As someone who is using a mobile 3050, 4GBs of VRAM is DEFINITELY too little nowadays. It was genuinely the biggest bottleneck when I played RE4 Remake.
@@xdtyfails6497 I specially realized how little it is when I built a friend's PC with an AMD GPU with 10GBs of VRAM and he booted up COD WW2 at max settings. In the game I could see the VRAM usage, only being 4GBs, and I then realized that's only 40% for him. I'm struggling to run most modern games due to my vram meanwhile for his gpu that's less than half. That's insane.
Well, to be fair the 3050 mobile performs about the same as a desktop 1650 (depending on its TDP of course, since some laptops can have a lower TDP/less capable variant, same goes for the mobile-only 3050ti). Speaking of the Ti variant, even under the best conditions it performs between a desktop RX 580 and 1650S. Nvidia really screwed entry level laptop users with those cards. Even the new 4050 mobile finds itself around the desktop 1660S & 1660ti (which is hardly even that large of a gap to begin with). You’d think with the crazy good power efficiency of the 40 series that a lower tier card with a low TDP would perform closer to older/more capable desktop cards that the rest of the 40 series on desktop wipe the floor with.
Playing cyberpunk on my 1060 3gb. Maybe if they made a game worth upgrading for I'd reconsider The only sad experience I had with it was Squad, that game straight up has no graphics at 3gb VRAM. Other than that all the good games are from the 2013-2016 era anyway. Oh and Cyberpunk adding FSR made my experience go from playable to decent. Bless the upscaling tech integration
Part of the problem for 4GB cards I feel is that developers aren't really doing Low, Medium, and High settings but are instead relying on tech like FSR to achieve the same goal.
@@nathaniel1207 4GB has had its day, on that we can agree and there's a reason for that. I just recently finally retired my GTX 970 after 8 years of service in favour of a RX580 2048SP in my Media/Office PC, where previously it had been replaced by a RTX 3060 12GB in my gaming PC. But it holds true that when you used to pick between Low, Medium, and High the difference was obvious. Now it's getting to pixel peeping because they need to "maintain their artistic vision" with upscaling picking up where previously they actually put effort into the lower settings. If they aren't going to make the low settings actually make a difference then why are they there at all. Just have an upscaling setting and be done with it.
Ngl, it just seems like we're at that era of switching hardware, 2 yrs ago it was decent to have a 4gigs vram gpu and now 2023 games NEED 8GB vram minimum.. Gotta wait 3 yrs for the next entry level gpus to have 8 to 12 gb of vram
@@nathaniel1207 I don't agree with this mentality. I think games should be more scalable. I get a new game needing more than 4 or even 8GB to show you the whole goodies and the nice graphics but i settings should be able to scale so a person can lower settings and get actually lower demands on GPU performance. If the gamer is willing to compromise and not have great visuals for some ability to play why not offer it? Right now you put a game at low settings and you look around to see if it is different than high so of course it is still going to need almost the same VRAM and performance from the GPU as it was from high instead of really going at lower tiers. It seems to me they do this because they simply don't want to put the work of creating such scalable settings. What Nvidia or any other hardware manufacturer has put out on the market is irrelevant to this. Just because Nvidia released some 8GB lower tier card doesn't mean that developers have to now make every game not scale down to needing anything less than 8GB.
@SIPEROTH The issue with that line of thinking, is that its not just Nvidia, AMD or game devs. its industry trends in motion, ones that have been present for over 10 years. 2gb cards lasted 4 years before 4gb cards became the minimum on new cards. those lasted 5 years before 8gb has become the minimum on new cards. now that consoles have had 8gb or more since the PS4 and XB1, and a majority of the PC market has 8gb of VRAM or more (Oct 2023 steam hardware survey), Game devs dont want to spend more time and money to try to cater to gamers who stubbornly cling onto obsolete GPU's. 8gb has become the minimum, and makes up the majority of both the console and PC market. Spending time on scalable settings and supporting older 4gb and 6gb GPU's is just not worth it, and its not hard to see why when you look at industry trends in the PC DYI market, and the console space. And if you still have a 4gb card, like a gtx 1650 or super variant, i'd reccomend the RX 6600 from AMD, they're $150 USD in the US, or if thats still too much, the GTX 1070 is a great option which packs 8gb of VRAM for less than $100 USD.
As a user of a gtx 960 to this day gotta say that i still remember the days when 4gb of Vram was all you really need so this video was kind of a nostalgic experience :P On another note i would like to see a review on the arc a380 to see if it can be a good budget option! Awesome video as always!
Why are you wasting money here if you could invest in a gpu, no offense just asking tho, and very generous of you to donate to the video creator, massive W
@@charlotteritchie9969 it's less money everyday passing by. Also beacuse the government doesn't like the citizens spending money that superchat in reality was 200 pesos beacuse believe it or not we have 100% tax on this kind of purchase :)
@@VideoBee_YT gotta be honest i can't put my words without making an aggressive sounding response so i just going go to say for the games i play it's enough for me. I could extend my response more but i guess is going to be really boring
My 1070ti Strix is still kicking. They get a bad rap usually from people that just got off their consoles year ago and are suddenly PC masters with their reddit knowledge.
Maybe because I'm an older pc gamer, but all these "scares" of 2023 remind me of previous changes to gaming architecture. This has happened before when we went from the x360 to xbone era, and it's even happened before then. I remember when people were calling over 4gb of ram "unoptimized" and multi core a waste of time. Things will settle down a bit, and we'll have a 1060 or 1080 successor carrying builds for years to come again.
True - before cuda cores 128mb was enough and 256mb was overkill - then gt 8800 has 512mb but gt 9800 has variant with 1gb. 480/580 has 1.5gb, 680-2gb, 780-3gb, 980 4b - and then dx12 appear - 1080 8gb, 2080 8gb, 3080 10gb and then UE5 appear - 4080 16gb. Same with Radeon/AMD.
@@AfridonDeaddarkactually before Titan, Nvidia is known to give smalller VRAM. Remember GTX 970 controversy? It's stated 4 GB but it's only use 3.5 GB
I was talking to someone IRL who tried this and said Alan Wake 2 wouldn't load on their 1650. Another person, who I don't know online said 1080 low was single digit frame rates and crashed. No idea if everyone who has a 1650 will experience this.
I recently finished AW2 with a 1650S, I only had streaming texture issues. I don't recommend playing it with a card less than 6GB, some puzzles were almost impossible to complete due to low quality texture, and it was frustrating walking (at mid/late game) in some areas with low LOD terrain
Buying a gaming laptop with a 3050/3050TI mobile which has 4GB of VRAM was a mistake that I gladly avoided when going with an Acer Nitro equipped with a 3060 mobile that has 6GB of VRAM.
The only thing that I am salty about is that I didn't wait for 4000 series laptops to get to my price range because having a laptop with a 4050 is much better. Why? Frame generation.
@@cebul9267If you play games that don't support FG, the 3060 is probably much better. I upgraded from a 1650 laptop to a 3060 laptop. Upgrading to a 3050 isn't worth it, it's basically like upgrading to a 1660 laptop, but without getting more VRAM. Btw, the 4050 isn't better than the 3060 in raw power anyways.
