Synthetic Benchmarks

To start off my testing I like to take a look at a few synthetic benchmarks. They don’t give us exact FPS for in game performance but they do help give us a look at performance in a few different situations. I started off with 3DMark. 3DMark lets us take a look at DX11 and DX12 performance independently and in a few different detail/resolutions. So my biggest focus here was to see where the GTX 1650 performed compared to the RX570 which is AMD's nearest competitor in price and of course seeing how it compares to the GTX 1660 as well.

The first tests were using 3DMarks Fire Strike benchmarks which are DX11 based. There are three tests with change detail and resolution. Basic Fire Strike is 1080p, Extreme is 1440p, and Ultra is 4k. All three had the GTX 1650 Gaming X at the bottom of our charts by a surprisingly large margin. In the first test, the RX570 came in faster than the GTX 1060 as well and over 4k points above the GTX 1650. In the Extreme test, the gap is similar, only this time the GTX 1060 is slightly ahead of the RX570. Then in the Ultra benchmark, the gap is even larger.




Now the newer 3DMark Time Spy benchmarks, on the other hand, are focused on DX12 and past Turing cards did much better in DX12. In the first one, the GTX 1650 was again at the bottom of the charts but the gap between it and the RX570 was MUCH better this time around. Turning the detail up didn’t change anything for the card order or the amount that the RX570 was ahead really. So the GTX 1650 does like DX12 a lot more, but the RX570 is still looking to be a better performer.



I also tested using the Unigine Superposition benchmark. This test is run at three resolutions and at 1080p I test at medium and extreme detail levels. Once again the GTX 1650 was at the bottom of the chart with the RX570 ahead of it. It did handle the 8K test better, but no one is going to be running either card at that resolution.



Log in to comment

We have 1369 guests and one member online