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

  • schujj07 - Friday, May 3, 2019 - link

    Pricing is even better right now for the RX570. The 4GB starts at $130 and the 8GB starts at $140, whereas the cheapest GTX 1650 is $150. Unless you need a sub 75W GPU, there is no reason at all to buy the 1650, not when you can get 10-20% better performance for $10-20 less cost. Reply
  • Death666Angel - Friday, May 3, 2019 - link

    Seems like it. Although I do know some people that run Dell/HP refurbs from years ago (Core i5-750 or i7-860, maybe a Sandybridge if they are lucky) and need the 75W graphics card. They all have GTX 750 still. This may be a card to replace that, since the rest still serves them fine.
    Otherwise, this is really kinda disappointing.
    I still rock a GTX 960 2GB (from my HTPC, it has to be small), since I sold my 1080 when I saw that I played only a few hours each month. But I won't be upgrading to this. I'd rather get a 580 8GB or save more and get a 2060 that can last me for several years. Oh well, guess someone will buy it. And it'll end up in tons of off-the-shelf PCs.
    Reply
  • SaturnusDK - Friday, May 3, 2019 - link

    They don't need a 75W graphics card on an old refurb PC. What they desperately need is to replace the PSU with a modern 80+ certified one. The PSU in those old OEM PCs is typically 220W-280W ones with 75% maximum efficiency. And probably not over 70% with a 75W graphics card. Anandtech have tests of old OEM PSUs that shows that.
    Replacing the PSU to a reasonably low cost modern 80+ one gets you at least 50% more power capacity, and they will generally be at or near 90% efficient in the 40-50% load sweet spot which they will be at in gaming with an RX570 for instance.
    So they can get a new PSU and an RX570 for the same price. Have at least 15% better performance, have a quieter and a more power efficient system for the same price as if they bought a 1650.
    At $150 literally no one should even consider buying this. If the price was in the $100-$110 it would be another matter. Maybe even ok at $120. But at $150 it makes no sense for anyone to buy.
    Reply
  • PeachNCream - Friday, May 3, 2019 - link

    The "with compromises" bit could also mean setting the resolution to 1600x900. Power and temps are okay for the performance offered. The typical Nvidia ego-induced, absent-competition Turing price premium isn't as terrible at the low end. However a ~30W replacement for the 1030 would be nice as it would likely fit on a half-height, single slot card. Reply
  • Flunk - Friday, May 3, 2019 - link

    The name of this card is pretty confusing. GTX 1650 being noticeably slower than a GTX 1060 despite being 590 numbers higher doesn't make much sense. Why didn't Nvidia keep their naming to one scheme (2000 series) instead of having the GTX 16XX cards with confusing names. Reply
  • serpretetsky - Friday, May 3, 2019 - link

    last two digits are the performance category, the more significant digits are the generation. It is strange that right now they basically have two generation numbers 1600 and 2000. But that 50 is slower than 60 is not too confusing (for me anyways). Different performance category. Reply
  • Death666Angel - Friday, May 3, 2019 - link

    That makes no sense. The 2060 is slower than the 1080 Ti, but it is 980 "numbers higher". A Core i3-8100 is slower than an i5 or i7 of an earlier generation (being some 500 to thousands of "numbers" higher).
    Don't get me wrong, Nvidia's naming scheme sucks. But not because of the reason you stated.
    Reply
  • guidryp - Friday, May 3, 2019 - link

    @DeathAngel. Not sure what your problem is. 80>70>60>50>30 etc...

    But that obviously only applies within a current generation. When you compare to an older generation then New x80 will be faster than old x80 and so on.

    It's about as logical as you can make it.
    Reply
  • serpretetsky - Friday, May 3, 2019 - link

    DeathAngel was replying to Flunk. Reply
  • sor - Friday, May 3, 2019 - link

    Of these low-mid cards, looks like the 1660 is where it's at. ~70% more cores and ~70% more performance for ~40% more money. I know, they need to have tiers, but as far as value goes it's the better bang for the buck if you can scrape together a bit more cash. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now