GeForce GTX 1650 Ti vs GeForce RTX 4070
GeForce GTX 1650 Ti
Popular choices:
GeForce RTX 4070
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 GeForce RTX 4070
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce RTX 4070 is significantly newer (2023 vs 2012). The GeForce RTX 4070 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 RTX 4070 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 257.7% higher G3D Mark score and 200% more VRAM (12 GB vs 4 GB). 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 RTX 4070 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-257.7%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+257.7%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2012 / Kepler (2012−2018)) | 🏆Elite Architecture (Ada Lovelace (2022−2024) / 5nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | ✨ DLSS 3/4 + Frame Gen Support |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | 🎮 High Capacity (12 GB) |
| Efficiency | Normal Efficiency | Normal Efficiency |
| Case Fit | — | Standard Size (304mm) |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $77 versus $550 for the GeForce RTX 4070, it costs 86% less. While it maintains significantly lower raw performance, this results in a 99.7% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | GeForce RTX 4070 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+99.7%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($77) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($550) |
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 RTX 4070
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 RTX 4070
The GeForce RTX 4070 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in April 12 2023. It features the Ada Lovelace architecture. The core clock ranges from 1920 MHz to 2475 MHz. It has 5888 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 200W. Manufactured using 5 nm process technology. It features 46 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 26,919 points. Launch price was $599.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti scores 7,525 versus the GeForce RTX 4070's 26,919 — the GeForce RTX 4070 leads by 257.7%. The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti is built on Kepler while the GeForce RTX 4070 uses Ada Lovelace, both on 28 nm vs 5 nm. Shader units: 768 (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs 5,888 (GeForce RTX 4070). Raw compute: 1.425 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs 29.15 TFLOPS (GeForce RTX 4070).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | GeForce RTX 4070 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,525 | 26,919+258% |
| Architecture | Kepler | Ada Lovelace |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Shading Units | 768 | 5888+667% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.425 TFLOPS | 29.15 TFLOPS+1946% |
| ROPs | 16 | 64+300% |
| TMUs | 64 | 184+188% |
| L1 Cache | 0.06 MB | 5.8 MB+9567% |
| L2 Cache | 0.25 MB | 36 MB+14300% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
A critical advantage for the GeForce RTX 4070 is support for DLSS 3 Frame Gen. This allows it to generate entire frames using AI/Algorithms, essentially doubling the frame rate in CPU-bound scenarios or heavy ray-tracing titles. The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti lacks specific hardware/driver support for this native frame generation tier.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | GeForce RTX 4070 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) | DLSS 3.5 |
| Frame Generation | FSR 3 (Compatible) | DLSS 3.0 (Native) |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | Yes (DLSS 3.5) |
| Low Latency | Standard | NVIDIA Reflex |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce RTX 4070 has 12 GB. The GeForce RTX 4070 offers 200% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 192 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs 504 GB/s (GeForce RTX 4070) — a 162.5% advantage for the GeForce RTX 4070. Bus width: 128-bit vs 192-bit. L2 Cache: 0.25 MB (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs 36 MB (GeForce RTX 4070) — the GeForce RTX 4070 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | GeForce RTX 4070 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 12 GB+200% |
| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR6X |
| Memory Bandwidth | 192 GB/s | 504 GB/s+163% |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 192-bit+50% |
| L2 Cache | 0.25 MB | 36 MB+14300% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (12_1) (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs 12.2 (GeForce RTX 4070). Vulkan: 1.3 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | GeForce RTX 4070 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12.2+2% |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 4+33% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 6 (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs 8th Gen NVENC (2x) (GeForce RTX 4070). Decoder: NVDEC 4 vs 5th Gen NVDEC. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265,VP9,AV1 (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 (GeForce RTX 4070).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | GeForce RTX 4070 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 6 (Volta) | 8th Gen NVENC (2x) |
| Decoder | NVDEC 4 | 5th Gen NVDEC |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265,VP9,AV1 | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti draws 50W versus the GeForce RTX 4070's 200W — a 120% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 0W (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs 650W (GeForce RTX 4070). Power connectors: None vs 8-pin. Card length: 0mm vs 304mm, occupying 0 vs 3 slots. Typical load temperature: 75 vs 80°C.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | GeForce RTX 4070 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 50W-75% | 200W |
| Recommended PSU | 0W-100% | 650W |
| Power Connector | None | 8-pin |
| Length | 0mm | 304mm |
| Height | 0mm | 137mm |
| Slots | 0-100% | 3 |
| Temp (Load) | 75-6% | 80°C |
| Perf/Watt | 150.5+12% | 134.6 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti launched at $150 MSRP and currently averages $77, while the GeForce RTX 4070 launched at $599 and now averages $550. The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti costs 86% less ($473 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 97.7 (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs 48.9 (GeForce RTX 4070) — the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti offers 99.8% better value. The GeForce RTX 4070 is the newer GPU (2023 vs 2012).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | GeForce RTX 4070 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $150-75% | $599 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $77-86% | $550 |
| Performance per Dollar | 97.7+100% | 48.9 |
| Codename | GK106 | AD104 |
| Release | October 9 2012 | April 12 2023 |
| Ranking | #633 | #32 |
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 RTX 4070