Pretty optimistic thinking there will be a 'next 150$ graphics card' from Nvidia. At best, they keep something like the rtx 3050 in production for a long ass time and eventually drop its price down to 150$.
Are they trying to make gaming a high end hobby or something? Teenage me could never afford to build anything decent today even with saving up all them summers...
Nice video, I'm a 1650S user right now, I'm quite happy with all the performance the card is giving. I recently finished Alan Wake 2 at low setting 1080p FRS Balance, the only problem was it had streaming texture issue, due to lack of VRAM (also, the card seems to support Mesh shaders)
@@TheRealCatof people like you are the reason people hate pc gaming/techies some people can’t drop a stack on the best hardware, as long as the game can run 60+ fps it’s just fine some people are even ok with 30
It's worth mentioning low GPU VRAM can increase load times in games as the engine can't load assets. I tried playing Rust with a 1GB GPU and it took 15 minutes to join a game even with an SSD
Bought a laptop with a gtx 950m 4gb in 2016. Finally upgraded this year, but that held its own until recently. It's only the last year or two where new games were completely unplayable, but I had been having to make compromises for a playable experience for a while. The extra vram (I believe standard 950s were 2gb) helped that card stay in as long as it could. Running an RX 6800 now, so really feeling the upgrade
4GB cards were gamers saving grace during the last crypto boom. ETH miners could no longer use them since the page file was >4GB You could still find 4GB 570/580s, R9 furys, 1050 TIs, Gtx 970s and 980s for prices that were still reasonable and close to their MSRP. Let us all take a moment to appreciate these cards for getting us through some tough years with very respectable performance.
This kinda is the reason I bought a 1060 6G Laptop when I needed to work 3D on the go, I needed bigger VRAM and it was cheap, 2060 laptops where almost double the price for same VRAM, and that's also the reason that laptop still can offer a lot of game, I even got some decent 4K gaming with FSR 2 (1080 to 4K) and believe me it looks brutal Still have to upgrade my desktop rig, bought 5600XT 6G when it launched and my man, that's still a beast of a card, but VRAM is it's biggest weakness. If it was at least 8GB I wouldn't be thinking of upgrading at all, the chip is still as powerful as a 3060
4gb vram was the reason for me to pick used gtx 1660ti laptop, I could go for rtx 2060 but a couple of frames weren't worth of 25-30 bucks, my budget was too tight and here in Ukraine as a student you can live a whole week for these money, and I'm really happy with my laptop, re4 on high goes 50+ fps
I just retired my PowerColor RX 580 4GB the other week for a 2070 Super. It did its job well enough throughout the years. 60 FPS with tweaked settings on 1080p was acceptable most times, albeit a bit jarring on a 144hz display without VRR. Either way, 580/1060 did their jobs exceptionally well imo
i love you dude, its great that you are a voice of reason in the tech space that doesnt hype up hardware and always builds pcs with 4090s and 300 core ryzen chips, luv ya
The GTX 1660 Super is next on the list. It's can run most modern games on the "graphically enjoyably" borderline. Definitely have to tweak the in game settings to get the results you want. After that is likely the 2070 then then 3060ti but that's maybe 2 years down the road.
At the end of the day if you ignore those few new AAA games it struggles with it'll still play thousands and thousands of games very well. Personally I don't buy games at launch anyway, I want them to be programmed properly and cheaper first. I'll worry about what I can't run when I upgrade my card (2060S) in a year or two when something compelling for the cash is available.
@@darthwiizius ayyyee we have the same card! I also plan on upgrading soon to either a used 6700xt or a new 4060 (i know, i know, but i do love turning on RT. I have RT on for the witcher 3 with my 2060S and playing at a locked 30 fps with dlss quality, looks amazing). But yeah, unless you're an fps snob like other channels (ahem steve from HUB) the 1650S and other cards with the same performance is still capable
@@bluengold3443 Yeah and as my card struggles I'll just go through my backlog for a bit, I got a lot of games to catch up on plus I want to play my RE games in canonical order, recently got cheap copies of RE1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 (Dammit CAPCOM remaster Code Veronica FFS, it's the true RE3 canonically). Plus I picked up the Bandai Humble and I have all of the free EPIC giveaway games, there's a few in there to play through. I do love RT on Control BTW and I will be using it on RE 2&3 remakes.
@@darthwiiziusYeah exactly, I'm not going to buy a 70€ game if I have a sub-200€ GPU from 2020 😂😂😂 I have a blast playing older games anyways. Currently playing The Witcher 2, Forza Horizon 5 and even Pokémon White on the emulator 😁😁
It is already over. 3 games in the last quarter won't play well for me. Starfield, Alan Wake 2 and Baldur's Gate 3rd act. Now I know two of three have had some issues, but in all honesty, even without the patches/fixes it shows the end for 4GB and under cards. My GTX 980 is about to finally rest.
Great video! I'm very fond of the 1650 Super. I have several of them I got when a local graphic design/vinyl shop closed. They bought five HP desktops with i3 10100 CPUs and 1650 Supers. I was able to snag all five systems for $225 each. I have since repurposed one for an NVR for my security cameras, one for an emulation arcade cabinet, one for a backup Plex server (for when my Unraid server is down for maintenance or upgrades) and one for my mom. And then one just sitting there for parts if one of the others dies. They work incredibly well for each one of those uses. The 1650 Super and 10100 run everything I want to emulate all the way up to the Nintendo Switch. The 1650 Super is a great little card for many things. But modern gaming isn't one of them. Especially at the quality I want. But I'm lucky enough to have a gaming PC with a 7950x3d and 4090 for that.
bro i had a 1060 3GB 💀 glad i went with a RX 5700XT. im also hearing 1440P monitors are more beneficial for upscaling, but i had a good experience with FSR on Dyinglight 2 with a 1060
Back then, 512MB GDDR3 Graphic Card like 9800GTX / 9800GTX+ or AMD HD 3870 can run Crysis 1920x1200 (yeah, 16:10 resolution are common in 2005-2010) Today, even 8 GB card are "trash" not because nowadays AAA game have so realistic texture, but developer are getting lazy so they just put "RAW TEXTURE FILES" on their games, no wonder why many game today have like 100GB+ size, ironically some of those 100GB+ games are "Multiplayer only game" with less than 10 maps and every map are as small as 10km2
Id say the worst case of a gpu being bottlenecked by 4gb of vram is the rtx 3050 ti laptop in raw power the 80w version is similar to a gtx 1660 desktop but its much slower in many games because of 4gb while the 1660 has 6gb. Also 3050 ti has raytracing but its literally useless because it requires a lot of vram to run
The RX 6500 XT seems to also be very bottlenecked by it judging by the few benches of the rare 8gb variant which seem to work drastically better in several games.
Any plans to start inlcuding The Talos Principle 2 in your benchmark suite? Its a new unreal engine game which looks very pretty! But performance wise atleast in the demo was acceptable if you have a modern cpu to prevent the stutters
what is saving the card is the ability to use shared ram although you take a performance hit. Nvidia's Drivers will default 20gb as shared unless you change it in the control panel
1650super was my first gpu during crypto mining mess, RX 6500XT that just released back then gone up to 250 usd, while i can buy 1650 Super with my company discount for less than 180. Had to say that was no brainer. Sold if after the mining crash and bought used 6800XT. But im gonna miss this little guy alot.
