The GTX 1050 Ti was probably one of the most famous Nvidia’s entry-level GPUs in the last couple of years, which is why I deduced it to run against their current-gen entry-level model – the GTX 1650 Super. That said, today we’re checking out who wins the GTX 1650 Super vs GTX 1050 Ti battle, aloguht the results are pretty much predictable.
You’re probably wondering why I didn’t compare it with the regular GTX 1650 series, since their MSRP launch price is even more similar to the GTX 1050 Ti, and the reason why I did it like this is because the GTX 1650 Super offers much better value for just slight price increase, it makes more sense to give that extra 10$ for more than a decent performance bump.
It’s safe to say that budget graphics card models are a pretty popular choice with users, before all on a count of their general price point, and one great example of that among such is the GTX 1050 Ti, which ended up grabbing users attention the most on my channel. That said, the lower price point doesn’t always mean good value. For example, back in the day, I’ve heard from a retailer that Nvidia was at the time selling models like the GT 710 and GT 730 the most… And those are… Well, basically so strong that they’re only good for outputting a video signal to the monitor, and that’s pretty much it. You can Forget 60 FPS 1080p gaming with new titles or anything remotely related to it. The GT 710 is actually still holding on, placed at number ten on the most sold graphics cars list on the Amazon. Albeit they aren’t making a lot of money on it since those are very low priced products, so the profit margins aren’t that good, but the point was that customers were not getting a product with a good price to performance ratio. Of course, there’s a reason why people are buying this GPU or other models like a bit new GT 1030, but if it’s not because you need a GPU this exact second to get your PC going for as cheap as possible, just to output a picture, it’s better that you just save a little bit of more money, in order to get something that will get you a better value. This is why I love doing content like this, in the hope that it will reach new users and help them decided their next purchase. I went a bit off track, but nevertheless, it’s good to have the whole backstory so to speak.
You’re probably wondering why I didn’t compare the regular GTX 1650 series with the GTX 1050 Ti, since their MSRP launch price even closer to each other, and the reason why I did it like this is because the GTX 1650 Super offers much better value for just slight price increase, it makes more sense to give that extra 10$ for more than a decent performance bump.
GTX 1050 Ti vs GTX 1650 Super specification comparison
Although it’s been three years between their launches, the generation gap is particularly minimal, one basically came after the other, Turing after Pascal, and that’s if you don’t count the enterprise only oriented Volta series, so it’s hard to expect any major difference on a count of the change in the GPU’s unless its something really, really revolutionary in question. So where does the new GTX 1650 Super get its added performance difference in comparison to the GTX 1050 Ti?
Well, putting them side by side, the GTX 1650 Super has 1280 CUDA Cores, while GTX 1050 Ti has 786, which is a difference of 512 CUDA cores, or roughly 67%. Remember this number for later on when we take a look at the benchmarking results. Obviously, with this increase, we also have more texture units, 80 vs 48, while the number of ROPs is the same. Another major difference comes from the implementation of GDDR6 video memory on the GTX 1650 Super, instead of the GDDR5 on the GTX 1050 Ti. Although the video memory size stayed the same between them, 4 GB, as well as the width of the memory bus, 128-bit, this change in GDDR technology bumped up the memory bandwidth to 192 GB/s, so that’s a memory data rate of 12 Gbps compared to the 7 Gbps, which is a decent bump. Specs-wise, this is as black and white GTX 1650 Super GTX 1050 Ti comparison that you can get.
So in conclusion, it’s not that you will be getting more on a count of the architecture being super new and super effective, although the name suggests otherwise, but rather because of the fact that you’re getting a more equipped GPU configuration, that being the larger amount of CUDA cores, in combination with also higher stock core clock frequency of the GPU. Of course that’s when you compare their official reference stock figures because this can differ from manufacturer to manufacturer and their factory overclock, but in this case, that’s not so important since we’re looking at the bigger picture here.
GTX 1650 Super vs GTX 1050 Ti – obvious winner
Again, before I show you the benchmarking results, if you have any question or other concerns about this card, feel free to leave your comment down below, and down there, in the description box to be precise, you can also find my setup which I used for testing this GPU out, but the core components are as power usual – Intel’s six-core Core i5 – 8600K CPU overclocked to 5,1 GHz and paired with 2 x 8GB of 3000 MHz DDR4 RAM.
