
GeForce GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design vs GeForce GTX 1650

GeForce GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design
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 GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design is positioned at rank #66 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Balanced 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 GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GTX 1650 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 100.5% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-100.5%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+100.5%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2018 / Pascal (2016−2021)) | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | — | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GTX 1650 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Although it costs $75 (vs $50), its significant performance lead justifies the premium, offering 33.7% better value per dollar than the GeForce GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+33.7%) |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($50) | ⚠️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 GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design and GeForce GTX 1650

GeForce GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design
The GeForce GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in January 3 2018. It features the Pascal architecture. The core clock ranges from 1152 MHz to 1417 MHz. It has 768 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3,925 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 GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design scores 3,925 versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 7,869 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 100.5%. The GeForce GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design is built on Pascal while the GeForce GTX 1650 uses Turing, both on 14 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 768 (GeForce GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design) vs 896 (GeForce GTX 1650). Raw compute: 2.177 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design) vs 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650). Boost clocks: 1417 MHz vs 1665 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 3,925 | 7,869+100% |
| Architecture | Pascal | Turing |
| Process Node | 14 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 768 | 896+17% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.177 TFLOPS | 2.984 TFLOPS+37% |
| Boost Clock | 1417 MHz | 1665 MHz+18% |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 48 | 56+17% |
| L1 Cache | 288 KB | 896 KB+211% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) |
| Frame Generation | FSR 3 (Compatible) | FSR 3 (Compatible) |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 4 GB of GDDR5. Memory bandwidth: 80 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design) vs 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) — a 60% advantage for the GeForce GTX 1650. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 80 GB/s | 128 GB/s+60% |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (12_1) (GeForce GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design) vs 12 (GeForce GTX 1650). Vulkan: 1.3 vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 3.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.4+8% |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 4+33% | 3 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC (6th Gen) (GeForce GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design) vs NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650). Decoder: NVDEC (3rd Gen) vs NVDEC 4th gen. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265 (HEVC),VP9 (GeForce GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC (6th Gen) | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) |
| Decoder | NVDEC (3rd Gen) | NVDEC 4th gen |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265 (HEVC),VP9 | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design draws 75W versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 75W — a 0% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design) vs 300W (GeForce GTX 1650). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs None. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 70°C.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W | 75W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 300W-14% |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | None |
| Length | — | 229mm |
| Height | — | 111mm |
| Slots | 0-100% | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C | 70°C |
| Perf/Watt | 52.3 | 104.9+101% |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design costs 33.3% less ($25 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 78.5 (GeForce GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design) vs 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 33.6% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2018).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | — | $149 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $50-33% | $75 |
| Performance per Dollar | 78.5 | 104.9+34% |
| Codename | GP107 | TU117 |
| Release | January 3 2018 | April 23 2019 |
| Ranking | #429 | #323 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.















