
GeForce GTX 1650
Popular choices:

Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arc)
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
- ✅+43.1% higher PassMark G3D performance.
- ✅Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 0 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).
Trade-offs
- ❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.
- ❌400% higher power demand at 75W vs 15W.
Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arc)
2023Why buy it
- ✅More future proof: Xe LPG (2023) on 5nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
- ✅Draws 15W instead of 75W, a 60W reduction.
- ✅More future proof: Xe LPG (2023) on 5nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (5,500 vs 7,869).
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 52.8 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
GeForce GTX 1650
2019Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arc)
2023Why buy it
- ✅+43.1% higher PassMark G3D performance.
- ✅Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 0 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).
Why buy it
- ✅More future proof: Xe LPG (2023) on 5nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
- ✅Draws 15W instead of 75W, a 60W reduction.
- ✅More future proof: Xe LPG (2023) on 5nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
Trade-offs
- ❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.
- ❌400% higher power demand at 75W vs 15W.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (5,500 vs 7,869).
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 52.8 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
Quick Answers
So, is GeForce GTX 1650 better than Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arc)?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper card?
When does Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arc) 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 | Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arc) |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 94 FPS | 88 FPS |
| medium | 83 FPS | 76 FPS |
| high | 70 FPS | 56 FPS |
| ultra | 58 FPS | 36 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 87 FPS | 70 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 61 FPS |
| high | 60 FPS | 41 FPS |
| ultra | 50 FPS | 25 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 41 FPS | 27 FPS |
| medium | 39 FPS | 25 FPS |
| high | 27 FPS | 16 FPS |
| ultra | 24 FPS | 14 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arc) |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 136 FPS | 119 FPS |
| medium | 113 FPS | 93 FPS |
| high | 94 FPS | 72 FPS |
| ultra | 71 FPS | 54 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 79 FPS | 86 FPS |
| medium | 62 FPS | 65 FPS |
| high | 44 FPS | 53 FPS |
| ultra | 35 FPS | 41 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 36 FPS | 52 FPS |
| medium | 27 FPS | 39 FPS |
| high | 21 FPS | 31 FPS |
| ultra | 15 FPS | 23 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arc) |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 323 FPS | 248 FPS |
| medium | 283 FPS | 198 FPS |
| high | 205 FPS | 165 FPS |
| ultra | 169 FPS | 124 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 225 FPS | 186 FPS |
| medium | 202 FPS | 148 FPS |
| high | 151 FPS | 124 FPS |
| ultra | 117 FPS | 93 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 130 FPS | 124 FPS |
| medium | 117 FPS | 99 FPS |
| high | 79 FPS | 81 FPS |
| ultra | 50 FPS | 59 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arc) |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 261 FPS | 153 FPS |
| medium | 211 FPS | 119 FPS |
| high | 191 FPS | 96 FPS |
| ultra | 166 FPS | 77 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 201 FPS | 112 FPS |
| medium | 158 FPS | 88 FPS |
| high | 135 FPS | 70 FPS |
| ultra | 113 FPS | 56 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 99 FPS | 69 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 52 FPS |
| high | 65 FPS | 42 FPS |
| ultra | 51 FPS | 31 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arc)

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.

Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arc)
Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arc)
The Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arc) is manufactured by Intel. It was released in December 14 2023. It features the Xe LPG architecture. The core clock ranges from 300 MHz to 1950 MHz. It has 4 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 15W. Manufactured using 5 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 5,500 points.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arc)'s 5,500 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 43.1%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arc) uses Xe LPG, both on 12 nm vs 5 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 4 (Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arc)). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1950 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arc) |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869+43% | 5,500 |
| Architecture | Turing | Xe LPG |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 5 nm |
| Shading Units | 896+22300% | 4 |
| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz | 1950 MHz+17% |
| L1 Cache | 896 KB+17% | 768 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
The GeForce GTX 1650 gives access to NVIDIA DLSS (Deep Learning Super Sampling), widely regarding as the superior upscaling method for image quality. The Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arc) relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arc) |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | Upscaling support | Upscaling support |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | NVIDIA Reflex | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 4 GB of video memory. Bus width: 128-bit vs System.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arc) |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | Shared |
| Memory Bandwidth | 128 GB/s | System |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | System |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12_2 (Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arc)). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arc) |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12_2 |
| Vulkan | 1.4+8% | 1.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 4+33% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs QuickSync (Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arc)). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs QuickSync. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs MPEG2,AVC,VP9,HEVC,AV1 (Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arc)).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arc) |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) | QuickSync |
| Decoder | NVDEC 4th gen | QuickSync |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 | MPEG2,AVC,VP9,HEVC,AV1 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arc)'s 15W — a 133.3% difference. The Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arc) is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arc)). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 229mm vs 0mm, occupying 2 vs 0 slots.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arc) |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W | 15W-80% |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-14% | 350W |
| Power Connector | None | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 229mm | 0mm |
| Height | 111mm | — |
| Slots | 2 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9 | 366.7+250% |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP, while the Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arc) launched at $0. The Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arc) costs 100+% less ($149 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs Infinity (Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arc)) — the Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arc) offers Infinity% better value. The Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arc) is the newer GPU (2023 vs 2019).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arc) |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149 | $0-100% |
| Performance per Dollar | 52.8 | Infinity |
| Codename | TU117 | Meteor Lake iGPU |
| Release | April 23 2019 | December 14 2023 |
| Ranking | #323 | #495 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.













