GeForce FX 5200 vs GeForce GTX 1650
GeForce FX 5200
Popular choices:
GeForce GTX 1650
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
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.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. The GeForce FX 5200 is positioned at rank #374 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Lower cost-benefit for your build. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar GeForce FX 5200
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce FX 5200 is significantly newer (2025 vs 2019). The GeForce FX 5200 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The GeForce GTX 1650 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GTX 1650 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 98262.5% higher G3D Mark score and 3100% more VRAM (4 GB vs 128 MB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce FX 5200.
| Insight | GeForce FX 5200 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-98262.5%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+98262.5%) |
| Longevity | Blackwell 2.0 (2025−2026) (5nm) | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+3100%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GTX 1650 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Although it costs $75 (vs $25), its significant performance lead justifies the premium, offering 32687.5% better value per dollar than the GeForce FX 5200.
| Insight | GeForce FX 5200 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+32687.5%) |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($25) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($75) |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce FX 5200 and GeForce GTX 1650
GeForce FX 5200
The GeForce FX 5200 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in January 30 2025. It features the Rankine architecture. The core clock ranges from 2017 MHz to 2407 MHz. It has 21760 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 575W. Manufactured using 5 nm process technology. It features 170 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 8 points. Launch price was $1,999.
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 FX 5200 scores 8 versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 7,869 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 98262.5%. The GeForce FX 5200 is built on Rankine while the GeForce GTX 1650 uses Turing, both on 5 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 21,760 (GeForce FX 5200) vs 896 (GeForce GTX 1650). Raw compute: 104.8 TFLOPS (GeForce FX 5200) vs 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650). Boost clocks: 2407 MHz vs 1665 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce FX 5200 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 8 | 7,869+98263% |
| Architecture | Rankine | Turing |
| Process Node | 5 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 21760+2329% | 896 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 104.8 TFLOPS+3412% | 2.984 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 2407 MHz+45% | 1665 MHz |
| ROPs | 176+450% | 32 |
| TMUs | 680+1114% | 56 |
| L1 Cache | 21.3 MB+2320% | 0.88 MB |
| L2 Cache | 96 MB+9500% | 1 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce FX 5200 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | FSR 3 (Compatible) |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The GeForce FX 5200 comes with 128 MB of VRAM, while the GeForce GTX 1650 has 4 GB. The GeForce GTX 1650 offers 3100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 96 MB (GeForce FX 5200) vs 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce FX 5200 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce FX 5200 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.125 GB | 4 GB+3100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | Unknown | 128 GB/s |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 96 MB+9500% | 1 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 9.0a (GeForce FX 5200) vs 12 (GeForce GTX 1650). Vulkan: N/A vs 1.4. OpenGL: 1.5 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 3.
| Feature | GeForce FX 5200 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 9.0a | 12+33% |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.4 |
| OpenGL | 1.5 | 4.6+207% |
| Max Displays | 2 | 3+50% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: None (GeForce FX 5200) vs NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650). Decoder: MPEG-2 Motion Compensation vs NVDEC 4th gen. Supported codecs: MPEG-2 (GeForce FX 5200) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650).
| Feature | GeForce FX 5200 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | None | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) |
| Decoder | MPEG-2 Motion Compensation | NVDEC 4th gen |
| Codecs | MPEG-2 | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce FX 5200 draws 575W versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 75W — a 153.8% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce FX 5200) vs 300W (GeForce GTX 1650). Power connectors: Legacy vs None. Card length: 152mm vs 229mm, occupying 1 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 70 vs 70°C.
| Feature | GeForce FX 5200 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 575W | 75W-87% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 300W-14% |
| Power Connector | Legacy | None |
| Length | 152mm | 229mm |
| Height | 100mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 1-50% | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 70 | 70°C |
| Perf/Watt | 0.0 | 104.9 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce FX 5200 launched at $70 MSRP and currently averages $25, while the GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 and now averages $75. The GeForce FX 5200 costs 66.7% less ($50 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 0.3 (GeForce FX 5200) vs 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 34866.7% better value. The GeForce FX 5200 is the newer GPU (2025 vs 2019).
| Feature | GeForce FX 5200 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $70-53% | $149 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $25-67% | $75 |
| Performance per Dollar | 0.3 | 104.9+34867% |
| Codename | GB202 | TU117 |
| Release | January 30 2025 | April 23 2019 |
| Ranking | #3 | #323 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GeForce FX 5200 and GeForce GTX 1650
