I would be happy just with GTX 970/1060 performance. It's been 5 years and 1650 is not there yet.
I'm referring to my experiences with them on other products. Lack of updates feels like a lack of investment from the company, which could translate to a poor warranty experience. This is just a personal feeling - I don't like buying from people who don't provide regular updates. I had a really bad experience with a Gigabyte NUC - they wouldn't provide security updates (firmware), so I couldn't use it anymore for work. I was able to bastardize the updates from intel standard ones and other vendors for a little while but eventually something came up and I couldn't proceed.
I sure hope that performance pans out well at higher resolutions. I'm running 3440x1440 on a Quadro P400 (gaming was not the original purpose...) and I typically get stuck with low settings and older games - although I can run The Division and Borderlands 2 play-ably on low settings. I'm really looking forward to that Asus 1650 kicking things up several notches. There aren't really any good comparisons, but passmark shows some numbers at least.Ok, it turns out that Skyrim SE is capped at 60 FPS. And, the GTX 1650 laughs at all graphics settings below "ultra" -- at anything less, it hits 60 FPS without the GPU utilization even getting close to 100% (this is at 1080p resolution). At "ultra" settings, it will hover around 57-59 FPS most of the time (60 FPS when you are talking to NPCs); at worst, it will go down to about 50 FPS during battle scenes.
I'm kinda surprised; I didn't think this card was quite this powerful.Ultra is actually quite playable. I still haven't been able to get the card to run the fans at 100%, either; even with GPU utilization maxed out, I guess the card just didn't get warm enough. I'll probably have to wait until summertime again to find out how loud that is. The fans do produce an audible whine running at 80%, but it isn't so bad to me to reposition the case below my desk just yet...
EDIT: At 79% fan speed, I'm reading 43-44 decibels at my seat. The computer sits on the desk in front of me, below my monitor (maybe two feet away).
970 at 300W? I get that you're exaggerating to make a point, but that's... a bit much
Last I checked that was a 148W TDP card. Also, the 1060 is more like 120W, no? On the other hand Turing is not that much more efficient than Pascal - something like 10-15%. 7nm Ampere will likely be a significant efficiency jump again. But we won't be getting 970/1060-class performance at 75W before that unless AMD pulls off a miracle with their small Navi cards (which they won't, as Navi is mostly a known quantity at this point, matching or slightly beating Turing on efficiency, but that's it).
I stand corrected.970 at 300W? I get that you're exaggerating to make a point, but that's... a bit much
My system with the specs in my signature only consumes 134w max. The 1650 is super efficient.
So long as you're prepared to pay the shipping fees and deal with international communications for any problems with damage or manufacturing defects. There are advantages to having a local retailer.
