Nvidia just launched their new GTX 1650 graphics card, but how does it compare with the next
option up, the 1660? In this video we’ll test out and compare 18 different games at
1080p and 1440p resolutions to help you see the performance difference between them, followed
by a discussion on value for money.
Let’s quickly take a look at how the GTX 1650 and 1660 actually differ in terms of
specs, note that things like clock speed and power will vary between specific cards, these
are just the reference specs for each model. The 1660 is better in basically every way,
it’s got 57% more CUDA cores, higher base and boost clock speeds, as well as more memory.
For the testing I’m using the Gigabyte GTX 1650 OC and the MSI GTX 1660 Gaming X, expect
slightly different results with different models.
The system that I’m testing with has an Intel i7-8700K CPU overclocked to 5.0GHz in
an MSI Z390 ACE motherboard, along with 16GB of T-Force Night Hawk CL16 memory from Team
Group running at DDR4-3200 in dual channel. Check the links in the description for details
on all of the components as well as for up to date pricing. The same Windows updates
and game updates were used for testing, and for drivers I’m using the newest available
at the time of testing, Nvidia 430.39, so let’s get into the results.
Let’s start out Apex Legends, which was tested with all settings maxed out. In all
upcoming graphs I’ve got the GTX 1650 shown by the top bar in red, while the GTX 1660
is underneath in purple. In terms of average FPS the 1660 is getting 38% higher at 1080p,
and 33% higher at 1440p.
Assassin’s Creed Odyssey was tested with the built in benchmark using high settings.
Despite the 1660 looking to be a nice bit ahead here, this is actually one of the smallest
differences out of all 18 games tested, which tells you where this is going. At 1080p the
1660 was 29% ahead of the 1650, rising up to a 38% lead at 1440p.
Battlefield 5 was tested in campaign mode rather than multiplayer, as it’s easier
to consistently reproduce the test run. The 1660 was again getting a much better result,
with even the 1% lows significantly higher than the average FPS from the 1650. At 1080p
the 1660 was 47% ahead of the 1650, and 55% ahead at 1440p.
Far Cry New Dawn was tested using the built in benchmark with high settings, and we’re
seeing a 45% performance boost with the 1660 at 1080p, rising up to 49% higher FPS at 1440p.
Far Cry 5 was also tested using the built in benchmark with high settings, and while
we’re seeing higher average FPS over the newer Far Cry New Dawn just shown, the results
between the two cards are closer together. At 1080p the 1660 was 42% ahead of the 1650,
rising to 49% at 1440p.
Fortnite was tested using the replay feature with the exact same replay on both graphics
cards, so as apples to apples as you can get in this game. At 1080p the 1660 was 52% ahead
of the average FPS from the 1650, rising up to a massive 63% boost at 1440p and achieving
the best result at that resolution out of all 18 games tested. Again even the 1% lows
from the 1660 were significantly ahead of the averages from the 1650.
Metro Exodus was tested with the built in benchmark at high settings. Most parts of
the game perform a fair bit better than this, so don’t take these results as a good indication
of what to expect throughout the entire game, it’s more of a worst case, it does however
allow me to perform an accurate comparison. At 1080p there was a large 54% improvement
to average frame rate with the 1660, rising up to a 57% increase at 1440p, one of the
biggest differences out of the games tested.
Shadow of the Tomb Raider was also tested using the built in benchmark with high settings,
and with a 1080p resolution the 1660 was coming out 53% ahead of the 1650, and then once stepping
up to 1440p there was a slightly larger 56% improvement with the 1660.
Rainbow Six Siege was tested using the built in benchmark at high settings, and was another
title where the 1% low from the 1660 was ahead of the averages from the 1650. At 1080p we’re
looking at a 49% improvement to average FPS with the 1660 over the 1650, which rises a
little to a 52% boost at 1440p.
CS:GO was tested with the Ulletical FPS benchmark, and the differences here were on the lower
side compared to most of the other games covered. At 1080p there was a relatively low 19% increase
to average FPS with the 1660, while 1440p saw a much larger 43% improvement.
Overwatch was tested in the practice range as I can easily perform the same test run
compared to playing with bots or other players which will vary every time. At 1080p this
game saw the biggest difference out of all 18 tested, the 1660 was reaching average frame
rates 57% higher than the 1650, then at 1440p it was second place with a massive 61% improvement.
