How does the Nvidia GTX 1650 compare with the older GTX 1060 3GB graphics card? 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 and discuss value for money.
Let’s quickly take a look at how the newer GTX 1650 and older 1060 3GB actually differ
in terms of specs, note that these are base model specs, different cards will vary slightly.
The 1060 3GB has 28% more CUDA cores and is based on Nvidia’s older Pascal architecture,
while the 1650 uses the newer Turing architecture. The 1060 has higher base and boost clock speeds,
but less memory and also costs more, you can find updated pricing linked in the description.
The 1060 is also available in the 6GB version which has more CUDA cores and double the memory,
but we’re not looking at that version here, so if I just say 1060 without specifying the
memory assume I mean the 3GB model.
For the testing I’m using the Gigabyte GTX 1650 OC and the ASUS GTX 1060 3GB, so both
have a little factory overclock, 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,
game updates and Nvidia driver 430.39 were used for the testing, so let’s get into
the results.
Let’s start out Apex Legends, which was tested with all settings maxed out. I’ve
tested with higher settings in the upcoming games than I’d actually play with in most
cases, as that’s better for GPU comparison purposes. In all upcoming graphs I’ve got
the newer GTX 1650 shown by the top bar in red, while the older GTX 1060 3GB is shown
below in purple. In terms of average FPS the 1060 is 7.5% faster than the 1650, and just
2.5% ahead at 1440p.
Assassin’s Creed Odyssey was tested with the built in benchmark using high settings,
and there was almost no difference between the two graphics cards here at either 1080p
or 1440p. The 1060 was just slightly ahead in average FPS, 1.5% higher at 1080p and 1.2%
at 1440p.
Battlefield 5 was tested in campaign mode rather than multiplayer, as it’s easier
to consistently reproduce the test run. This was another game that saw minimal difference
between the two, with the 1060 just 2.5% higher in average frame rate at 1080p, increasing
to 6.3% higher at 1440p.
Far Cry New Dawn was tested using the built in benchmark with high settings, and the 1%
low with the 1060 was almost ahead of the average from the 1650. At both 1080p and 1440p
there was a 20% boost to average FPS with the 1060.
Far Cry 5 was also tested using the built in benchmark with high settings, and this
game was seeing higher FPS over the newer Far Cry New Dawn just shown. For average frame
rate there was a 21% boost at 1080p and 18% at 1440p with the 1060.
Fortnite was tested using the replay feature with the exact same replay on both graphics
cards, and I saw a big improvement with the 1060 in this test. The 1% lows from the 1060
were above the average FPS from the 1650 at both resolutions, while average FPS at 1080p
saw the 1060 come out 27.6% ahead of the 1650, and 35% at 1440p, the second biggest difference
out of all 18 games tested.
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. With that in mind, the 1060 was getting 26%
higher average FPS over the 1650 at 1080p, and 28% at 1440p.
Shadow of the Tomb Raider was also tested using the built in benchmark with high settings.
There was less of a difference here, an 8% improvement to average FPS at 1080p and 6%
higher at 1440p with the 1060.
Rainbow Six Siege was tested using the built in benchmark at high settings. In terms of
improvement with the 1060 this game was on the lower side out of the titles tested, I
think as it seems to benefit from Nvidia’s Turing architecture. In any case there was
an 11% improvement to average FPS at 1080p with the 1060, and 13% at 1440p, a bit below
average.
CS:GO was tested with the Ulletical FPS benchmark, and both cards were capable of providing very
high frame rates in this test, granted the 8700K is of course contributing a lot here
too. In this test there was a fairly good 21% boost to average FPS with the 1060 at
1080p, and much larger 35% improvement at 1440p.
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 differ every time. This game generally
runs quite well, even at 1440p the 1650 was at least playable. This game saw the largest
difference out of all 18 tested, with the 1060 a massive 35% higher in average FPS at
1080p, rising to a 39% lead at 1440p.
