Review of the Nvidia GeForce GTX 1630: A Disrespect for Gamers?
The new GeForce GTX 1630 from Nvidia is a scaled-down version of the GTX 1650, the same GPU that was first introduced in April 2019. We’re talking about 3-year-old silicon, which, to put it mildly, was pretty pitiful at the time and frequently fell short of Radeon RX 570, which was then 2-years older.
This GeForce GTX 200mm2 die, codenamed TU117, is back, but with 512 cores, 42% fewer texture mapping units, and only 16 ROPs instead of the previous model’s 32. Although the core clock frequency has been increased by 7% to 1,785 MHz, the memory bus is a pitiful 64-bit width and only supports 4 GB of GDDR6 memory, giving it a bandwidth of just 96 GB/s, which is a 25% decrease from the previous GTX 1650.
According to those numbers, the GTX 1630 will cost around… $50? What we mean to say is that something as weak as the GTX 1630 will be priced well under $100 in 2022 because AMD’s recently released Radeon RX 6400 kind of stinks at $160 and the original GTX 1650 represented poor value at $150 when it launched three years ago.We typically use medium quality settings, or settings appropriate for a particular title, for our entry-level to low-end testing. Although we tested games at both 1080p and 1440p, we’ll concentrate more on the 1080p results in this case.
Starting with Assassin’s Creed Valhalla and the medium quality preset, we can see that the GTX 1630 only managed an average frame rate of 32 fps, which is a truly appalling performance.
A truly embarrassing outcome for Nvidia, the old GTX 1050 Ti was 22% faster and AMD’s practically useless RX 6400 was 53% faster using PCIe 3.0, or around 70% faster in a PCIe 4.0 system.We test Shadow of the Tomb Raider using the highest quality preset because it was released in 2018, making it older than even the TU117 silicon the GTX 1630 is based on. The RX 6400 managed 53 fps using PCIe 4.0, compared to the old GTX 1650’s 47 fps, while the GTX 1630 could only muster 30 fps. An appalling outcome for this new GPU. We cannot emphasize enough how unimpressive AMD’s offering is at $160. Watch Dogs: Legion has been cranked down to medium, but even here the GTX 1630 was only capable of 35 frames per second on average, making the old GTX 1050 Ti almost 10% faster. What does that mean for the 1630, then? The only game we’ve been able to play at a frame rate of over 60 is Rainbow Six Siege, and we’re using the ultra quality preset. The GTX 1050 Ti was still 18% faster than the RX 6400, but performance was actually on par with that card. Fans of F1 2021 can anticipate sub-60 frame rates when using the dialed-down “high” quality preset. Here, the GTX 1630 was more than 30% slower than the entry-level Radeon GPU when using PCIe 4.0 than the RX 6400 when using PCIe 3.0. It’s also important to note that the GTX 1050 Ti performed 24 percent better than the previous test, making it once more much faster. Because Horizon Zero Dawn uses a lot of memory, the GTX 1630 performs poorly—more accurately, it performs poorly because it never had very far to fall in the first place. Surprisingly, the RX 6400 using PCIe 3.0 was insanely 66 percent faster than the GTX 1050 Ti, which was only 31 percent faster. Although the performance of Far Cry 6 was subpar, as you might expect, it did at least match the performance of the GTX 1050 Ti, which meant that the RX 6400 was at least 38 percent faster, or 81 percent faster when using PCIe 4.0. Surprisingly, the GTX 1630 managed to “do okay” in Doom Eternal, spitting out an average frame rate of 57. However, this is still a respectable performance compared to the weak Radeon competition. The Radeon RX 570, an antiquated piece of hardware, was faster than the GTX 1630, which did lag behind the GTX 1050 Ti. Next, we tested Resident Evil Village using the medium-level quality preset called “balanced.” The GTX 1630 was only capable of 32 frames per second on average, making the GTX 1050 Ti 22 percent faster, and the RX 6400, using PCIe 3.0, was absurdly 88 percent faster. Death Stranding showed no signs of improvement, with the GTX 1050 Ti 20 percent faster than the GTX 1630 and the RX 6400 75 percent faster. For Nvidia’s new, but not really new, entry-level graphics card, more truly appalling outcomes were obtained. The GTX 1630 performs horribly when testing Hitman 3 because it only managed 27 frames per second on average with the medium quality settings, making the GTX 1050 Ti 52% faster and the GTX 1650 111% faster. This is to be expected, of course, as the GTX 1630 is a terrible card. The GTX 1630 can now match the 1050 Ti in Cyberpunk 2077, but with an average frame rate of just 22 frames per second at 1080p using the medium quality settings, the game was completely unplayable.
