Chipversus Index
Jump to Section

GeForce GTX 1650 vs GeForce3 Ti 200

CPUCPUGPUGPU
NVIDIA

GeForce GTX 1650

2019Core: 1485 MHzBoost: 1665 MHz
Buy on Amazon
VS
NVIDIA

GeForce3 Ti 200

2018Core: 1515 MHzBoost: 1710 MHz
Buy on Amazon

GeForce GTX 1650 vs GeForce3 Ti 200 Performance Spectrum

GeForce GTX 1650
4 GB 75
7,869
+196625.0%
brand logoGeForce GTX 880M SLI
brand logoGeForce GTX 560 Ti 448
brand logoGeForce GTX 960
brand logoGeForce GTX 1650 (móvel)
brand logoGeForce RTX 3050 OEM
brand logoGeForce GTX 1080
brand logoGeForce RTX 2080 SUPER
brand logoGeForce RTX 3070 Ti
GeForce3 Ti 200
0.5 GB 215
4
0.0%
brand logoGeForce GTX 1050 Mobile 3 GB
brand logoGeForce GTX 780 Ti
brand logoGeForce RTX 4050 Mobile
brand logoGeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU
brand logoRTX 4000 Ada Generation
brand logoGeForce RTX 5070
brand logoGeForce RTX 4080 SUPER
brand logoGeForce RTX 4090

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.

GeForce GTX 1650 vs GeForce3 Ti 200 FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with Ryzen 7 9800X3D to isolate GPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

1080P
GeForce GTX 1650
low94 FPS
medium83 FPS
high70 FPS
ultra58 FPS
1080P
GeForce3 Ti 200
low1 FPS
medium1 FPS
high1 FPS
ultra1 FPS
Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

1080P
GeForce GTX 1650
low136 FPS
medium113 FPS
high94 FPS
ultra71 FPS
1080P
GeForce3 Ti 200
low1 FPS
medium1 FPS
high1 FPS
ultra1 FPS
League of Legends

League of Legends

1080P
GeForce GTX 1650
low323 FPS
medium283 FPS
high205 FPS
ultra169 FPS
1080P
GeForce3 Ti 200
low1 FPS
medium1 FPS
high1 FPS
ultra1 FPS
Valorant

Valorant

1080P
GeForce GTX 1650
low261 FPS
medium211 FPS
high191 FPS
ultra166 FPS
1080P
GeForce3 Ti 200
low1 FPS
medium1 FPS
high1 FPS
ultra1 FPS
Among Us

Among Us

1080P
GeForce GTX 1650
low60 FPS
medium60 FPS
high60 FPS
ultra60 FPS
1080P
GeForce3 Ti 200
low1 FPS
medium1 FPS
high1 FPS
ultra1 FPS
Apex Legends

Apex Legends

1080P
GeForce GTX 1650
low166 FPS
medium154 FPS
high145 FPS
ultra119 FPS
1080P
GeForce3 Ti 200
low1 FPS
medium1 FPS
high1 FPS
ultra1 FPS
ARC Raiders

ARC Raiders

1080P
GeForce GTX 1650
low77 FPS
medium59 FPS
high48 FPS
ultra34 FPS
1080P
GeForce3 Ti 200
low1 FPS
medium1 FPS
high1 FPS
ultra1 FPS
Baldur's Gate 3

Baldur's Gate 3

1080P
GeForce GTX 1650
low59 FPS
medium41 FPS
high34 FPS
ultra25 FPS
1080P
GeForce3 Ti 200
low1 FPS
medium1 FPS
high1 FPS
ultra1 FPS
Call of Duty: Black Ops 6

Call of Duty: Black Ops 6

1080P
GeForce GTX 1650
low79 FPS
medium62 FPS
high49 FPS
ultra36 FPS
1080P
GeForce3 Ti 200
low1 FPS
medium1 FPS
high1 FPS
ultra1 FPS
Call of Duty: Warzone

Call of Duty: Warzone

1080P
GeForce GTX 1650
low75 FPS
medium59 FPS
high46 FPS
ultra35 FPS
1080P
GeForce3 Ti 200
low1 FPS
medium1 FPS
high1 FPS
ultra1 FPS
Check FPS with Custom Builds

GeForce GTX 1650 vs GeForce3 Ti 200: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each GPU makes more sense in practice: raw FPS, VRAM, features, power draw, pricing, and long-term headroom.

GeForce GTX 1650

2019

Why buy it

  • ✅6866.0% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
  • ✅Delivers 196625% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 0.0 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
  • ✅700% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs 512 MB).
  • ✅GeForce3 Ti 200 is already legacy-tier future-proofing, so GeForce GTX 1650 is the less risky modern option long term.
  • ✅Draws 75W instead of 215W, a 140W reduction.

Trade-offs

  • ❌Older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in newer AAA releases.
  • ❌25.1% longer card at 229mm vs 183mm.