Yeah we have reached a time where the average vram needs in gaming have moved forward again... No matter the settings, Even base graphic level of games are eating more than 4G at least.. And even 6GB in some games (which is crazy). If you are gamer but don't just play older titles or weaker games, 4GB really isn't enough anymore.. And 6GB is the bare minimum you should rock with (even then you will still find yourself hitting a ceiling along the way).
If you enjoyed the tone and abstract plotting of Control I think you'll probably enjoy Alan Wake II. It's like a mix between RE4 Remake and Control with a big ol' scoop of True Detective. It's one of my favourite games of the year and if you have a 3070 like I seem to recall you do, you should be able to play it at decent settings and performance.
4 years ago I got my first ever PC capable of gaming, it had a 1660 super 6GB. I switched to the rx 7800xt after I noticed that playing new games on ultra yielded below 60 fps. Gotta say, the experience did not scale with VRAM. I think the main issue with modern titles is that developers do not care for optimizations anymore since they are too spoiled with the new cards.
my 1660 super handled Cyberpunk at launch with highest settings (no RT obviously) with a solid 60+ fps with minimal bugs (I got that system because it fullfiled the minimal specs back then) Everyone feels entitled, prices are through the roof and games just suck now. Imma go play some half life now. Bye
Vanilla 1650 laptop user here, RE4 with the right adjusts can run pretty well, I manage to play with high 1 GB textures and many other effects and things on medium/high and can average 60 to 70 in many areas, mainly the castle.
Hoping to get fsr3 for 1650 mobile so we can play GTA 6. If fsr 3 doesn't support 1650 then it's time to upgrade. New released games aren't good any more with 1650 and i can't play 720p as it makes me fell like the game us 15 years old
Lmao same playing it rn and it runs really well, atleast I am glad most of the games I am interested in that come out these days most of the time I can run fine, like I am not really interested in games like alan wake 2 or bg3, only 2023 game I played so far is re4 remake and lad gaiden both of which ran pretty well and I also have a very long backlog of old games so nothing really to worry about for me.
Well shit, I bought a 1650 this year. Though, it was like half of the retail price and light used while still coming with the box. Let's see how long it holds up. I think the budget build office PC will be the first roadblock and is kind of already, but it is fine for what I do.
It was basically a 4 GB RX580/RX590, using less power. I haven't seen much in terms of reviews or versus of this card, which is kind of a shame. Granted, I don't need one anymore, but I seriously considered it to replace my RX590, when the electricity prices soared last year.
It would be cool if you could look at the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT, which is the newest and (maybe) the last 4GB card we might get. Because it would be an interesting topic as the 6500 XT is very new and has (almost) the latest architecture at the time posting this comment as right now RX 7000 and RTX 40 series is the latest generation and RX 6000 series / RTX 30 series isn't that outdated. Also honorable mention :- The Radeon RX 6400 is finally a contender to the GT 1030 in terms of no power connector, cheap, low profile GPU to upgrade an old Optiplex or something of that sort from its integrated graphics or an old shit Quadro/FirePro.
as a previous 1650 super owner i remember running games very smoothly, now that my sister has gotten a pc i gave her my old gpu for free and somehow it runs the same mc shader i ran at 80fps it now runs it at 20 for her. Newer shader version ofc
I know Maxwell is a bit long in the teeth by now, but the latest Nvidia driver supposedly addresses the unusually bad performance in Halo: Infinite on Maxwell GPUs so I think maybe a video on a performance comparison between the current and previous drivers might be interesting seeing as the game is in your benchmark suite, and I know there are still people on those GPUs.
I get a vram warning every time i launch forza lol, I'm currently using a 3060 ti 8gb and running forza at 1440p ultra Also this channel is a gem in the tech world, get this man more subscribers!
1650 SUPER was the best value for money GPU back in the day when it launched in late 2019, but still people bought the normal 1650 with way less performance even just with a $10 difference!😶
It got the biggest upgrade from it's base card and the smallest price hike of any super card, my 2060S was £50/$50 for an extra 11% where a tenner got you 54% more with the 1650S. A rare occasion of Nvidia actually doing something good for gamers.
That's effen crazy. It feels like yesterday I was still using my gtx470 with 1.5 gigs or vram. Now 4 gigs is going obsolete. I'm so glad I only play ARK.
Crazy to think people just refuse to upgrade their graphics card at $200 and try to play new games with their last gen card like this. That’s like sacrificing the price of 3 AAA games but you get to play rest of the games much better. When games are 100 hours long it’s impossible to play every new AAA game anyway
I had a 1650S and it served me very well. If you're tolerant of low fps and settings it's a safe enough purchase if you're willing to play mostly older games but just a little bit of modern/AAA games and it should be mostly fine. I'd agree overall with the 1070 recommendation but TBF a lot of people considering a card like this probably have small systems and my old 1070 is massive, as I suspect many others are. Another problem I think though, is that (at least here in the USA) the 1660 and it's variants often sell for similar prices on eBay. And you get a fair bump in performance and 6gb of vram instead of 4. A 1660S would be a great followup to see the difference you get compared to this one. Great vid!
Well, there's a ton of old games that will run and work just fine on that! Play some classics like L4D2, Dragon Age Origins, Black Ops 1, etc. Or some modern indie or niche games like Hades or Trails of series.
Anyone planning to buy a GPU with only 4GB today probably went hiking and got lost for a few years prior to the purchase. The best bang for their buck on a tight budget would be the RX 5500XT.
Honestly I think AMD puts way more than necessary and Nvidia puts way less than they need, AMD's 6700 XT has 12gb of VRAM whilst the 3070 has much more performance for 4gb of VRAM less. If the 3070 had 10-12gb of VRAM, it would be one the most used cards on the market.
Im pushing my msi 1650 as hard as I possibly can. Overclocking on every component to the max, no services in the background, extreme scaling optimizations... And its hinestly still pleasant. 1080p medium-high 60fps is still doable, and VR is honestly quite doable through virtual desktop and such.
This my was first working gpu I put in my system that had a 3200g. It served me well. Upgraded that 3200 to a 1600 then to a 5800x3d. 1650 super to 6800
I was typing this eloquent comment about the 1070 just as you suggest it and now I've wasted my time and my weekend is ruined. Really though, I feel like the pricing is too close to the 1660S/Ti to be a viable option. Hell, you might even be able to swing a 1080 for 1660S/Ti money as well.
I've been watching a decent amount of your videos. I really like your content reviewing these old and modern GPUs! Your video about the 3070 really helped me figure out how mine is gonna run - albeit, my new pc's probably gonna run a bit faster considering it's got a i5 13600kf and ddr5 ram. Still, your video really helped! Thanks for being a good lad :)
Not only less optimised, but they are using more intensive effects that does not improve graphics that much with extremely demanding graphics computing
EDIT: System specs are Ryzen 7 3700x 16gb ddr4 3200 mhz Rx 470 4gb @ 1400mhz Asus prime b350 Im in the final week of using my rx 470 4gb. Buying a rx 7800xt to replace it. Ive got a overclock on it putting the gpu clock at 1400mhz. I get around 120-140 fps in apex legends at competitive settings 1080p . Managed to get above 60 on mw 2 with fsr enabled. Glad to say its served me well and will certainly still be used in my emulation rig.