Power ConsumptionLike the 1650, the GeForce GTX 1630 is a 75W graphics card, so it can draw all the power it requires from the PCIe x16 slot instead of using external power. Gainward’s “Ghost” model has a 6-pin PCIe power connector, which means external power is required for use with this model for unknown reasons.
Practically speaking, the GTX 1630 shouldn’t have an external power source. However, like the GTX 1650, it’s possible that PCIe slot-only models will be even slower, but the 1630 is already incredibly slow. However, considering that the GTX 1630 uses barely any less power than the GTX 1050 Ti, performance per watt is arguably worse.
12 Game AverageThe GTX 1630 delivers an average frame rate of 37 fps, which means that the GTX 1050 Ti is typically 16 percent faster and the RX 6400 is nearly 40 percent faster using PCIe 3.0 or slightly more than 60 percent faster using PCIe 4.0. Moving on to the average data from 12 games, we can see how inadequate the GTX 1630 is for gaming. Additionally, the old RX 570 is nearly eight times faster than the GTX 1650, which is typically 65 percent faster.
Expense per frame
Given the information we’ve just seen, it seems kind of pointless to talk about cost per frame since the GeForce GTX 1630 is obviously not a good choice, but let’s look at it anyhow. It is unusual for a new entry-level GPU to perform so poorly, but the 1630 is something unique—clearly not in a good way.It would be a catastrophe and the worst value in recent memory if this new GPU were to go on sale for $150. Its cost of just over $4 per frame represents an 18% premium over the already obsolete GTX 1650, a 22% premium over the RX 6400 using PCIe 3.0, and a 43% premium over the PCIe 4.0 configuration.
Currently, we advise gamers to spend no less than $330 on the Radeon RX 6600. Yes, it costs slightly more than twice as much, but despite the price difference, the GPU is still functional and provides nearly four times the performance of the GTX 1630. What’s unsettling is that some GTX 1630 models could cost as much as $200, which would translate into a cost per frame of $5.40, or a 90%+ premium over the RX 6400 using PCIe 4.0.
The GTX 1630 needs to cost $105 in order to compete with the RX 6400 using PCIe 4.0, which is already a disappointing GPU. So it must cost no more than $87 in order to compete with the RX 6600. The GTX 1630 needs to be even less expensive, we think no more than $70 is reasonable, given that you’d need to play the majority of games on low quality settings.
What We Discovered
If promoted as a gaming graphics card, the GeForce GTX 1630 is a complete disgrace. We can’t think of a single feature that makes it worthwhile, so unless it becomes available for less than $100, it should be completely disregarded or creatively used in Nvidia memes.For the time being, it is far better to turn to the used computer market if you’re looking for a graphics card that costs less than $200. If you look on eBay, GTX 1650 Super cards frequently sell for around $150. The GTX 1630 will likely cost as little as that, and the 1650 Super has about a 125 percent higher performance.
The Radeon RX 6600 is a much better value even though it costs a little over $300, so those who don’t want to buy used are better off digging deep and forking over the cash for it.The Radeon RX 6400 is the best option if you have to buy brand-new and you want to spend less than $200. Despite the fact that it is a lousy product in and of itself, it is a vastly superior product. With the GTX 1630, Nvidia has achieved what seemed impossible, making the terrible Radeon product appear tolerable in comparison.
We can’t wait for the GTX 1630 DDR4 version, which will undoubtedly be quietly released in a few months. This GPU is the worst we’ve seen in a long time up until that point.
- Nvidia GeForce GTX 1630 on Amazon
- Nvidia GeForce GTX 1660 Super on Amazon
- AMD Radeon RX 6400 on Amazon
- Nvidia GeForce RTX 3050 on Amazon
- AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT on Amazon
- Nvidia GeForce RTX 3060 on Amazon
- AMD Radeon RX 6600 on Amazon
- Nvidia GeForce RTX 3060 Ti on Amazon
- Nvidia GeForce RTX 3070 on Amazon