The GTX 1630 was capable of just 32 fps on average making the GTX 1050 Ti 22% faster, while the RX 6400 was an absurd 88% faster using PCIe 3.0. Moving on to Resident Evil Village, we tested using the ‘balanced’ quality preset which is a medium-type option. The GTX 1630 did fall short of the GTX 1050 Ti and was slower than the ancient technology that is the Radeon RX 570. Still a weak result overall, but decent relative to the Radeon competition, which is very weak. Interestingly, the GTX 1630 actually performed “okay” in Doom Eternal, spitting about 57 fps on average. The Far Cry 6 performance was weak as you might expect, though it did at least match the GTX 1050 Ti and that meant the RX 6400 was at least 38% faster, or 81% faster when using PCIe 4.0. Shockingly, the GTX 1050 Ti was 31% faster while the RX 6400 using PCIe 3.0 was an insane 66% faster. Horizon Zero Dawn is rather memory intensive and as a result the GTX 1630 falls off a cliff, or more of an anthill really as it never had far to fall to begin with. It’s also worth noting that the GTX 1050 Ti was again much faster, this time delivering 24% greater performance. Here the GTX 1630 was almost 10% slower than the RX 6400 using PCIe 3.0 and over 30% slower than the budget Radeon GPU when using PCIe 4.0. Performance was actually comparable to the RX 6400, though the GTX 1050 Ti was still 18% faster.į1 2021 fans can look forward to sub-60 fps performance using the dialed-down ‘high’ quality preset. Rainbow Six Siege is the only game we’ve been able to play at over 60 fps and we’re doing it with the ultra quality preset. Watch Dogs: Legion has been turned down to medium, but even here the GTX 1630 was only good for 35 fps on average making the old GTX 1050 Ti almost 10% faster, while the RX 6400 using PCIe 3.0 was a whopping 51% faster, and we can’t stress enough how uninspiring AMD’s offering is at $160. The old GTX 1650 was good for 47 fps while the RX 6400 managed 53 fps using PCIe 4.0, the GTX 1630 though was good for just 30 fps. Shadow of the Tomb Raider was released back in 2018, so it’s older than even the TU117 silicon the GTX 1630 is based on, so we test this title using the highest quality preset. Starting with Assassin’s Creed Valhalla using the medium quality preset, we see that the GTX 1630 was good for just 32 fps on average, that’s a truly miserable result.įor comparison, the old GTX 1050 Ti was 22% faster and AMD’s almost useless RX 6400 was 53% faster using PCIe 3.0, or ~70% faster in a PCIe 4.0 system, a truly embarrassing result for Nvidia.
1440p death stranding image 1080p#
We’ve tested games at 1080p and 1440p, though in this instance we’ll focus more on the more relevant 1080p results.
We’re using our Ryzen 9 5950X GPU test system - and yes, we know no one is going to pair a budget graphics card with this CPU - but the point is to test GPU performance and therefore wish to avoid introducing a CPU bottleneck which would skew the data.įor our low-end to entry-level testing we typically use medium quality settings, or settings that make sense for a given title.
We kind of understood the nonsense pricing for bad products like the Radeon RX 6500 XT during the height of the mining boom, but now that the boom is over and graphics card sales have slowed to a crawl, we don’t get what Nvidia’s playing at here.Īnyway, we’ll talk more about pricing soon, for now let’s go over the test system specs. In fact, EVGA is currently listing their SC Gaming dual fan model for $200, which is complete madness. Rumor is this model will cost at least $150, with many models said to cost between $170 and $200. Based on those figures, the GTX 1630 is going to cost like… $50? What we mean to say is, the original GTX 1650 represented poor value at $150 at launch three years ago, and AMD’s recently released Radeon RX 6400 kind of sucks at $160, so for sure something as weak as the GTX 1630 will be priced well under $100 in 2022.
0 kommentar(er)
