing 150$??

I think if it costs more than a 1650, people will just buy the 1650 instead, right? It's the superior product by nearly a factor of two, there's a surplus of them on the used market for ~$100 each, and it has the same silicon and features set.

If you're worried about new vs used, I doubt any of these 1630s are made to high-quality standards, they all look like bottom-of-the-barrel dirt quality using very basic cooling, probably the cheapest sleeve-bearing fans they could source, and likely the bare minimum of PCB quality/components because margins are slim at this end of the market. I'd take a well-made used 1650 over a brand new 1630 any day of the week. Hell, with a bit of searching I could probably afford to buy two used 1650s for the price of a new 1630 because that's how bad the MSRP is on these....

These are past listings, so this is a random selection (ebay's ordering) of what people actually paid for working GTX 1650s:

 

[prtskg]

Never thought Rx 6400 will start looking so good so soon.
Considering Intel Arc supports AV1 decode and encode, I think AMD and Nvidia should release new low level GPUs with such capability.

 

[Tom Yum]

I don't understand the point about saying 'well at least it has PCI-E 16x'. This thing is so slow that even a hobbled Rx6400 on PCI-E Gen 3 4x would absolutely trounce this thing, while using less power and costing the same. This thing has zero redeeming features, what a bizarre launch from nVidia!

 

[AusWolf]

How is this worse than a gtx 1650 while costing 150$??

Nvidia had to cut more GPU components this time. More effort = higher price.

I think if it costs more than a 1650, people will just buy the 1650 instead, right? It's the superior product by nearly a factor of two, there's a surplus of them on the used market for ~$100 each, and it has the same silicon and features set.

If you're worried about new vs used, I doubt any of these 1630s are made to high-quality standards, they all look like bottom-of-the-barrel dirt quality using very basic cooling, probably the cheapest sleeve-bearing fans they could source, and likely the bare minimum of PCB quality/components because margins are slim at this end of the market. I'd take a well-made used 1650 over a brand new 1630 any day of the week. Hell, with a bit of searching I could probably afford to buy two used 1650s for the price of a new 1630 because that's how bad the MSRP is on these....

These are past listings, so this is a random selection (ebay's ordering) of what people actually paid for working GTX 1650s:

In the UK (at the moment), you can buy a new 1650, or even a 6500 XT for the price of the 1630. Nvidia will have to drop the price if they want to sell any of these.

 

[Ruined Mind]

Hello. I need a low-profile dual-slot card. (Gigabyte has a low-profile version of the 1630.)

I'm afraid to buy a used card, because of the lack of a warranty. Even if I'd consider a used one, I won't buy a 1650, because I've noticed reviews about the low-profile versions of the 1650 from people who said the fans were so loud that they decided to return them and stay with their much quieter 1050 Ti cards. So, if I'd consider a used one, I'd choose the 1050 Ti. I have a PCI-Express 2.0 slot. Please don't tell me to buy a new computer. My i5-2400 processor hasn't been a bottleneck in the games I've played. I've checked with MSI Afterburner.

Regardless of whether I'd buy a used one, I still want an answer to this question from the professionals of this website, especially the leader called "W1zzard":
Would an RX 6400 be so limited in a PCI-Express 2.0 x4 configuration that the 1630 would be faster, or would the RX 6400 still be faster than the 1630, even in a nasty 2.0 x4 situation?

 

[Chrispy_]

Hello. I need a low-profile dual-slot card. (Gigabyte has a low-profile version of the 1630.)

I'm afraid to buy a used card, because of the lack of a warranty. Even if I'd consider a used one, I won't buy a 1650, because I've noticed reviews about the low-profile versions of the 1650 from people who said the fans were so loud that they decided to return them and stay with their much quieter 1050 Ti cards. So, if I'd consider a used one, I'd choose the 1050 Ti. I have a PCI-Express 2.0 slot. Please don't tell me to buy a new computer. My i5-2400 processor hasn't been a bottleneck in the games I've played. I've checked with MSI Afterburner.

Regardless of whether I'd buy a used one, I still want an answer to this question from the professionals of this website, especially the leader called "W1zzard":
Would an RX 6400 be so limited in a PCI-Express 2.0 x4 configuration that the 1630 would be faster, or would the RX 6400 still be faster than the 1630, even in a nasty 2.0 x4 situation?

The fans on the 1630 aren't likely to be much quieter. The 1650 is the same piece of silicon running at similar clockspeeds and voltages so you can see from the power consumption chart in the review that it pulls a good fraction of the 1650's power despite providing far less performance.

What are you trying to do with your low-profile card - 3D gaming or just encode/decode? If you're not after 3D performance - and that's going to suffer in a PCIe 2.0 x4 slot anyway, then a GT 1030 can be had with a far lower power draw than anything in the 16-series. There are low-profile fully-passive variants, even.

EDIT:
Oh hey, I just had a thought - if you're thinking about spending $150 on a 1630, but your board (and CPU) are so old that PCIe 2.0 is all you have, then perhaps you should consider replacing the whole thing with a newer CPU that has integrated graphics. You can pick up Intel 10th Gen on clearance discount for a very low price. The IGP sucks for gaming, but it'll do your display outputs and has modern codec support for hardware encode/decode. Alternatively, $150 is about the going rate for a Ryzen 4600G which is pretty capable in both the CPU and IGP department. You'll still need a motherboard and RAM but presumably a $250 budget for the whole PC isn't unreasonable if you were willing to part with $150 for a miserable little GTX 1630.

 

[Ruined Mind]

I want to play games. My GT 1030 has been enough to play all of the games I've wanted to far, but it won't be enough for future games. It has been enough because I use low settings and a low resolution. My screen's resolution is 1360 x 768. A speed boost to around 2 to 2.5 times the power of the GT 1030 would be great. The RX 6400 would be even faster, but I need to know whether it would actually be slower than the 1630 because of the PCI-E 2.0 x4 limitation.

To be clear, I have a 2.0 x16 slot, but the RX 6400 has only four lanes., while the 1630 could use all 16 lanes.

 

[ppn]

I don't understand why he reviewed this. there is no review of 1030, same should go for 1630

you can play chess on it i guess, but anything else is causing pain, and some people may enjoy this, but I wouldn't touch anything less than 1660S.

GTX 3030 based on the never released GA107 that was supposed to be a 3050 would have been a far better placeholder for the lower end until 4030.