
GeForce 256

GeForce GTX 1650
GeForce 256 vs GeForce GTX 1650 Performance Spectrum
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
GeForce 256 vs GeForce GTX 1650 FPS Benchmarks
Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with Ryzen 7 9800X3D to isolate GPU performance.
Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Valorant

Among Us

Apex Legends

ARC Raiders

Baldur's Gate 3

Call of Duty: Black Ops 6
GeForce 256 vs GeForce GTX 1650: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict
See where each GPU makes more sense in practice: raw FPS, VRAM, features, power draw, pricing, and long-term headroom.
GeForce 256
2019Why buy it
- ✅Draws 10W instead of 75W, a 65W reduction.
- ✅Measures 165mm instead of 229mm, a 64mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower average FPS than GeForce GTX 1650 across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ❌Less VRAM, with 512 MB vs 4 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
- ❌2019 hardware with 512 MB of VRAM already sits in legacy territory for modern games.
- ❌33.6% HIGHER MSRP$199 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0.0 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($199 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
GeForce GTX 1650
2019Why buy it
- ✅6866.0% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ✅Costs $50 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $199 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 210092.1% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 0.0 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $199 MSRP).
- ✅700% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs 512 MB).
- ✅GeForce 256 is already legacy-tier future-proofing, so GeForce GTX 1650 is the less risky modern option long term.
Trade-offs
- ❌Older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in newer AAA releases.
- ❌650% higher power demand at 75W vs 10W.
- ❌38.8% longer card at 229mm vs 165mm.
Quick Answers
Which GPU is faster for gaming right now?
Which GPU is the safer long-term pick for 2026 and beyond?
Which GPU is the better buy today?
GeForce 256 vs GeForce GTX 1650 Technical Specifications
Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

GeForce 256
The GeForce 256 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in February 20 2019. It features the Pascal architecture. The core clock ranges from 937 MHz to 1038 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 10W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 5 points.

GeForce GTX 1650
The GeForce GTX 1650 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in April 23 2019. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 1485 MHz to 1665 MHz. It has 896 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 7,869 points. Launch price was $149.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce 256 scores 5 versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 7,869 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 157280%. The GeForce 256 is built on Pascal while the GeForce GTX 1650 uses Turing, both on 14 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 384 (GeForce 256) vs 896 (GeForce GTX 1650). Raw compute: 0.7972 TFLOPS (GeForce 256) vs 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650). Boost clocks: 1038 MHz vs 1665 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce 256 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 5 | 7,869+157280% |
| Architecture | Pascal | Turing |
| Process Node | 14 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 384 | 896+133% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.7972 TFLOPS | 2.984 TFLOPS+274% |
| Boost Clock | 1038 MHz | 1665 MHz+60% |
| ROPs | 16 | 32+100% |
| TMUs | 24 | 56+133% |
| L1 Cache | 144 KB | 896 KB+522% |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 1 MB+100% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce 256 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | Upscaling support | Upscaling support |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | NVIDIA Reflex | NVIDIA Reflex |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The GeForce 256 has 512 MB of VRAM, while the GeForce GTX 1650 carries 4 GB. GeForce GTX 1650 gives you 700% more memory capacity, which matters more once you move into heavier textures, mods, or higher resolutions. Memory bus width is 128-bit on the GeForce 256 and 128-bit on the GeForce GTX 1650. L2 Cache: 0.5 MB (GeForce 256) vs 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce 256 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB | 4 GB+700% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | Unknown | 128 GB/s |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 1 MB+100% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 7.0 (GeForce 256) vs 12 (GeForce GTX 1650). OpenGL: 1.2 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 1 vs 3.
| Feature | GeForce 256 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 7.0 | 12+71% |
| OpenGL | 1.2 | 4.6+283% |
| Max Displays | 1 | 3+200% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: None (GeForce 256) vs NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650). Decoder: MPEG-2 Motion Comp vs NVDEC 4th gen. Supported codecs: MPEG-2 (GeForce 256) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650).
| Feature | GeForce 256 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | None | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) |
| Decoder | MPEG-2 Motion Comp | NVDEC 4th gen |
| Codecs | MPEG-2 | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce 256 draws 10W versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 75W — a 152.9% difference. The GeForce 256 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce 256) vs 300W (GeForce GTX 1650). Power connectors: Legacy vs None. Card length: 165mm vs 229mm, occupying 1 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 60°C vs 70°C.
| Feature | GeForce 256 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 10W-87% | 75W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 300W-14% |
| Power Connector | Legacy | None |
| Length | 165mm | 229mm |
| Height | 100mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 1-50% | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 60°C-14% | 70°C |
| Perf/Watt | 0.5 | 104.9+20880% |
Value Analysis
At launch, the GeForce 256 came in at $199, while the GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149. On MSRP, GeForce GTX 1650 was 25.1% cheaper ($50 less). Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 0.0 (GeForce 256) vs 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 100+% better value.
| Feature | GeForce 256 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $199 | $149-25% |
| Performance per Dollar | 0.0 | 52.8 |
| Codename | GP108B | TU117 |
| Release | February 20 2019 | April 23 2019 |
| Ranking | #643 | #323 |
Affiliate Disclosure
ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.
Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.














