
GeForce GTX 1650
Popular choices:

GeForce MX350
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.
Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook
This comparison brings together gaming FPS, raw graphics performance, VRAM, feature set, power efficiency, pricing context, and long-term value so you can see which GPU actually makes more sense.
GeForce GTX 1650
2019Why buy it
- ✅+178.3% higher PassMark G3D performance.
- ✅Costs $101 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $250 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 366.9% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 11.3 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $250 MSRP).
- ✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs 2 GB).
- ✅Less risky long-term buy than GeForce MX350: it remains the more sensible modern option while GeForce MX350 is already legacy-tier future-proofing.
Trade-offs
- ❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.
- ❌275% higher power demand at 75W vs 20W.
GeForce MX350
2020Why buy it
- ✅Draws 20W instead of 75W, a 55W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (2,828 vs 7,869).
- ❌Less VRAM, with 2 GB vs 4 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
- ❌Poor future-proofing: 2020-era hardware with 2 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.
- ❌67.8% HIGHER MSRP$250 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 11.3 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($250 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
GeForce GTX 1650
2019GeForce MX350
2020Why buy it
- ✅+178.3% higher PassMark G3D performance.
- ✅Costs $101 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $250 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 366.9% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 11.3 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $250 MSRP).
- ✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs 2 GB).
- ✅Less risky long-term buy than GeForce MX350: it remains the more sensible modern option while GeForce MX350 is already legacy-tier future-proofing.
Why buy it
- ✅Draws 20W instead of 75W, a 55W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.
- ❌275% higher power demand at 75W vs 20W.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (2,828 vs 7,869).
- ❌Less VRAM, with 2 GB vs 4 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
- ❌Poor future-proofing: 2020-era hardware with 2 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.
- ❌67.8% HIGHER MSRP$250 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 11.3 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($250 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
Quick Answers
So, is GeForce GTX 1650 better than GeForce MX350?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper card?
When does GeForce MX350 make more sense than GeForce GTX 1650?
Games Benchmarks
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 9800X3D 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.

Path of Exile 2
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce MX350 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 94 FPS | 46 FPS |
| medium | 83 FPS | 28 FPS |
| high | 70 FPS | 19 FPS |
| ultra | 58 FPS | 10 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 87 FPS | 30 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 18 FPS |
| high | 60 FPS | 9 FPS |
| ultra | 50 FPS | 5 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 41 FPS | 10 FPS |
| medium | 39 FPS | 7 FPS |
| high | 27 FPS | 4 FPS |
| ultra | 24 FPS | 3 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce MX350 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 136 FPS | 46 FPS |
| medium | 113 FPS | 25 FPS |
| high | 94 FPS | 17 FPS |
| ultra | 71 FPS | 11 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 79 FPS | 14 FPS |
| medium | 62 FPS | 8 FPS |
| high | 44 FPS | 6 FPS |
| ultra | 35 FPS | 4 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 36 FPS | 4 FPS |
| medium | 27 FPS | 2 FPS |
| high | 21 FPS | 2 FPS |
| ultra | 15 FPS | 1 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce MX350 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 323 FPS | 127 FPS |
| medium | 283 FPS | 102 FPS |
| high | 205 FPS | 85 FPS |
| ultra | 169 FPS | 64 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 225 FPS | 95 FPS |
| medium | 202 FPS | 76 FPS |
| high | 151 FPS | 64 FPS |
| ultra | 117 FPS | 48 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 130 FPS | 64 FPS |
| medium | 117 FPS | 51 FPS |
| high | 79 FPS | 42 FPS |
| ultra | 50 FPS | 32 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce MX350 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 261 FPS | 127 FPS |
| medium | 211 FPS | 102 FPS |
| high | 191 FPS | 85 FPS |
| ultra | 166 FPS | 64 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 201 FPS | 95 FPS |
| medium | 158 FPS | 76 FPS |
| high | 135 FPS | 64 FPS |
| ultra | 113 FPS | 48 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 99 FPS | 64 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 51 FPS |
| high | 65 FPS | 41 FPS |
| ultra | 51 FPS | 27 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and GeForce MX350

GeForce GTX 1650
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.

GeForce MX350
GeForce MX350
The GeForce MX350 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in February 10 2020. It features the Pascal architecture. The core clock ranges from 747 MHz to 937 MHz. It has 640 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 20W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,828 points.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the GeForce MX350's 2,828 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 178.3%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the GeForce MX350 uses Pascal, both on 12 nm vs 14 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 640 (GeForce MX350). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 1.199 TFLOPS (GeForce MX350). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 937 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce MX350 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869+178% | 2,828 |
| Architecture | Turing | Pascal |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 14 nm |
| Shading Units | 896+40% | 640 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS+149% | 1.199 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz+78% | 937 MHz |
| ROPs | 32+100% | 16 |
| TMUs | 56+75% | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 896 KB+273% | 240 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+100% | 0.5 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce MX350 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | Upscaling support | Upscaling support |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | NVIDIA Reflex | NVIDIA Reflex |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The GeForce GTX 1650 comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce MX350 has 2 GB. The GeForce GTX 1650 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 56 GB/s (GeForce MX350) — a 128.6% advantage for the GeForce GTX 1650. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 0.5 MB (GeForce MX350) — the GeForce GTX 1650 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce MX350 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB+100% | 2 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 128 GB/s+129% | 56 GB/s |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+100% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+100% | 0.5 MB |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the GeForce MX350's 20W — a 115.8% difference. The GeForce MX350 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (GeForce MX350). Power connectors: None vs Mobile.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce MX350 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W | 20W-73% |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-14% | 350W |
| Power Connector | None | Mobile |
| Length | 229mm | — |
| Height | 111mm | — |
| Slots | 2 | — |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9 | 141.4+35% |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP, while the GeForce MX350 launched at $250. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 40.4% less ($101 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 11.3 (GeForce MX350) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 367.3% better value. The GeForce MX350 is the newer GPU (2020 vs 2019).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce MX350 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149-40% | $250 |
| Performance per Dollar | 52.8+367% | 11.3 |
| Codename | TU117 | GP107 |
| Release | April 23 2019 | February 10 2020 |
| Ranking | #323 | #597 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.