I had the 4gb version of the RX580 for years, and i decided to upgrade to a rx6600xt so i could run elden ring at 60fps. I probably wouldn't have kept it much longer anyways because doom eternal would sometimes struggle and dip to the 40s even on low settings. If i cant hit 60fps on medium/low at 1080p, its time for a new card
I have a 1650 super and I will say it can still run some games pretty well. I have an enjoyable experience on rdr2 despite 4gb vram. Can’t exactly play the newest games but I do all I want to with competitive games!
i had a gtx 1650 super, i regretted it the moment i bought it when i saw that 4gb do not perform at all in 1080p, i currently have a rtx 3060 12gb, i am super happy with my purchase, do NOT buy 1000 or 1650 series graphics. Above 8gb of vram is acceptable.
4GB will be more than enough for years and years to come...people still use 1 GB to play modern games , maybe the cards are weak on the speed but the vram is never an issue
As someone who just bought a 1650 Super from an RX 480, going from 8gb to 4gb was definitely a down grade in that regard but the 1650S does still hold up quite nicely on other games and even does VR not too bad (H3VR was played). I likely wouldve stayed with the RX 480 but it had been giving me issues for quite some some and the 1650S stays under 60C even under the heaviest loads I throw at it. (I got mine on FB marketplace for 100$ and basically new)
The 1650 series and the super are great all around GPU's I bought my 1650 super Tuf right before the Graphics mining price hike and inflated scarcity. The Asus tuf 1650 super continues to surprise me, I recently bought a vanilla 1650 DDR6 to replace an aging GT1030 for my Media Center PC. Thanks for the review Iceberg! Cheers!
RX 6400 is also one of the best options for extremely low profile situations (Optiplex upgrades, etc), mostly because the only competition is nearly as expensive, offers less performance, and has extremely low availability.
I bought one for 70 dollar. It has still 1 more year guarantee, and its great. Im not really a gamer, and with right settings Im able to play Gow in high settings between 40-60 fps. (I have 60fps limit to not push the GPU because thats how high my monitor supports.) It does everything I ask for. So if you want to play online games, or anything in 1080p medium its really good.
Heck, four gig of memory and a quad-core is not enough to watch you tube these days. And that's with a clean install of Windows 11. I had to add four more gigs to the PC and a GT740, not sure if the GPU 'helps or hurts' the system. This is an i3-7100 CPU @ 3.90GHz for those who are curious.
That's weird to see how bad 1060-6Gb performs today. As I remember, GTX1650sup had a +/- similar performance with that card at launch... GTX1650super was a good option only for a new cheap PC builds at that day, because market was flooded with a used cards from mining wave and had a way more better offers there, than a 1650s. Never own a gtx1650sup, but had a gtx1050ti and rx580-4gb. Yeah, 4Gb became uncomfortable amount of vram somewhere in 2021-2022. Since AMD and Nvidia produces only "8Gb and above" cards nowadays, looks like 8Gb is a bare minimum amount for 2024+. Next one cards that will get status "almost obsolete" would be RX5600XT and GTX1660's/2060 for sure.
I bought one recently for my brother in law PC, paired with an i5-2500. It consumes very little power, and is not too expensive in Europe. I know it's not powerful enough to run games, but for an everyday PC, it is okay
As a 1650 user, it really is the VRAM. Im almost certain the 1650(even non super) would get a great boost if they were 6gb or even 8. But for a 3/4 year old card now the 16 series is surprising
8GB would help but it's a rather slow card one way or another. I mean it's barely faster than the Series S GPU which is basically only for playing FIFA lol
![MISSING: SLIM SHADY [Expanded Mourner’s Edition Trailer]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/xh8qgHrOO1g/mqdefault.jpg)
Iceberg deep in his bag that TLOP to RE4 transition was cold 💯
ifkr, literally came to look for this comment.💯
@@_ZeroTheTyrant_ when i saw that shit, i was like "dayum, iceberg defo a bad man"
The life of Pierre ?
@@jdwbcrthat’s what I thought when I saw this comment 😂😂
TLOU*
As someone who is using a mobile 3050, 4GBs of VRAM is DEFINITELY too little nowadays. It was genuinely the biggest bottleneck when I played RE4 Remake.
i came from a laptop 3050 as well, it was even struggling running older games on medium settings. it is definitely rough
Same I have a 3050m and it STRUGGLES purely cos of vram, the card itself has good performance
@@xdtyfails6497 I specially realized how little it is when I built a friend's PC with an AMD GPU with 10GBs of VRAM and he booted up COD WW2 at max settings. In the game I could see the VRAM usage, only being 4GBs, and I then realized that's only 40% for him. I'm struggling to run most modern games due to my vram meanwhile for his gpu that's less than half. That's insane.
3050 laptop were tr4sh, I always told people to avoid them, at least 4050 are coming with 6G... Still low
Well, to be fair the 3050 mobile performs about the same as a desktop 1650 (depending on its TDP of course, since some laptops can have a lower TDP/less capable variant, same goes for the mobile-only 3050ti). Speaking of the Ti variant, even under the best conditions it performs between a desktop RX 580 and 1650S. Nvidia really screwed entry level laptop users with those cards. Even the new 4050 mobile finds itself around the desktop 1660S & 1660ti (which is hardly even that large of a gap to begin with). You’d think with the crazy good power efficiency of the 40 series that a lower tier card with a low TDP would perform closer to older/more capable desktop cards that the rest of the 40 series on desktop wipe the floor with.
Looks over at my 3gb 1060. Its still good, its still good.
keep on strivin.. old friend :)
For games - it is. For new "whatsoever" nothing is good.
@@manitoba-op4jxthats good for you. but for anyone even thinking of playing some aaa game, it wont
Sitting with my 3GB R9 280... "You're still valid, little buddy!"😅
Playing cyberpunk on my 1060 3gb. Maybe if they made a game worth upgrading for I'd reconsider The only sad experience I had with it was Squad, that game straight up has no graphics at 3gb VRAM. Other than that all the good games are from the 2013-2016 era anyway. Oh and Cyberpunk adding FSR made my experience go from playable to decent. Bless the upscaling tech integration
Part of the problem for 4GB cards I feel is that developers aren't really doing Low, Medium, and High settings but are instead relying on tech like FSR to achieve the same goal.
@@nathaniel1207 4GB has had its day, on that we can agree and there's a reason for that. I just recently finally retired my GTX 970 after 8 years of service in favour of a RX580 2048SP in my Media/Office PC, where previously it had been replaced by a RTX 3060 12GB in my gaming PC.
But it holds true that when you used to pick between Low, Medium, and High the difference was obvious. Now it's getting to pixel peeping because they need to "maintain their artistic vision" with upscaling picking up where previously they actually put effort into the lower settings.
If they aren't going to make the low settings actually make a difference then why are they there at all. Just have an upscaling setting and be done with it.
Ngl, it just seems like we're at that era of switching hardware, 2 yrs ago it was decent to have a 4gigs vram gpu and now 2023 games NEED 8GB vram minimum.. Gotta wait 3 yrs for the next entry level gpus to have 8 to 12 gb of vram
@@yourlocalinternetuser6725 Sir, the cheapest cards have 8gb now, and you can get 8gb cards for less than $100. its not really an issue now.
@@nathaniel1207 I don't agree with this mentality.
