GeForce GT 435M vs GeForce GTX 1650

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 435M is positioned at rank #204 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Lower cost-benefit for your build. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.•
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar GeForce GT 435M

#194

Radeon RX 550X (móvel)

MSRP: $35|Avg: $35

405%

#196

GeForce GTX 1070 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $150

367%

#197

GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $100

366%

#201

GeForce GTX 1050 (Mobile)

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50

333%

#202

Radeon RX 6300

MSRP: $60|Avg: $40

331%

#204

GeForce GT 435M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: N/A

100%

#206

Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870

MSRP: $150|Avg: $150

98%

#208

Radeon RX Vega M GL

MSRP: $150|Avg: $150

97%

#212

GeForce GTX 780M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $60

96%

#216

Radeon 8040S

MSRP: $400|Avg: $400

91%

#217

Radeon R7 +8G

MSRP: $49|Avg: $20

91%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Per Dollar

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

⚠️ Generational Difference

The GeForce GTX 1650 is significantly newer (2019 vs 2013). 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 435M 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 1368.1% higher G3D Mark score and 100% more VRAM (4 GB vs 2 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce GT 435M.

Insight	GeForce GT 435M	GeForce GTX 1650
Performance	❌Lower raw frame rates (-1368.1%)	✅Leading raw performance (+1368.1%)
Longevity	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / Kepler (2012−2018))	Turing (2018−2022) (12nm)
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	❌ Less VRAM capacity	✅ More VRAM (+100%)
Efficiency	⚡ Higher Power Consumption	💡 Excellent Perf/Watt
Case Fit	—	📏 Compact / SFF Friendly

💎 Value Proposition

While current pricing data is unavailable, the GeForce GTX 1650 remains the clear technical winner. Check real-time availability to determine if the performance gap justifies the market price.

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.

GeForce GT 435M Benchmark Check

GeForce GTX 1650 Benchmark Check

Loading...

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GT 435M and GeForce GTX 1650

GeForce GT 435M

The GeForce GT 435M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in April 1 2013. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock speed is 549 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 45W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 536 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 GT 435M scores 536 versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 7,869 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 1368.1%. The GeForce GT 435M is built on Kepler while the GeForce GTX 1650 uses Turing, both on 28 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 384 (GeForce GT 435M) vs 896 (GeForce GTX 1650). Raw compute: 0.4216 TFLOPS (GeForce GT 435M) vs 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650).

Feature	GeForce GT 435M	GeForce GTX 1650
G3D Mark Score	536	7,869+1368%
Architecture	Kepler	Turing
Process Node	28 nm	12 nm
Shading Units	384	896+133%
Compute (TFLOPS)	0.4216 TFLOPS	2.984 TFLOPS+608%
ROPs	16	32+100%
TMUs	32	56+75%
L1 Cache	32 KB	896 KB+2700%
L2 Cache	0.25 MB	1 MB+300%

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	GeForce GT 435M	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 435M comes with 2 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce GTX 1650 has 4 GB. The GeForce GTX 1650 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 0.25 MB (GeForce GT 435M) vs 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GT 435M	GeForce GTX 1650
VRAM Capacity	2 GB	4 GB+100%
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Memory Bandwidth	Unknown	128 GB/s
Bus Width	128-bit	128-bit
L2 Cache	0.25 MB	1 MB+300%

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 11.0 (GeForce GT 435M) vs 12 (GeForce GTX 1650). Vulkan: None vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.0 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 1 vs 3.

Feature	GeForce GT 435M	GeForce GTX 1650
DirectX	11.0	12+9%
Vulkan	None	1.4
OpenGL	4.0	4.6+15%
Max Displays	1	3+200%

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: No (GeForce GT 435M) vs NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650). Decoder: PureVideo HD VP4 vs NVDEC 4th gen. Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1,MPEG-4 ASP (GeForce GT 435M) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650).

Feature	GeForce GT 435M	GeForce GTX 1650
Encoder	No	NVENC 5th gen (Volta)
Decoder	PureVideo HD VP4	NVDEC 4th gen
Codecs	MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1,MPEG-4 ASP	H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GT 435M draws 45W versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 75W — a 50% difference. The GeForce GT 435M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce GT 435M) vs 300W (GeForce GTX 1650). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs None. Card length: 0mm vs 229mm, occupying 0 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 80°C vs 70°C.

Feature	GeForce GT 435M	GeForce GTX 1650
TDP	45W-40%	75W
Recommended PSU	350W	300W-14%
Power Connector	PCIe-powered	None
Length	0mm	229mm
Height	0mm	111mm
Slots	0-100%	2
Temp (Load)	80°C	70°C-13%
Perf/Watt	11.9	104.9+782%