Just a quick side note, I’ve only used 1080p resolution for my testing this time, since the GTX 1050 Ti can’t cope with 1440p resolution in newer titles and at high graphics settings, being it because of the video memory size or lack of raw power, as even the GTX 1650 Super barely manages to get by, let alone it. Of course, this doesn’t mean you can’t play at 1440p, you can, but with some compromises, but it’s better if you look at some of the more better optimized or other still popular and timeless titles. If you want to see how the GTX 1650 Super performs at 1440p, feel free to watch my review of it, I’ll put a link in the right top corner of this video.
Taking a closer look at the results, the performance increase that the GTX 1650 Super brings in is in most of the cases well above 50% compared to the GTX 1050 Ti, actually it’s in between that and 80% mark, with an average of 70% performance increase across 10 games which I used here, not counting in the Heaven benchmarks, making the newer card the obvious winner in this GTX 1050 Ti vs GTX 1650 Super battle. The more resolution intense benchmarks don’t see as much gain, like the Fire Strike Ultra which runs at 4K, but this was expected on a count of the lower video memory size and memory bandwidth capabilities.
Obviously, with having a larger CUDA core count and overall a more beefed up graphics card in basically every aspect of it, the power consumption will go up. The GTX 1650 Super pulls around 25-30W more compared to the GTX 1050 Ti in the worst-case scenario, that being the Furmark GPU stress test, while overall that’s around 130W instead of the 100-105W for the GTX 1050 Ti, which again goes to show why does the GTX 1650 Super deliver more performance. As for the temperatures, I don’t think there’s a point in commenting it since everything depends on the cooler setup, and this differs from manufacturer to manufacturer, but we can agree upon the fact that in general, the GTX 1650 Super will emit more heat on a count of the higher official TDP figures for its GPU, that being 100W instead of 75W with GTX 1050 Ti.
Price per frame by a third better
Having such a power consumption figure, the GTX 1650 Super and its non-Super brother will not have a version where they don’t need an additional PCI-express power connector, which is seen on some of the GTX 1050 Ti models, and sort of unless some of the manufacturers make a pretty under-powered and undervolted version of it, but I think that the performance jump wouldn’t be that impressive in that case.
Speaking of that power consumption, If we average in the FPS figures across all of those 10 games divide that number with the power consumption of the cards, you would get around 0,6 FPS per watt of power for the GTX 1650 Super, instead of the around 0,5 FPS per watt for GTX 1050 Ti, which makes the GTX 1650 Super a bit more efficient than it .
This in a way confirms the theory about this generation not having any major performance increase when it comes to the efficiency of the architecture, compared to its predecessor, as basically for the most part percentage-wise it corespondents to that new GPU hardware configuration and the increase in number of components on it, those being the added CUDA cores, which is achieved thanks to lowering down the manufacturing process from 14 nm to 12 nm, and that’s exactly what we get, a bit below 70% more CUDA cores gets us around 70% performance gain in comparison to the GTX 1050 Ti, which is why I told you to remember that percentage number at the begging of the video, backed up with higher GPU clock and GDDR6 video memory, which gives it that edge in efficiency and a little bit of extra performance.
But, this topic is not important, or to say it’s not what we came for, because as buyers of graphics cards, especially models that are in this budget segment, we always search for a value deal, the bottom line so to speak. With that said, if we do the same math as we did with the performance per watt calculation, but using their MSRP launch price instead power consumption, and those are basically the same, 140-150$ for the GTX 1050 Ti at the time, and 160$ for the GTX 1650 Super, the price per frame for it is just a bit below 2$ (1,95$), instead of around 3$ (2,93$) for he GTX 1050 Ti, proving that this generation makes even more sense value-wise, as you’re paying around 30% less per frame.
In conclusion, you will get substantially more performance for basically the same amount of money, just like you can today for the same amount of money get a double or triple the capacity of an SSD drive, compared to two or three years ago. That sounds like a pretty good deal if you ask me everything considered, especially for gamers who are on the budget.
That’s it for this time, I hope this GTX 1650 Super vs GTX 1050 Ti comparison help you in making your final decision, if you have any question feel free to hit me in the comments section of my YouTube video listed above, you can contact me via my social media channels!