I think games should be more scalable.
I get a new game needing more than 4 or even 8GB to show you the whole goodies and the nice graphics but i settings should be able to scale so a person can lower settings and get actually lower demands on GPU performance.
If the gamer is willing to compromise and not have great visuals for some ability to play why not offer it?
Right now you put a game at low settings and you look around to see if it is different than high so of course it is still going to need almost the same VRAM and performance from the GPU as it was from high instead of really going at lower tiers.
It seems to me they do this because they simply don't want to put the work of creating such scalable settings.
What Nvidia or any other hardware manufacturer has put out on the market is irrelevant to this.
Just because Nvidia released some 8GB lower tier card doesn't mean that developers have to now make every game not scale down to needing anything less than 8GB.
@SIPEROTH The issue with that line of thinking, is that its not just Nvidia, AMD or game devs. its industry trends in motion, ones that have been present for over 10 years. 2gb cards lasted 4 years before 4gb cards became the minimum on new cards. those lasted 5 years before 8gb has become the minimum on new cards. now that consoles have had 8gb or more since the PS4 and XB1, and a majority of the PC market has 8gb of VRAM or more (Oct 2023 steam hardware survey), Game devs dont want to spend more time and money to try to cater to gamers who stubbornly cling onto obsolete GPU's. 8gb has become the minimum, and makes up the majority of both the console and PC market. Spending time on scalable settings and supporting older 4gb and 6gb GPU's is just not worth it, and its not hard to see why when you look at industry trends in the PC DYI market, and the console space.
And if you still have a 4gb card, like a gtx 1650 or super variant, i'd reccomend the RX 6600 from AMD, they're $150 USD in the US, or if thats still too much, the GTX 1070 is a great option which packs 8gb of VRAM for less than $100 USD.
That transition at 3:48 was perhaps the cleanest edit I've seen from a gaming channel all year!!
The transition from the last of us to re4 was so satisfying .
yes 3:49
As a user of a gtx 960 to this day gotta say that i still remember the days when 4gb of Vram was all you really need so this video was kind of a nostalgic experience :P
On another note i would like to see a review on the arc a380 to see if it can be a good budget option!
Awesome video as always!
Why are you wasting money here if you could invest in a gpu, no offense just asking tho, and very generous of you to donate to the video creator, massive W
@@VideoBee_YT100 argentinian pesos is like 25 cents
@@charlotteritchie9969 it's less money everyday passing by. Also beacuse the government doesn't like the citizens spending money that superchat in reality was 200 pesos beacuse believe it or not we have 100% tax on this kind of purchase :)
@@VideoBee_YT gotta be honest i can't put my words without making an aggressive sounding response so i just going go to say for the games i play it's enough for me. I could extend my response more but i guess is going to be really boring
@@TheDrTopo Your new president seems to be more capitalist so hopefully he will relax those taxes a little and try to get the free market going.
It's incredible how well the 1070 and 1080 still hold up
Is'n it funny how 8gb is dead according to this channel but 4gb still about to die...
Pascal cards are awful in Alan Wake 2
Pascal GPU’s are dead in new modern games.
My 1070ti Strix is still kicking. They get a bad rap usually from people that just got off their consoles year ago and are suddenly PC masters with their reddit knowledge.
@@ZackSNetworknope
Maybe because I'm an older pc gamer, but all these "scares" of 2023 remind me of previous changes to gaming architecture. This has happened before when we went from the x360 to xbone era, and it's even happened before then. I remember when people were calling over 4gb of ram "unoptimized" and multi core a waste of time. Things will settle down a bit, and we'll have a 1060 or 1080 successor carrying builds for years to come again.
True - before cuda cores 128mb was enough and 256mb was overkill - then gt 8800 has 512mb but gt 9800 has variant with 1gb. 480/580 has 1.5gb, 680-2gb, 780-3gb, 980 4b - and then dx12 appear - 1080 8gb, 2080 8gb, 3080 10gb and then UE5 appear - 4080 16gb. Same with Radeon/AMD.
@@AfridonDeaddarkactually before Titan, Nvidia is known to give smalller VRAM. Remember GTX 970 controversy? It's stated 4 GB but it's only use 3.5 GB
What about now. Does the 1650 super stand the test of time? Who wants to test ark asa for me lol😂
3:50 damn that transition
I would love to see how you would test Alan Wake against all the used GPUs you have. Especially with the whole "Mesh-shader" issue
I was talking to someone IRL who tried this and said Alan Wake 2 wouldn't load on their 1650. Another person, who I don't know online said 1080 low was single digit frame rates and crashed. No idea if everyone who has a 1650 will experience this.
true that, ive heard Mesh Shaders were related to nanites
@@baroncalamityplus1650 does support mesh shaders so it might even perform better than a 1080 still not playable fps though i assume
The 2060 struggles in Alan Wake on minimum settings, very low chance the 1650 does anything remarkable other than refusing to launch the game.
I recently finished AW2 with a 1650S, I only had streaming texture issues. I don't recommend playing it with a card less than 6GB, some puzzles were almost impossible to complete due to low quality texture, and it was frustrating walking (at mid/late game) in some areas with low LOD terrain
Buying a gaming laptop with a 3050/3050TI mobile which has 4GB of VRAM was a mistake that I gladly avoided when going with an Acer Nitro equipped with a 3060 mobile that has 6GB of VRAM.
The only thing that I am salty about is that I didn't wait for 4000 series laptops to get to my price range because having a laptop with a 4050 is much better. Why? Frame generation.
@@cebul9267 I've already forseen this back when I know NVIDIA shaved off the VRAM capacity of their mobile GPUs.
It's not worth waiting because there's always better stuff around the corner, meanwhile you already have a gaming machine
I did this, fortunately the games I play are either to cpu bound or 3050 just doesn’t have enough muscle to even use that much v raw
@@cebul9267If you play games that don't support FG, the 3060 is probably much better.
I upgraded from a 1650 laptop to a 3060 laptop. Upgrading to a 3050 isn't worth it, it's basically like upgrading to a 1660 laptop, but without getting more VRAM.
Btw, the 4050 isn't better than the 3060 in raw power anyways.
Pretty optimistic thinking there will be a 'next 150$ graphics card' from Nvidia. At best, they keep something like the rtx 3050 in production for a long ass time and eventually drop its price down to 150$.
Guess you're a kind of 'glass half empty' guy, although in all fairness you are likely right.
$150 is the 2027 pricing for the 3050. Your clue should be the fact there is no 4050 and never will be...
I wish they'd revive the xx30 series. I know people say "just get an APU" but sometimes you want a separate GPU
Are they trying to make gaming a high end hobby or something? Teenage me could never afford to build anything decent today even with saving up all them summers...
