GeForce GTX 1650 Ti vs GRID P40-8Q
GeForce GTX 1650 Ti
Popular choices:
GRID P40-8Q
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. 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 1650 Ti
Performance Per Dollar GRID P40-8Q
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.2% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GRID P40-8Q.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | GRID P40-8Q |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.2%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.2%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2012 / Kepler (2012−2018)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | — | Standard Size (267mm) |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti holds the technical lead. Priced at $77 (vs $150), it costs 49% less, resulting in a 95.3% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | GRID P40-8Q |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+95.3%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($77) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($150) |
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 1650 Ti and GRID P40-8Q
GeForce GTX 1650 Ti
The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in October 9 2012. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock speed is 928 MHz. It has 768 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 7,525 points. Launch price was $149.
GRID P40-8Q
The GRID P40-8Q is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in August 30 2015. It features the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 557 MHz to 1178 MHz. It has 2048 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 225W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 7,507 points.
Graphics Performance
The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti scores 7,525 and the GRID P40-8Q reaches 7,507 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.2% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti is built on Kepler while the GRID P40-8Q uses Maxwell 2.0, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 768 (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs 2,048 (GRID P40-8Q). Raw compute: 1.425 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs 4.825 TFLOPS (GRID P40-8Q).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | GRID P40-8Q |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,525 | 7,507 |
| Architecture | Kepler | Maxwell 2.0 |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 768 | 2048+167% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.425 TFLOPS | 4.825 TFLOPS+239% |
| ROPs | 16 | 64+300% |
| TMUs | 64 | 128+100% |
| L1 Cache | 64 KB | 768 KB+1100% |
| L2 Cache | 0.25 MB | 2 MB+700% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | GRID P40-8Q |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | FSR 3 (Compatible) | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 4 GB of GDDR6. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 0.25 MB (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs 2 MB (GRID P40-8Q) — the GRID P40-8Q has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | GRID P40-8Q |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 0.25 MB | 2 MB+700% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (12_1) (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs 12.0 (GRID P40-8Q). Vulkan: 1.3 vs 1.1. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.5. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 0.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | GRID P40-8Q |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.3+18% | 1.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6+2% | 4.5 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 0 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 6 (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs NVENC 4.0 (GRID P40-8Q). Decoder: NVDEC 4 vs PureVideo HD VP7. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265,VP9,AV1 (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9 (GRID P40-8Q).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | GRID P40-8Q |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 6 (Volta) | NVENC 4.0 |
| Decoder | NVDEC 4 | PureVideo HD VP7 |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265,VP9,AV1 | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti draws 50W versus the GRID P40-8Q's 225W — a 127.3% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 0W (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs 350W (GRID P40-8Q). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 0mm vs 267mm, occupying 0 vs 2 slots.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | GRID P40-8Q |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 50W-78% | 225W |
| Recommended PSU | 0W-100% | 350W |
| Power Connector | None | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 0mm | 267mm |
| Height | 0mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 0-100% | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 75 | — |
| Perf/Watt | 150.5+351% | 33.4 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti launched at $150 MSRP and currently averages $77, while the GRID P40-8Q launched at $3000 and now averages $150. The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti costs 48.7% less ($73 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 97.7 (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs 50.0 (GRID P40-8Q) — the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti offers 95.4% better value. The GRID P40-8Q is the newer GPU (2015 vs 2012).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | GRID P40-8Q |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $150-95% | $3000 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $77-49% | $150 |
| Performance per Dollar | 97.7+95% | 50.0 |
| Codename | GK106 | GM204 |
| Release | October 9 2012 | August 30 2015 |
| Ranking | #633 | #505 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GeForce GTX 1650 Ti and GRID P40-8Q