GeForce3 Ti 200

2018

Why buy it

  • ✅Measures 183mm instead of 229mm, a 46mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.

Trade-offs

  • ❌Lower average FPS than GeForce GTX 1650 across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
  • ❌Less VRAM, with 512 MB vs 4 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
  • ❌2018 hardware with 512 MB of VRAM already sits in legacy territory for modern games.
  • ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0.0 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
  • ❌186.7% higher power demand at 215W vs 75W.

Quick Answers

Which GPU is faster for gaming right now?
GeForce GTX 1650 is the faster gaming card right now. In our data, it leads by 6866.0% in average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data and by 196625% in PassMark G3D (7,869 vs 4), so the answer here is pretty clean.
Which GPU is the safer long-term pick for 2026 and beyond?
GeForce GTX 1650 is the safer long-term pick for 2026 and beyond. The case is simple: 4 GB vs 512 MB of VRAM and a newer 2019 generation instead of 2018. That gives it more room for heavier textures and higher settings over time.
Which GPU is the better buy today?
GeForce GTX 1650 makes the most sense to buy today. It is priced the same on MSRP at $149 vs $149, and it leads G3D-per-dollar by 196625% (52.8 vs 0.0), so the value case lines up with the gaming result.

GeForce GTX 1650 vs GeForce3 Ti 200 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

NVIDIA

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.

NVIDIA

GeForce3 Ti 200

The GeForce3 Ti 200 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in September 20 2018. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 1515 MHz to 1710 MHz. It has 2944 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 215W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. It features 46 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 4 points. Launch price was $699.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the GeForce3 Ti 200's 4 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 196625%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the GeForce3 Ti 200 uses Turing, both on a 12 nm process. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2,944 (GeForce3 Ti 200). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 10.07 TFLOPS (GeForce3 Ti 200). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1710 MHz.

FeatureGeForce GTX 1650GeForce3 Ti 200
G3D Mark Score
7,869+196625%
4
Architecture
Turing
Turing
Process Node
12 nm
12 nm
Shading Units
896
2944+229%
Compute (TFLOPS)
2.984 TFLOPS
10.07 TFLOPS+237%
Boost Clock
1665 MHz
1710 MHz+3%
ROPs
32
64+100%
TMUs
56
184+229%
L1 Cache
0.88 MB
2.9 MB+230%
L2 Cache
1 MB
4 MB+300%
✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

FeatureGeForce GTX 1650GeForce3 Ti 200
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 has 4 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce3 Ti 200 carries 512 MB. GeForce GTX 1650 gives you 700% more memory capacity, which matters more once you move into heavier textures, mods, or higher resolutions. Memory bus width is 128-bit on the GeForce GTX 1650 and 64-bit on the GeForce3 Ti 200. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 4 MB (GeForce3 Ti 200) — the GeForce3 Ti 200 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

FeatureGeForce GTX 1650GeForce3 Ti 200
VRAM Capacity
4 GB+700%
0.5 GB
Memory Type
GDDR5
GDDR5
Bus Width
128-bit+100%
64-bit
L2 Cache
1 MB
4 MB+300%
🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 8.1 (GeForce3 Ti 200). Vulkan: 1.4 vs N/A. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 1.3. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 2.

FeatureGeForce GTX 1650GeForce3 Ti 200
DirectX
12+48%
8.1
Vulkan
1.4
N/A
OpenGL
4.6+254%
1.3
Max Displays
3+50%
2
🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs None (GeForce3 Ti 200). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs None. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs MPEG-2 (GeForce3 Ti 200).

FeatureGeForce GTX 1650GeForce3 Ti 200
Encoder
NVENC 5th gen (Volta)
None
Decoder
NVDEC 4th gen
None
Codecs
H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9
MPEG-2
🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the GeForce3 Ti 200's 215W — a 96.6% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (GeForce3 Ti 200). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 229mm vs 183mm, occupying 2 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 60.

FeatureGeForce GTX 1650GeForce3 Ti 200
TDP
75W-65%
215W
Recommended PSU
300W-14%
350W
Power Connector
None
PCIe-powered
Length
229mm
183mm
Height
111mm
100mm
Slots
2
1-50%
Temp (Load)
70°C
60-14%
Perf/Watt
104.9
0.0
💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the GeForce GTX 1650 came in at $149, while the GeForce3 Ti 200 launched at $149. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 0.0 (GeForce3 Ti 200) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 100+% better value. The newer card here is GeForce GTX 1650 (2019 vs 2018).

FeatureGeForce GTX 1650GeForce3 Ti 200
MSRP
$149
$149
Performance per Dollar
52.8
0.0
Codename
TU117
TU104
Release
April 23 2019
September 20 2018
Ranking
#323
#94
Search GeForce GTX 1650 on AmazonSearch GeForce3 Ti 200 on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.