You guys are ignoring we actually only got the atrocious 2050 after 3050's and until we got 2050's, the lowest 2000 mobile card was a 2060, and likewise 3000 mobile was released without 3050 and 3050 ti originally.  nvidia keeps throwing trash at the consumer and it's offensive.

they're preying on people that didn't check the benchmarks or the pcie or bus width or the vram, or the tmus or rops.

In other news, the 3060 is slower than the 2080 TI

The farther you go down the more diminishing returns you have. The same with when you get to the top. The 50 series has never been great. Nvidia has five different skus so this falls exactly where it should. The 1660ti is not a bad card. I broke down and got a 1660 ti laptop for my son and it does surprisingly well 1440p. That is a decent gaming card for someone who doesn't want to spend a lot. If you look at all the cards above the 50 series Nvidia does fairly well at 1440p and 4K. AMD always targets the 1080p crowd. But even then they miss. Are we going to praise their low-end 5000 series cards which is not that good at all? The only thing that's really is horrible now is the prices for everything. I think that's a bigger complaint for people.

This article is dumb...

The gaming cards have always started with the x60 series and up (960, 1060, 1660, 2060 etc.) and the x50 series has never been for gaming, what ever the marketing department is telling you...

For non gaming laptop, it's stupid to pay for the x50 cards and for gaming laptops, it's stupid to get one as they are weak.

In effect, we have a product that is not useful to anyone and in my opinion a waste of production capacity.

This seems like a strange comparison to make xx50 cards have always been weak. I once looked at upgrading from my GTX 1060 to a GTX 1650 and luckily I checked the benchmarks before I did because it would have been a significant down grade. So my reaction to your article as someone with a little knowledge is umm, yeah of course. A budget cheap option performs worse than previous higher end options.

Even in countries where consumer tech prices are heavily inflated, you can pick up a used RTX 2060 (6GB) gaming laptop for around $800 USD and less. That's why people are outraged these 3050 laptops are costing $1000-1300 at release.
3050/3050Ti have great potential as boosting graphical capacity in a thin/light Ultrabook like Acer Swift X at a $1000 price point because of the lower TGP required compared to previous generation.

Problem is, that OEMs are shoving it into thick and heavy gaming laptops with poor quality chassis and battery life and charging over $1000 for $600 value budget devices, expecting people to but them.
They constantly seem to want to mock the intelligence of tech consumers who have secondhand and refurbished market available in their hands. And then people are even more outraged because of the whole confusing TDP marketing and false RTX marketing.

Well, the answer is simple; make the prices competitive with used gaming laptops, and put these chips into more attractive Ultrabook packages for the same price as they are charging now for Gaming Laptops. Make more laptops like Acer Swift X.

I don't know what's so hard about that.

Because it only replaces the 1650, not the 1660 or 2060.. that will be the 3060 work.

I Think it's unfair to compare gaming performance with a non gaming laptop like that. Would be understandable if it's between G14s

This is Dell XPS you are comparing and that whole line has crippled GPU performance, what trash.

Hello,
what was the TDP of the 1660TI
because if it's 90W, a 3050 laptop could be way thinner at least.

Yikes, the chart looks broken than the article title itself.