@@jonleibow3604indeed or RX6400 should have been more decent although it equals rx570 so it ain't that bad
Nice video, I'm a 1650S user right now, I'm quite happy with all the performance the card is giving. I recently finished Alan Wake 2 at low setting 1080p FRS Balance, the only problem was it had streaming texture issue, due to lack of VRAM (also, the card seems to support Mesh shaders)
Just buy a new card
@@TheRealCatofnot everyone has deep pockets
@@TheRealCatof Ohh if you are homeless, just buy a house shit again :D
@@TheRealCatof people like you are the reason people hate pc gaming/techies some people can’t drop a stack on the best hardware, as long as the game can run 60+ fps it’s just fine some people are even ok with 30
@@Voidlingg even to me that only have work laptop and play for 15 fps still okay
get 30 is good
get 60 is good
get 120+ is thanks for god
It's worth mentioning low GPU VRAM can increase load times in games as the engine can't load assets. I tried playing Rust with a 1GB GPU and it took 15 minutes to join a game even with an SSD
Bought a laptop with a gtx 950m 4gb in 2016. Finally upgraded this year, but that held its own until recently. It's only the last year or two where new games were completely unplayable, but I had been having to make compromises for a playable experience for a while. The extra vram (I believe standard 950s were 2gb) helped that card stay in as long as it could. Running an RX 6800 now, so really feeling the upgrade
Gotham Knights will actually run on 4GB vram, and can run on GCN 1 (which can run DX12, but only at feature-level 11.1). I was very surprised.
the transition from the last of us to re4 hits hard 🗣️
4GB cards were gamers saving grace during the last crypto boom. ETH miners could no longer use them since the page file was >4GB
You could still find 4GB 570/580s, R9 furys, 1050 TIs, Gtx 970s and 980s for prices that were still reasonable and close to their MSRP.
Let us all take a moment to appreciate these cards for getting us through some tough years with very respectable performance.
This kinda is the reason I bought a 1060 6G Laptop when I needed to work 3D on the go, I needed bigger VRAM and it was cheap, 2060 laptops where almost double the price for same VRAM, and that's also the reason that laptop still can offer a lot of game, I even got some decent 4K gaming with FSR 2 (1080 to 4K) and believe me it looks brutal
Still have to upgrade my desktop rig, bought 5600XT 6G when it launched and my man, that's still a beast of a card, but VRAM is it's biggest weakness. If it was at least 8GB I wouldn't be thinking of upgrading at all, the chip is still as powerful as a 3060
4gb vram was the reason for me to pick used gtx 1660ti laptop, I could go for rtx 2060 but a couple of frames weren't worth of 25-30 bucks, my budget was too tight and here in Ukraine as a student you can live a whole week for these money, and I'm really happy with my laptop, re4 on high goes 50+ fps
Rocking my 2Gb card 🗿
I just retired my PowerColor RX 580 4GB the other week for a 2070 Super.
It did its job well enough throughout the years. 60 FPS with tweaked settings on 1080p was acceptable most times, albeit a bit jarring on a 144hz display without VRR.
Either way, 580/1060 did their jobs exceptionally well imo
Yeah it's a real shame that AMD have killed driver support for the 400/500 series the 8GB cards especially have life left in them
@@Al3ksandrOrlov I mean those GPU's are very old to be sure. I wish they could just lower the prices on the 7600/7600 XT once and for all.
i love you dude, its great that you are a voice of reason in the tech space that doesnt hype up hardware and always builds pcs with 4090s and 300 core ryzen chips, luv ya
The GTX 1660 Super is next on the list. It's can run most modern games on the "graphically enjoyably" borderline. Definitely have to tweak the in game settings to get the results you want. After that is likely the 2070 then then 3060ti but that's maybe 2 years down the road.
I just moved from this to a 5700xt, which has been a nice jump but this card served me well
5700xt gang
I mean if you're fine with 30~40fps on medium-ish settings (with most new games), i think it's still okay. Just manage your expectation of course
At the end of the day if you ignore those few new AAA games it struggles with it'll still play thousands and thousands of games very well. Personally I don't buy games at launch anyway, I want them to be programmed properly and cheaper first. I'll worry about what I can't run when I upgrade my card (2060S) in a year or two when something compelling for the cash is available.
@@darthwiizius ayyyee we have the same card! I also plan on upgrading soon to either a used 6700xt or a new 4060 (i know, i know, but i do love turning on RT. I have RT on for the witcher 3 with my 2060S and playing at a locked 30 fps with dlss quality, looks amazing). But yeah, unless you're an fps snob like other channels (ahem steve from HUB) the 1650S and other cards with the same performance is still capable
@@bluengold3443
Yeah and as my card struggles I'll just go through my backlog for a bit, I got a lot of games to catch up on plus I want to play my RE games in canonical order, recently got cheap copies of RE1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 (Dammit CAPCOM remaster Code Veronica FFS, it's the true RE3 canonically). Plus I picked up the Bandai Humble and I have all of the free EPIC giveaway games, there's a few in there to play through. I do love RT on Control BTW and I will be using it on RE 2&3 remakes.
@@darthwiiziusYeah exactly, I'm not going to buy a 70€ game if I have a sub-200€ GPU from 2020 😂😂😂 I have a blast playing older games anyways. Currently playing The Witcher 2, Forza Horizon 5 and even Pokémon White on the emulator 😁😁
It is already over. 3 games in the last quarter won't play well for me. Starfield, Alan Wake 2 and Baldur's Gate 3rd act. Now I know two of three have had some issues, but in all honesty, even without the patches/fixes it shows the end for 4GB and under cards. My GTX 980 is about to finally rest.
Great video!
I'm very fond of the 1650 Super. I have several of them I got when a local graphic design/vinyl shop closed. They bought five HP desktops with i3 10100 CPUs and 1650 Supers. I was able to snag all five systems for $225 each. I have since repurposed one for an NVR for my security cameras, one for an emulation arcade cabinet, one for a backup Plex server (for when my Unraid server is down for maintenance or upgrades) and one for my mom. And then one just sitting there for parts if one of the others dies. They work incredibly well for each one of those uses. The 1650 Super and 10100 run everything I want to emulate all the way up to the Nintendo Switch. The 1650 Super is a great little card for many things. But modern gaming isn't one of them. Especially at the quality I want. But I'm lucky enough to have a gaming PC with a 7950x3d and 4090 for that.
bro i had a 1060 3GB 💀 glad i went with a RX 5700XT. im also hearing 1440P monitors are more beneficial for upscaling, but i had a good experience with FSR on Dyinglight 2 with a 1060
Back then, 512MB GDDR3 Graphic Card like 9800GTX / 9800GTX+ or AMD HD 3870 can run Crysis 1920x1200 (yeah, 16:10 resolution are common in 2005-2010)
Today, even 8 GB card are "trash" not because nowadays AAA game have so realistic texture, but developer are getting lazy so they just put "RAW TEXTURE FILES" on their games, no wonder why many game today have like 100GB+ size, ironically some of those 100GB+ games are "Multiplayer only game" with less than 10 maps and every map are as small as 10km2
Me before finding this channel: I should make a youtube channel about aging graphics cards
Me now: Well how the hell could you beat this!
3:47 that transition from TLOU to Resident Evil was nice.
Id say the worst case of a gpu being bottlenecked by 4gb of vram is the rtx 3050 ti laptop in raw power the 80w version is similar to a gtx 1660 desktop but its much slower in many games because of 4gb while the 1660 has 6gb. Also 3050 ti has raytracing but its literally useless because it requires a lot of vram to run
Ik it's useless I have one
The RX 6500 XT seems to also be very bottlenecked by it judging by the few benches of the rare 8gb variant which seem to work drastically better in several games.
