Meet The ZOTAC GAMING GeForce GTX 1650 OC

In what's becoming a theme of the GTX 16-series, the GeForce GTX 1650 is once again a pure virtual launch, where NVIDIA is not going for any Founders Edition models and all cards are up to their add-in board partners. For today's review, we take a look at ZOTAC's GeForce GTX 1650 OC, a diminutive 2-slot single-fan card with reference base clockspeed and mildly overclocked boost clock. With a TDP of 75W, the card pulls all its power from the slot, with is typical for most GeForce GTX xx50 parts.

GeForce GTX 1650 Card Comparison
  GTX 1650
(Reference Specification)
ZOTAC GTX 1650 GAMING OC
Base Clock 1485MHz 1485MHz
Boost Clock 1665MHz 1695MHz
Memory Clock 8Gbps GDDR5 8Gbps GDDR5
VRAM 4GB 4GB
TDP 75W 75W
Length N/A 5.94"
Width N/A 2-Slot
Cooler Type N/A Open Air
Price $149 $149

At just under 6", the Zotac GTX 1650 OC is compact enough most builds. As the card pulls power only from the PCIe slot, it's a conventional fit for mITX and other SFF builds, or simply as a no-fuss drop-in replacement. In turn, the Zotac GTX 1650 OC's cooling solution is one they've used before with their other mini ITX cards, combining a 90mm fan and 'sunflower' heatsink. This also provides headroom for ZOTAC to put a modest boost increase of 30MHz.

 

The design/shroud and output situation is likewise similar. One DVI port, one HDMI 2.0b port, and one DisplayPort covers all bases, including potential HTPC use. Of course, partners can always decide on different configurations but the power/cost-sensitive entry-level range is essentially standardized. VirtualLink is naturally not included here for several reasons, and in perspective the 30W USB-C controller power budget for VirtualLink would be 40% of the overall 75W TDP.

For overclocking and tweaking, ZOTAC has their in-house Firestorm utility updated for Turing, including support for auto-OC scanning as part of Turing's GPU Boost 4 technology.

 
TU117: The Smallest Turing Gets Volta’s Video Encoder? The Test
POST A COMMENT

126 Comments

View All Comments

  • Znaak - Monday, May 6, 2019 - link

    The RX570 won't even draw that much power if you know how to undervolt it. Both cards I've used in builds undervolted without a decrease in performance. Same for my RX580, undervolted it without a loss of performance. Reply
  • timecop1818 - Sunday, May 5, 2019 - link

    Why does this shit still have a fucking DVI connector. Great card and I would totally buy it but I've got only DisplayPort monitors and guess what, this dumb piece of shit wastes half the bracket for a connector that has been dead for the last DECADE. Seriously who the fuck has a monitor with DVI? Last I saw this was on some Lenovo biz monitor that was still 4:3!

    WTB: GTX1650 with 2x DP, 1x USB-C and 0x or 1x HDMI
    Reply
  • mm0zct - Monday, May 6, 2019 - link

    I for one still have a high-resolution DVI monitor. I've got no good reason to replace my Dell U2711, it's 2560x1440 and can only be driven at that resolution by Displayport or Dual-link DVI. Since I have multiple systems, and there are two DVI inputs and only one displayport, it's useful if I can connect to it via DVI still. Displayport to dual-link DVI adapters are still ludicrously expensive, so they aren't an option. Since DVI is easilly passively adapted to HDMI it's not useless even if you don't want DVI, but you can't passivle adapt HDMI or DisplayPort to dual-link DVI. Around the time I got htis monitor there were also a few quite populat 2560x1440 options which were DVI only, with no displayport, so it's good that this card would still support them. Reply
  • PeachNCream - Monday, May 6, 2019 - link

    I do agree that DVI is a dead animal. DisplayPort is following suit though as the industry settles into HDMI so I think that's where we'll end up in a few years. Reply
  • Korguz - Monday, May 6, 2019 - link

    timecop1818 and PeachNCream ...
    you 2 are complaining about DVI being on a video card in 2019, and saying its a dead animal ?? what about putting VGA ports on a NEW monitor in 2019 ? when was the last time a vga port was on a new video card ??? IMO.. DVI is a lot more useful then VGA, and instead of VGA on a monitor.. add another hdmi, or display port... along with a single DVI port. timecop1818 vga has been dead for longer... and FYI.. all my monitors have DVI, and are in use :-) if the last monitor you saw was a 4:3 lenovo.. then you havent bought a new one.. or havent looked at a new monitor for a while...
    Reply
  • Xyler94 - Thursday, May 9, 2019 - link

    to be fair on the VGA front, you'd be very hard pressed to find a server with anything but a VGA port.

    Only consumer/gaming products aren't using VGA.
    Reply
  • Calista - Monday, May 13, 2019 - link

    DVI is far more common than DP. Far more common than HDMI on monitors. Besides, if looking at the offerings from Zotac and other they often have very similar cards with different output options. So you're free to pick the one you like. Reply
  • Znaak - Monday, May 6, 2019 - link

    There have been premium GTX 1650's announced with prices higher than stock RX580's!

    Sure the AMD card uses a lot of power, but performance wise it trounces the nVidia card.

    System builders will like this card simply for being fully slot powered, everyone consumer building a system is better of going for AMD. Better performace, better price and if you get the 8GB version more future proof for even low end gaming.
    Reply
  • sonny73n - Monday, May 6, 2019 - link

    Every time there a review of Nvidia gpu, AMD fans came crawling out of the woodwork. Just to set the record straight - I’m not an Nvidia fan nor AMD fan. While I agree with all of the commenters here about Nvidia pricing that this card should be around $120, I do not agree with most people’s perceptions of performance. You can talk about performance per dollar all day long but people like me sees efficiency as better in a whole. I don’t have this card or the RX 560 to compare but I do have a Zotac GTX 1060 GDDR5X 6GB (5 stars ratings) bought for $200 from Newegg last month and I have access to RX 590 8GB which is currently priced at $220 (the cheapest). I was going for the 590 but there were several reasons that held me back. First, all the cheap 590s (less than $250) had terrible reviews (mostly 3 out of 5 stars). Second, I don’t want a loud foot heater. Last but not least, I define performance based on efficiency. The RX 590 uses almost twice the power of the GTX 1060 but only is 17% faster. How can you call that a better performance? Obviously, AMD haven’t got their acts together. They need to come up with a better chip architecture and revamp everything. I had hopes for them but they fell me every time. Words from Lisa’s mouth are cheap. Until AMD can actually deliver, Nvidia will keep selling their gpus at whatever price they want. Reply
  • silverblue - Tuesday, May 7, 2019 - link

    I'm running The Division 2 on a marginally under-volted Nitro+ 590, and with a mixture of Ultra and some High settings at 1080p with a manually imposed frame cap of 75, I'm getting 60-75fps for a power consumption figure of 130-160W. The card is audible, but barely.

    It's just the one title, but I really doubt that the 1060 can deliver anywhere close to that level of performance, and certainly not at about half the power.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now