There’s a new entry-level graphics card from Nvidia, but you should stay away from it at all costs.
The high-end graphics cards made by Nvidia are well-known. You’ll have a great time with either an RTX 3090 Ti or an RTX 3060. But when you go to the lower end of things, it can get a little messier. It too is with the GeForce GTX 1630, the latest entry-level GPU from Nvidia.
Even though it’s a GPU you can probably afford, that doesn’t mean you should get one. Here are a few reasons why you shouldn’t buy the Nvidia GeForce GTX 1630.
Details on the Nvidia GeForce GTX 1630: What Does It Bring to the Table?
People have talked about the GTX 1630 for a long time. The RTX 3000 series, on the other hand, uses Nvidia’s Ampere architecture. The GTX 1630, on the other hand, uses the older Turing architecture. This is the same architecture that runs the Nvidia GTX 1650 and 1660 cards, as well as the older RTX 2000 range. Even though the 2000-series RTX cards had ray tracing, the 1600-series GTX cards didn’t, which made the launch of the GTX 1630 seem especially boring.
On paper, the GTX 1650 and the GTX 1630 seem to be the same. It uses the same amount of power, has the same architecture, and even has the same amount of VRAM. But when you look more closely, some things change. For example, a 128-bit memory bus is cut down to a 64-bit memory bus, which is a lot less. It indicates that the higher theoretical bandwidth drops from 192GB/s to 96GB/s, which is a big change. In contrast, the GTX 1050 Ti from 2016 and the GTX 1650 both have 128-bit memory buses.
One reason why AMD’s Radeon RX 6500 XT was thought to be so bad was that it had less memory bandwidth. Like the GTX 1630, it has a 64-bit memory bus, which is one reason why its gaming performance isn’t great.
But that’s not all. Also, there are less CUDA cores. The GTX 1650 had 896 cores, but the GTX 1630 only has 512 cores. Even Nvidia’s GT 1030 graphics card, which is known for being bad, had more CUDA cores, which is probably not a good thing.
In short, the performance of the GTX 1630 isn’t great. It’s so bad that it’s shocking.
Hardware The Times’ review of the GTX 1630’s performance isn’t good news for Nvidia. The card isn’t much better than the Radeon RX 560 and RX 550 from 2017. Also, AMD’s entry-level RX 6400 is 60 percent faster than Nvidia’s GTX 1630, and the RX 6500 XT is twice as fast as Nvidia’s new entry-level card. Reviewers already thought that the RX 6400 and the RX 6500 XT were bad GPUs, so the fact that Nvidia’s GTX 1630 is even worse is already impressive.
This presents a challenge for Nvidia since the price it is asking for the GTX 1630 is really comparable to the price that AMD is asking for the RX 6400. Because of this, the product that AMD is giving is clearly the better choice for those who have a spending limit of $150 and are seeking for a card that is suitable for beginners. It costs just $10 more than the GTX 1630, but it delivers performance that is far superior.
Steer clear of the GTX 1630 at all costs.
There is no justification for the GTX 1630 to even exist. It would help to supersede the entry-level GT 1030, and it seems like that’s the intended purpose going by the branding, if it weren’t for the fact that it’s a sub-$100 card for people who just want a video output for their PCs. If that were the case, then it would help to supersede the entry-level GT 1030. The GeForce GTX 1630, on the other hand, has a price tag that ranges from $150 to $200 and aims to compete with AMD’s Radeon RX 6400 and Radeon RX 6500 XT, but it falls short in every way.
If you have your heart set on a graphics processing unit (GPU) manufactured by Nvidia, you may want to consider setting aside a little bit extra money so that you can get an RTX 3050.
If you are looking for a new graphics card at the entry-level, you should steer clear of this particular model. Do not give your money to Nvidia at this time since it seems that all they are doing is clearing away their remaining supply of lower-quality Turing hardware!
For more updates and latest information visit Gizmotable.