"If it can't play on ultra it's trash!" dear lord i hope I never meet someone that privileged
Forza horizon is such a testament to how optimization can be
Any plans to start inlcuding The Talos Principle 2 in your benchmark suite? Its a new unreal engine game which looks very pretty! But performance wise atleast in the demo was acceptable if you have a modern cpu to prevent the stutters
I still use the GTX 980 in my secondary system pretty good card
what is saving the card is the ability to use shared ram although you take a performance hit. Nvidia's Drivers will default 20gb as shared unless you change it in the control panel
its been over for years 8GB is minimum and 12-32GB is recommended
Better an 128 GB.
1650super was my first gpu during crypto mining mess, RX 6500XT that just released back then gone up to 250 usd, while i can buy 1650 Super with my company discount for less than 180. Had to say that was no brainer. Sold if after the mining crash and bought used 6800XT. But im gonna miss this little guy alot.
I haven’t really found the need to upgrade my 1650S, considering I almost exclusively play esports and older titles.
3:50 nice transition.
Yeah.... I were finding this comment
Yeah we have reached a time where the average vram needs in gaming have moved forward again... No matter the settings, Even base graphic level of games are eating more than 4G at least.. And even 6GB in some games (which is crazy). If you are gamer but don't just play older titles or weaker games, 4GB really isn't enough anymore.. And 6GB is the bare minimum you should rock with (even then you will still find yourself hitting a ceiling along the way).
If you enjoyed the tone and abstract plotting of Control I think you'll probably enjoy Alan Wake II. It's like a mix between RE4 Remake and Control with a big ol' scoop of True Detective. It's one of my favourite games of the year and if you have a 3070 like I seem to recall you do, you should be able to play it at decent settings and performance.
I'll take a remake of an old game over a walking sim any day.
I cant enjoy it if it cant run properly on any gpus 😂
4 years ago I got my first ever PC capable of gaming, it had a 1660 super 6GB. I switched to the rx 7800xt after I noticed that playing new games on ultra yielded below 60 fps. Gotta say, the experience did not scale with VRAM. I think the main issue with modern titles is that developers do not care for optimizations anymore since they are too spoiled with the new cards.
my 1660 super handled Cyberpunk at launch with highest settings (no RT obviously) with a solid 60+ fps with minimal bugs (I got that system because it fullfiled the minimal specs back then) Everyone feels entitled, prices are through the roof and games just suck now. Imma go play some half life now. Bye
omg i wasn't expecting that sexy transition here in 3:45 lol
The troopers with the 960 have earned my respect many time already, they have earned it once more
Please do the 1660 Ti next ! It's a very affordable 6GB card.
its 15% better in every game. plain simple.
Vanilla 1650 laptop user here, RE4 with the right adjusts can run pretty well, I manage to play with high 1 GB textures and many other effects and things on medium/high and can average 60 to 70 in many areas, mainly the castle.
Hoping to get fsr3 for 1650 mobile so we can play GTA 6. If fsr 3 doesn't support 1650 then it's time to upgrade. New released games aren't good any more with 1650 and i can't play 720p as it makes me fell like the game us 15 years old
Lmao same playing it rn and it runs really well, atleast I am glad most of the games I am interested in that come out these days most of the time I can run fine, like I am not really interested in games like alan wake 2 or bg3, only 2023 game I played so far is re4 remake and lad gaiden both of which ran pretty well and I also have a very long backlog of old games so nothing really to worry about for me.
Can confirm my 1650 is kinda losing the ability tonplay triple a titles even at min 1080p
I also have a GTX 1650 Super on my second PC, and I must say that with an i5 9400f.. it goes very well in many games
Well shit, I bought a 1650 this year.
Though, it was like half of the retail price and light used while still coming with the box.
Let's see how long it holds up. I think the budget build office PC will be the first roadblock and is kind of already, but it is fine for what I do.
Why that low end GPU?
I still have fun with my 4GB gtx 1050 ti sc. No where near what my rx 6800 can do, but what it can still do is surprising!
I have one 1050ti too and can say the same. I mainly play older games or not so demading ones, so it's all good.
It was basically a 4 GB RX580/RX590, using less power.
I haven't seen much in terms of reviews or versus of this card, which is kind of a shame.
Granted, I don't need one anymore, but I seriously considered it to replace my RX590, when the electricity prices soared last year.
It would be cool if you could look at the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT, which is the newest and (maybe) the last 4GB card we might get. Because it would be an interesting topic as the 6500 XT is very new and has (almost) the latest architecture at the time posting this comment as right now RX 7000 and RTX 40 series is the latest generation and RX 6000 series / RTX 30 series isn't that outdated. Also honorable mention :- The Radeon RX 6400 is finally a contender to the GT 1030 in terms of no power connector, cheap, low profile GPU to upgrade an old Optiplex or something of that sort from its integrated graphics or an old shit Quadro/FirePro.
My R9 380 (4GB) lasted for years in my Gaming rig and is now in my HTPC, RTX 3070 (8GB) is doing OK for 4K older games and 1440p modern titles.
as a previous 1650 super owner i remember running games very smoothly, now that my sister has gotten a pc i gave her my old gpu for free and somehow it runs the same mc shader i ran at 80fps it now runs it at 20 for her. Newer shader version ofc
I wonder how the 1050 ti stands today. I remember it being the card to get for budget builds, and its kind of just dissapeared from them
I'm still using my 1050ti to this very day, and I'm also curious to see how (or if) it holds up to some degree.
1050ti came out almost 10 years ago
@@TheRealCatof no 7 years ago
I know Maxwell is a bit long in the teeth by now, but the latest Nvidia driver supposedly addresses the unusually bad performance in Halo: Infinite on Maxwell GPUs so I think maybe a video on a performance comparison between the current and previous drivers might be interesting seeing as the game is in your benchmark suite, and I know there are still people on those GPUs.
Both Maxwell and Pascal are obsolete know.
@@ZackSNetwork And this channel regularly tests “obsolete” hardware so that’s a moot point. This isn’t LTT or GN here.
Man i love your vids bro so well made i wish i could edit like this
I get a vram warning every time i launch forza lol, I'm currently using a 3060 ti 8gb and running forza at 1440p ultra
Also this channel is a gem in the tech world, get this man more subscribers!
It was only a matter of time before 8gb vram became the new minimum since 4gb GPUs just can't keep up with the newer games now.
1650 SUPER was the best value for money GPU back in the day when it launched in late 2019, but still people bought the normal 1650 with way less performance even just with a $10 difference!😶
There are reasons, the regular 1650 had low profile models with no 6 pin requirement
@@sgky2k I wish they existed
It got the biggest upgrade from it's base card and the smallest price hike of any super card, my 2060S was £50/$50 for an extra 11% where a tenner got you 54% more with the 1650S. A rare occasion of Nvidia actually doing something good for gamers.
What are the settings Starfield was using? I'd like to test it against one of my systems that has an RX 6400.
That's effen crazy. It feels like yesterday I was still using my gtx470 with 1.5 gigs or vram. Now 4 gigs is going obsolete. I'm so glad I only play ARK.
Crazy to think people just refuse to upgrade their graphics card at $200 and try to play new games with their last gen card like this. That’s like sacrificing the price of 3 AAA games but you get to play rest of the games much better. When games are 100 hours long it’s impossible to play every new AAA game anyway
I had a 1650S and it served me very well. If you're tolerant of low fps and settings it's a safe enough purchase if you're willing to play mostly older games but just a little bit of modern/AAA games and it should be mostly fine.
