
GeForce GTX 1650
Popular choices:

GeForce RTX 2070 with Max-Q Design
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
- ✅Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 0 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower average FPS than GeForce RTX 2070 with Max-Q Design across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ❌Less VRAM, with 4 GB vs 8 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
- ❌No DLSS support; it relies on Upscaling support instead.
- ❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.
GeForce RTX 2070 with Max-Q Design
2019Why buy it
- ✅66.2% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ✅Access to DLSS 2 Super Resolution (2020).
- ✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (8 GB vs 4 GB).
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 52.8 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
GeForce GTX 1650
2019GeForce RTX 2070 with Max-Q Design
2019Why buy it
- ✅Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 0 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).
Why buy it
- ✅66.2% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ✅Access to DLSS 2 Super Resolution (2020).
- ✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (8 GB vs 4 GB).
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower average FPS than GeForce RTX 2070 with Max-Q Design across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ❌Less VRAM, with 4 GB vs 8 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
- ❌No DLSS support; it relies on Upscaling support instead.
- ❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 52.8 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
Quick Answers
So, is GeForce RTX 2070 with Max-Q Design better than GeForce GTX 1650?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper card?
Is GeForce GTX 1650 still worth buying for gaming in 2026?
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 RTX 2070 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 94 FPS | 110 FPS |
| medium | 83 FPS | 93 FPS |
| high | 70 FPS | 77 FPS |
| ultra | 58 FPS | 52 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 87 FPS | 94 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 79 FPS |
| high | 60 FPS | 59 FPS |
| ultra | 50 FPS | 38 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 41 FPS | 38 FPS |
| medium | 39 FPS | 34 FPS |
| high | 27 FPS | 21 FPS |
| ultra | 24 FPS | 18 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce RTX 2070 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 136 FPS | 252 FPS |
| medium | 113 FPS | 213 FPS |
| high | 94 FPS | 173 FPS |
| ultra | 71 FPS | 148 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 79 FPS | 196 FPS |
| medium | 62 FPS | 162 FPS |
| high | 44 FPS | 131 FPS |
| ultra | 35 FPS | 104 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 36 FPS | 114 FPS |
| medium | 27 FPS | 98 FPS |
| high | 21 FPS | 77 FPS |
| ultra | 15 FPS | 56 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce RTX 2070 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 323 FPS | 516 FPS |
| medium | 283 FPS | 413 FPS |
| high | 205 FPS | 344 FPS |
| ultra | 169 FPS | 258 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 225 FPS | 387 FPS |
| medium | 202 FPS | 309 FPS |
| high | 151 FPS | 258 FPS |
| ultra | 117 FPS | 193 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 130 FPS | 258 FPS |
| medium | 117 FPS | 206 FPS |
| high | 79 FPS | 172 FPS |
| ultra | 50 FPS | 129 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce RTX 2070 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 261 FPS | 239 FPS |
| medium | 211 FPS | 206 FPS |
| high | 191 FPS | 166 FPS |
| ultra | 166 FPS | 139 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 201 FPS | 186 FPS |
| medium | 158 FPS | 164 FPS |
| high | 135 FPS | 128 FPS |
| ultra | 113 FPS | 105 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 99 FPS | 108 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 90 FPS |
| high | 65 FPS | 73 FPS |
| ultra | 51 FPS | 55 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and GeForce RTX 2070 with Max-Q Design

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 RTX 2070 with Max-Q Design
GeForce RTX 2070 with Max-Q Design
The GeForce RTX 2070 with Max-Q Design is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in January 29 2019. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 885 MHz to 1185 MHz. It has 2304 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 80W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. It features 36 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 11,461 points.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the GeForce RTX 2070 with Max-Q Design's 11,461 — the GeForce RTX 2070 with Max-Q Design leads by 45.6%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the GeForce RTX 2070 with Max-Q Design uses Turing, both on a 12 nm process. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2,304 (GeForce RTX 2070 with Max-Q Design). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 5.46 TFLOPS (GeForce RTX 2070 with Max-Q Design). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1185 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce RTX 2070 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869 | 11,461+46% |
| Architecture | Turing | Turing |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 896 | 2304+157% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS | 5.46 TFLOPS+83% |
| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz+41% | 1185 MHz |
| ROPs | 32 | 64+100% |
| TMUs | 56 | 144+157% |
| L1 Cache | 0.88 MB | 2.3 MB+161% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 4 MB+300% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
The GeForce RTX 2070 with Max-Q Design supports the newer DLSS 2 Super Resolution, whereas the GeForce GTX 1650 is capped at Upscaling support.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce RTX 2070 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | Upscaling support | DLSS 2 Super Resolution |
| 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 RTX 2070 with Max-Q Design has 8 GB. The GeForce RTX 2070 with Max-Q Design offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 384 GB/s (GeForce RTX 2070 with Max-Q Design) — a 200% advantage for the GeForce RTX 2070 with Max-Q Design. Bus width: 128-bit vs 256-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 4 MB (GeForce RTX 2070 with Max-Q Design) — the GeForce RTX 2070 with Max-Q Design has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce RTX 2070 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 8 GB+100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 128 GB/s | 384 GB/s+200% |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 256-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 4 MB+300% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12.2 (GeForce RTX 2070 with Max-Q Design). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.1. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce RTX 2070 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12.2+2% |
| Vulkan | 1.4+27% | 1.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 4+33% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 7th Gen NVENC (GeForce RTX 2070 with Max-Q Design). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs 5th Gen NVDEC. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9 (GeForce RTX 2070 with Max-Q Design).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce RTX 2070 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) | 7th Gen NVENC |
| Decoder | NVDEC 4th gen | 5th Gen NVDEC |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the GeForce RTX 2070 with Max-Q Design's 80W — a 6.5% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 500W (GeForce RTX 2070 with Max-Q Design). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 229mm vs 0mm, occupying 2 vs 0 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 85°C.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce RTX 2070 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W-6% | 80W |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-40% | 500W |
| Power Connector | None | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 229mm | 0mm |
| Height | 111mm | 0mm |
| Slots | 2 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C-18% | 85°C |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9 | 143.3+37% |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.













