GeForce GT 320 vs GeForce GTX 1650
GeForce GT 320
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 GT 320 is positioned at rank #201 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 GT 320
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce GTX 1650 uses modern memory architecture. The GeForce GTX 1650 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The GeForce GT 320 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 1574.3% higher G3D Mark score and 300% more VRAM (4 GB vs 1 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce GT 320.
| Insight | GeForce GT 320 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1574.3%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+1574.3%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2017 / Pascal (2016−2021)) | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+300%) |
| 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 $30), its significant performance lead justifies the premium, offering 569.7% better value per dollar than the GeForce GT 320.
| Insight | GeForce GT 320 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+569.7%) |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($30) | ⚠️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 GT 320 and GeForce GTX 1650
GeForce GT 320
The GeForce GT 320 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in May 17 2017. It features the Pascal architecture. The core clock ranges from 1228 MHz to 1468 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 30W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 470 points. Launch price was $79.
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 GT 320 scores 470 versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 7,869 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 1574.3%. The GeForce GT 320 is built on Pascal while the GeForce GTX 1650 uses Turing, both on 14 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 384 (GeForce GT 320) vs 896 (GeForce GTX 1650). Raw compute: 1.127 TFLOPS (GeForce GT 320) vs 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650). Boost clocks: 1468 MHz vs 1665 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GT 320 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 470 | 7,869+1574% |
| Architecture | Pascal | Turing |
| Process Node | 14 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 384 | 896+133% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.127 TFLOPS | 2.984 TFLOPS+165% |
| Boost Clock | 1468 MHz | 1665 MHz+13% |
| 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 GT 320 | 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 GT 320 comes with 1 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce GTX 1650 has 4 GB. The GeForce GTX 1650 offers 300% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 0.5 MB (GeForce GT 320) vs 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GT 320 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 1 GB | 4 GB+300% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | Unknown | 128 GB/s |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 128-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 1 MB+100% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 10.1 (GeForce GT 320) vs 12 (GeForce GTX 1650). Vulkan: N/A vs 1.4. OpenGL: 3.3 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 3.
| Feature | GeForce GT 320 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 10.1 | 12+19% |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.4 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6+39% |
| Max Displays | 2 | 3+50% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: None (GeForce GT 320) vs NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650). Decoder: PureVideo HD (VP4) vs NVDEC 4th gen. Supported codecs: H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 (GeForce GT 320) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650).
| Feature | GeForce GT 320 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | None | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) |
| Decoder | PureVideo HD (VP4) | NVDEC 4th gen |
| Codecs | H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GT 320 draws 30W versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 75W — a 85.7% difference. The GeForce GT 320 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 250W (GeForce GT 320) vs 300W (GeForce GTX 1650). Power connectors: None vs None. Card length: 175mm vs 229mm, occupying 1 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 75 vs 70°C.
| Feature | GeForce GT 320 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 30W-60% | 75W |
| Recommended PSU | 250W-17% | 300W |
| Power Connector | None | None |
| Length | 175mm | 229mm |
| Height | 111mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 1-50% | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 75 | 70°C-7% |
| Perf/Watt | 15.7 | 104.9+568% |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GT 320 launched at $79 MSRP and currently averages $30, while the GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 and now averages $75. The GeForce GT 320 costs 60% less ($45 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 15.7 (GeForce GT 320) vs 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 568.2% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2017).
| Feature | GeForce GT 320 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $79-47% | $149 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $30-60% | $75 |
| Performance per Dollar | 15.7 | 104.9+568% |
| Codename | GP108 | TU117 |
| Release | May 17 2017 | April 23 2019 |
| Ranking | #641 | #323 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GeForce GT 320 and GeForce GTX 1650