I'd agree overall with the 1070 recommendation but TBF a lot of people considering a card like this probably have small systems and my old 1070 is massive, as I suspect many others are. Another problem I think though, is that (at least here in the USA) the 1660 and it's variants often sell for similar prices on eBay. And you get a fair bump in performance and 6gb of vram instead of 4. A 1660S would be a great followup to see the difference you get compared to this one.
Great vid!
I have a 1650(non S) and 8gb of 2666 ram.. send help pls
Well, there's a ton of old games that will run and work just fine on that! Play some classics like L4D2, Dragon Age Origins, Black Ops 1, etc. Or some modern indie or niche games like Hades or Trails of series.
Anyone planning to buy a GPU with only 4GB today probably went hiking and got lost for a few years prior to the purchase. The best bang for their buck on a tight budget would be the RX 5500XT.
Honestly I think AMD puts way more than necessary and Nvidia puts way less than they need, AMD's 6700 XT has 12gb of VRAM whilst the 3070 has much more performance for 4gb of VRAM less. If the 3070 had 10-12gb of VRAM, it would be one the most used cards on the market.
Im pushing my msi 1650 as hard as I possibly can. Overclocking on every component to the max, no services in the background, extreme scaling optimizations... And its hinestly still pleasant. 1080p medium-high 60fps is still doable, and VR is honestly quite doable through virtual desktop and such.
This my was first working gpu I put in my system that had a 3200g. It served me well. Upgraded that 3200 to a 1600 then to a 5800x3d. 1650 super to 6800
I was typing this eloquent comment about the 1070 just as you suggest it and now I've wasted my time and my weekend is ruined. Really though, I feel like the pricing is too close to the 1660S/Ti to be a viable option. Hell, you might even be able to swing a 1080 for 1660S/Ti money as well.
I've been watching a decent amount of your videos. I really like your content reviewing these old and modern GPUs!
Your video about the 3070 really helped me figure out how mine is gonna run - albeit, my new pc's probably gonna run a bit faster considering it's got a i5 13600kf and ddr5 ram.
Still, your video really helped! Thanks for being a good lad :)
As someone who used a mobile quadro m2200:
Its fiiiiine. The vram isnt the issue here.
Not only less optimised, but they are using more intensive effects that does not improve graphics that much with extremely demanding graphics computing
2018 nitro rx 480 8gb purchase was a good one, I knew even then. On a 5700xt now hoping I can stretch that at 1080p lmao
EDIT: System specs are
Ryzen 7 3700x
16gb ddr4 3200 mhz
Rx 470 4gb @ 1400mhz
Asus prime b350
Im in the final week of using my rx 470 4gb. Buying a rx 7800xt to replace it. Ive got a overclock on it putting the gpu clock at 1400mhz. I get around 120-140 fps in apex legends at competitive settings 1080p . Managed to get above 60 on mw 2 with fsr enabled. Glad to say its served me well and will certainly still be used in my emulation rig.
3:49 nice transition
I had the 4gb version of the RX580 for years, and i decided to upgrade to a rx6600xt so i could run elden ring at 60fps. I probably wouldn't have kept it much longer anyways because doom eternal would sometimes struggle and dip to the 40s even on low settings. If i cant hit 60fps on medium/low at 1080p, its time for a new card
You need to run the texture mod for Starfield it helps a lot on weaker cards 👺
The last of us for me at 1440p uses 17 gb or ram and 10gb vram.
It's funny how this card is now crushing even 1080Ti in Alan Wake 2
I have a 1650 super and I will say it can still run some games pretty well. I have an enjoyable experience on rdr2 despite 4gb vram. Can’t exactly play the newest games but I do all I want to with competitive games!
They are not dead yet, i think Indy games and low demanding or old games still ok for this kind of GPUs.
i had a gtx 1650 super, i regretted it the moment i bought it when i saw that 4gb do not perform at all in 1080p, i currently have a rtx 3060 12gb, i am super happy with my purchase, do NOT buy 1000 or 1650 series graphics. Above 8gb of vram is acceptable.
I bought it in early 2020, so far no complaint
4GB will be more than enough for years and years to come...people still use 1 GB to play modern games , maybe the cards are weak on the speed but the vram is never an issue
I don't have a GTX 1650 Super, but I have a RX5500XT 8GB, really wonder how it would preform compare to GTX 1650s
As someone who just bought a 1650 Super from an RX 480, going from 8gb to 4gb was definitely a down grade in that regard but the 1650S does still hold up quite nicely on other games and even does VR not too bad (H3VR was played). I likely wouldve stayed with the RX 480 but it had been giving me issues for quite some some and the 1650S stays under 60C even under the heaviest loads I throw at it. (I got mine on FB marketplace for 100$ and basically new)
The 1650 series and the super are great all around GPU's I bought my 1650 super Tuf right before the Graphics mining price hike and inflated scarcity. The Asus tuf 1650 super continues to surprise me, I recently bought a vanilla 1650 DDR6 to replace an aging GT1030 for my Media Center PC. Thanks for the review Iceberg! Cheers!
RX 6400 is also one of the best options for extremely low profile situations (Optiplex upgrades, etc), mostly because the only competition is nearly as expensive, offers less performance, and has extremely low availability.
I bought one for 70 dollar. It has still 1 more year guarantee, and its great. Im not really a gamer, and with right settings Im able to play Gow in high settings between 40-60 fps. (I have 60fps limit to not push the GPU because thats how high my monitor supports.) It does everything I ask for. So if you want to play online games, or anything in 1080p medium its really good.
Heck, four gig of memory and a quad-core is not enough to watch you tube these days. And that's with a clean install of Windows 11. I had to add four more gigs to the PC and a GT740, not sure if the GPU 'helps or hurts' the system. This is an i3-7100 CPU @ 3.90GHz for those who are curious.
still animating in blender with one right here
That's weird to see how bad 1060-6Gb performs today. As I remember, GTX1650sup had a +/- similar performance with that card at launch...
GTX1650super was a good option only for a new cheap PC builds at that day, because market was flooded with a used cards from mining wave and had a way more better offers there, than a 1650s. Never own a gtx1650sup, but had a gtx1050ti and rx580-4gb. Yeah, 4Gb became uncomfortable amount of vram somewhere in 2021-2022.
Since AMD and Nvidia produces only "8Gb and above" cards nowadays, looks like 8Gb is a bare minimum amount for 2024+. Next one cards that will get status "almost obsolete" would be RX5600XT and GTX1660's/2060 for sure.
I bought one recently for my brother in law PC, paired with an i5-2500. It consumes very little power, and is not too expensive in Europe. I know it's not powerful enough to run games, but for an everyday PC, it is okay
What? VRAM is being utilised nearly 75%-85%.
People are shocked the VRAM requirements are going up now that we are dropping crossgen games
Decent gpu in my opinion
it was decent
As a 1650 user, it really is the VRAM. Im almost certain the 1650(even non super) would get a great boost if they were 6gb or even 8. But for a 3/4 year old card now the 16 series is surprising
8GB would help but it's a rather slow card one way or another. I mean it's barely faster than the Series S GPU which is basically only for playing FIFA lol