GeForce GTX 1650 Ti vs GeForce GTX 1650
GeForce GTX 1650 Ti
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. 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
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce GTX 1650 is significantly newer (2019 vs 2012). 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 GTX 1650 Ti 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 4.6% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-4.6%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+4.6%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2012 / Kepler (2012−2018)) | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | — | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GTX 1650 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $75 versus $77 for the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti, it costs 3% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 7.4% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+7.4%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($77) | ✅More affordable ($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 1650 Ti and GeForce GTX 1650
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.
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
The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti scores 7,525 and the GeForce GTX 1650 reaches 7,869 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 4.6% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti is built on Kepler while the GeForce GTX 1650 uses Turing, both on 28 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 768 (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs 896 (GeForce GTX 1650). Raw compute: 1.425 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,525 | 7,869+5% |
| Architecture | Kepler | Turing |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 768 | 896+17% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.425 TFLOPS | 2.984 TFLOPS+109% |
| ROPs | 16 | 32+100% |
| TMUs | 64+14% | 56 |
| L1 Cache | 64 KB | 896 KB+1300% |
| L2 Cache | 0.25 MB | 1 MB+300% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | 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 video memory. Memory bandwidth: 192 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) — a 50% advantage for the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 0.25 MB (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 192 GB/s+50% | 128 GB/s |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 0.25 MB | 1 MB+300% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (12_1) (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs 12 (GeForce GTX 1650). Vulkan: 1.3 vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 3.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.4+8% |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 3 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 6 (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650). Decoder: NVDEC 4 vs NVDEC 4th gen. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265,VP9,AV1 (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 6 (Volta) | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) |
| Decoder | NVDEC 4 | NVDEC 4th gen |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265,VP9,AV1 | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti draws 50W versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 75W — a 40% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 0W (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs 300W (GeForce GTX 1650). Power connectors: None vs None. Card length: 0mm vs 229mm, occupying 0 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 75 vs 70°C.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 50W-33% | 75W |
| Recommended PSU | 0W-100% | 300W |
| Power Connector | None | None |
| Length | 0mm | 229mm |
| Height | 0mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 0-100% | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 75 | 70°C-7% |
| Perf/Watt | 150.5+43% | 104.9 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti launched at $150 MSRP and currently averages $77, while the GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 and now averages $75. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 2.6% less ($2 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 97.7 (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 7.4% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2012).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $150 | $149 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $77 | $75-3% |
| Performance per Dollar | 97.7 | 104.9+7% |
| Codename | GK106 | TU117 |
| Release | October 9 2012 | April 23 2019 |
| Ranking | #633 | #323 |
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 GeForce GTX 1650