PUBG was tested using the replay feature with the exact same replay at high settings, and
I don’t think either are really great for 1440p here, though with lower settings the
1660 should go alright. Anyway in terms of differences at 1080p the 1660 was 39% ahead
of the 1650 and 35% ahead at 1440p.
Watch Dogs 2 is a resource intensive game and was tested with very high settings. In
my opinion this one doesn’t need a high frame rate to play, I can get by with a solid
30 FPS, so the 1650 was a little behind here while the 1660 played fine. In terms of differences
at 1080p the 1660 was 42% ahead of the 1650 in average FPS, and 49% ahead at 1440p.
Ghost Recon was tested with the built in benchmark and high settings in use, and is another resource
heavy game. The 1660 was 41% ahead of the 1650 at 1080p, and 49% ahead at 1440p.
The Witcher 3 was tested with Hairworks disabled. At 1080p the 1660 was achieving 53% higher
average frame rates, with a slightly larger 56% increase at 1440p, and like most others
that I didn’t bother mentioning, the 1% low from the 1660 was even ahead of the average
frame rate of the 1650.
Strange Brigade was tested with the built in benchmark using Vulkan and was maxed out
at ultra settings. At 1080p we’ve got one of the largest differences out of all games
tested, with the 1660 54% ahead of the 1650 in average FPS, and also 54% ahead at 1440p
too.
DOOM was also tested using Vulkan, and it was still quite playable even at 1440p on
the 1650 with above 60 FPS averages, however the 1660 is a fair bit ahead here, with 53%
higher average FPS at 1440p and 51% at 1080p.
Shadow of War was tested with the built in benchmark, and saw the smallest difference
between the two out of all 18 games tested, with just a comparatively small 17% bump with
the 1660 at 1080p and 23% higher FPS at 1440p.
In terms of overall improvement, over all 18 games tested with a 1080p resolution on
average the GTX 1660 was performing 43.6% better when compared against the GTX 1650
in terms of average FPS. It really does depend on the game, however there are clearly some
big gains to be had from the 1660 in most games.
At 1440p on average over the same 18 games the GTX 1660 was now scoring a little higher
compared to the 1080p results just shown, now with 48.8% higher average FPS in these
titles. In general we’re seeing a larger difference between the two, as 1440p should
be more GPU intensive when compared with 1080p. I definitely don’t consider the 1650 to
be a 1440p capable card though, however as we’ve seen the 1660 handles it fairly well
even with higher settings.
Given that there is quite a fair bit of performance difference between these two graphics cards
I wouldn’t be surprised at all if Nvidia release something like a 1650 Ti at some point
in the future to fill in the gap like they’ve done in the past.
Here’s what we’re looking at in terms of synthetic benchmarks, I’ve just tested
3DMark’s Firestrike, Timespy and VRMark here. I’ll note that in Timespy with the
1650 I did have some black screen flickering which some others have reported, so I’m
not 100% certain whether that affected results.
As for the differences in total system power draw the system with the 1660 was drawing
33% more power for an average 43% performance boost at 1080p and 48% increase at 1440p,
which to me sounds pretty fair.
Now for the final difference, the price. I suggest checking updated prices using the
links in the description, as prices will change over time. The 1650 just launched at $149
USD and can currently be bought for that price on the low end. As we’ve seen in my recent
video where I compared the 1650 against AMD’s RX 570, the 1650 is pretty bad value comparatively,
as the 570 is both cheaper and performs better. At the moment though the 1660 is the next
step up in Nvidia’s line up, and launched recently at $219 USD, so $70 more than the
1650. This means that you have to spend about 47% more money in order to get that 43% average
performance improvement at 1080p, or 48% better at 1440p, granted exact results may differ
a little, as again I’m using a higher end 1660 and not one of the low end options. In
the context of an entire system though the percentage difference will of course lower.
Out of these two I think it’s worth paying more for the 1660 if you can afford it, and
if you can’t then you should just forget the 1650 entirely and go for the RX 570, again
it’s both cheaper and performs better, you can find my comparison linked in the description.
I’m actually working on a comparison between the 1660 and RX 580 at the moment too, so
make sure you’re subscribed so you don’t miss that one.
At the moment you’re probably not going to find either of these cards much cheaper
on the second hand market as they’re both still quite new, however as they age that
will of course lower the price further.
If you were buying today let me know which card you’d pick down in the comments and
why, the GTX 1650 or GTX 1660, and if you’re new to the channel get subscribed for future
comparisons and tech videos like this one.