PUBG was tested using the replay feature with the exact same replay at high settings. You’ll
probably want to stick to 1080p in this game for a decent frame rate, there was a 17% higher
average frame rate here with the 1060, and 14% higher average FPS 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 1060 was giving me a playable experience even at 1440p. In terms of difference
to average frame rate, the 1060 was 24% ahead of the 1650 at 1080p, and 28% ahead at 1440p.
Ghost Recon was tested with the built in benchmark and high settings in use, and is another resource
heavy game. At 1080p the 1060 was 17% ahead of the 1650 in average FPS, rising to a 23%
improvement at 1440p.
The Witcher 3 was tested with Hairworks disabled. At 1080p the 1060 was achieving 23% higher
average FPS than the 1650, increasing slightly to a 24% lead at 1440p, where the 1% low from
the 1060 is now above the average from the 1650.
Strange Brigade was tested with the built in benchmark using Vulkan and maxed out at
ultra settings. At both 1080p and 1440p the 1060 was 17% ahead of the 1650 in average
FPS.
DOOM was also tested using Vulkan, and was the only game out of all 18 where I saw the
1650 actually coming out ahead, not too sure why. The 1060 was 10% behind at 1080p and
8% at 1440p.
Shadow of War was tested with the built in benchmark, and in this one the 1060 saw 19%
higher average FPS at 1080p, lowering slightly to 16% at 1440p.
In terms of overall improvement, over all 18 games tested with a 1080p resolution on
average the GTX 1060 3GB was performing 16.1% better when compared with the GTX 1650 in
terms of average FPS. As we can see it really depends on the specific game, some saw small
changes while others performed much better on the 1060, while DOOM was the only one that
went better with the 1650.
At 1440p on average over the same 18 games the GTX 1060 3GB was now scoring a little
higher on average compared to the 1080p results just shown, now with 17.8% higher average
FPS. It’s worth noting though that I don’t consider either of these 1440p capable cards
in the majority of games tested, I just wanted to see how the resolution would affect the
percentage difference as it should be more GPU intensive when compared with 1080p.
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 is apparently a bug with the latest
Nvidia drivers, I’m not sure if it affects the results though.
As for the differences in total system power draw, while gaming the 1650 was using less
power, while the 1060 was using about 26% more in comparison.
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. The 1060 3GB launched for
$199 USD back in August 2016, so it’s more than 2 and a half years old at this point,
and today it still seems to go for around that point new. Based on these numbers, we’re
looking at paying about 33% more money to go to the 1060 3GB.
The exact model of 1060 I have here can be picked up for $213 new, while my 1650 is $160,
so again 33% more money for around 16% more performance on average at 1080p in the games
tested here. In the context of a whole system though the percentage difference will of course
lower as this is just one component of many.
If you saw my 1650 vs RX 570 video, the 570 was about 12% faster than the 1650 in these
same games and costs less at around the $130 mark, so just based on that alone the 570
should perform fairly close to the 1060 3GB while costing about $70 cheaper new, let me
know if you want to see a comparison between those in a future video.
As the 1060 has been out for two and a half years now you’re much more likely to find
better pricing on the second hand market, at least compared to the 1650 which only just
came out. With a quick search I found some for closer to the $100 mark which is much
better in terms of price to performance.
While the 1060 3GB still does alright in 1080p gaming for the most part, as we’ve seen
here, buying a 3gb card in 2019 is hard to recommend for longevity reasons. This does
make the 4GB and cheaper 1650 look attractive, however it doesn’t perform as well, and
as mentioned there are better alternatives, say a used 570 for $80 with 4gb of memory.
You could argue the 1650 is more power efficient, it’s true, but it also performs worse so
you’d have to accept that, and it would take quite a long time of gaming before it
actually started to affect your power bill.
If you were buying today let me know which card you’d pick down in the comments and
why, the GTX 1650 or GTX 1060 3GB, and if you’re new to the channel get subscribed
for future comparisons and tech videos like this one.