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

2019

Why buy it

✅+980.9% higher PassMark G3D performance.
✅Delivers 806.8% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 5.8 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $125 MSRP).
✅700% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs 512 MB).
✅Less risky long-term buy than GRID K140Q: it remains the more sensible modern option while GRID K140Q is already obsolete for modern gaming.
✅Draws 75W instead of 225W, a 150W 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.

GRID K140Q

2013

Why buy it

✅Costs $24 less on MSRP ($125 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (728 vs 7,869).
❌Less VRAM, with 512 MB vs 4 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
❌Very weak future-proofing: 2013-era hardware with 512 MB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 5.8 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($125 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
❌200% higher power demand at 225W vs 75W.

GeForce GTX 1650

2019

GRID K140Q

2013

Why buy it

✅+980.9% higher PassMark G3D performance.
✅Delivers 806.8% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 5.8 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $125 MSRP).
✅700% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs 512 MB).
✅Less risky long-term buy than GRID K140Q: it remains the more sensible modern option while GRID K140Q is already obsolete for modern gaming.
✅Draws 75W instead of 225W, a 150W reduction.

Why buy it

✅Costs $24 less on MSRP ($125 MSRP vs $149 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.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (728 vs 7,869).
❌Less VRAM, with 512 MB vs 4 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
❌Very weak future-proofing: 2013-era hardware with 512 MB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 5.8 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($125 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
❌200% higher power demand at 225W vs 75W.

Quick Answers

So, is GeForce GTX 1650 better than GRID K140Q?

Yes. GeForce GTX 1650 is clearly the better overall GPU here. You are also looking at 7,869 vs 728 in G3D Mark. On top of that, GeForce GTX 1650 is a 2019 card with no meaningful modern upscaling stack, while GRID K140Q is a 2013 model from an older generation with no meaningful modern upscaling stack. So this is not really a tight same-tier comparison. It is more a modern card against an older, weaker alternative.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

GeForce GTX 1650 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer 2019 generation instead of 2013, 980.9% more raw performance headroom, more VRAM at 4 GB instead of 512 MB, and a 12nm process instead of 28nm. That leaves it with more room for heavier textures, tougher ray tracing loads, and higher-end 1440p or 4K gaming over the next few years.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper card?

GeForce GTX 1650 is the smarter buy by a wide margin. GeForce GTX 1650 is about 19.2% more expensive on MSRP at $149 MSRP versus $125 MSRP, and you are getting 980.9% higher G3D Mark. GRID K140Q really only makes sense now as a very cheap stopgap or a used-market placeholder.

Is GRID K140Q still worth buying for gaming in 2026?

No, not for a fresh gaming build. GRID K140Q is 2013 hardware with 512 MB of VRAM, 728 in G3D Mark, and no meaningful modern upscaling stack. That is simply too far behind to be an easy modern recommendation.

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.

GeForce GTX 1650 Benchmark Check

GRID K140Q Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	GRID K140Q
1080p
low	94 FPS	33 FPS
medium	83 FPS	26 FPS
high	70 FPS	22 FPS
ultra	58 FPS	16 FPS
1440p
low	87 FPS	25 FPS
medium	74 FPS	20 FPS
high	60 FPS	16 FPS
ultra	50 FPS	12 FPS
4K
low	41 FPS	16 FPS
medium	39 FPS	13 FPS
high	27 FPS	11 FPS
ultra	24 FPS	8 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open GRID K140Q

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	GRID K140Q
1080p
low	136 FPS	33 FPS
medium	113 FPS	26 FPS
high	94 FPS	22 FPS
ultra	71 FPS	16 FPS
1440p
low	79 FPS	25 FPS
medium	62 FPS	20 FPS
high	44 FPS	16 FPS
ultra	35 FPS	12 FPS
4K
low	36 FPS	16 FPS
medium	27 FPS	12 FPS
high	21 FPS	9 FPS
ultra	15 FPS	7 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open GRID K140Q

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	GRID K140Q
1080p
low	323 FPS	33 FPS
medium	283 FPS	26 FPS
high	205 FPS	22 FPS
ultra	169 FPS	16 FPS
1440p
low	225 FPS	25 FPS
medium	202 FPS	20 FPS
high	151 FPS	16 FPS
ultra	117 FPS	12 FPS
4K
low	130 FPS	16 FPS
medium	117 FPS	13 FPS
high	79 FPS	11 FPS
ultra	50 FPS	8 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open GRID K140Q

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	GRID K140Q
1080p
low	261 FPS	33 FPS
medium	211 FPS	26 FPS
high	191 FPS	22 FPS
ultra	166 FPS	16 FPS
1440p
low	201 FPS	25 FPS
medium	158 FPS	20 FPS
high	135 FPS	16 FPS
ultra	113 FPS	12 FPS
4K
low	99 FPS	16 FPS
medium	74 FPS	13 FPS
high	65 FPS	11 FPS
ultra	51 FPS	8 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open GRID K140Q

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and GRID K140Q

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.

GRID K140Q

The GRID K140Q is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in June 28 2013. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock speed is 745 MHz. It has 1536 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 225W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 728 points. Launch price was $469.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the GRID K140Q's 728 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 980.9%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the GRID K140Q uses Kepler, both on 12 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 1,536 (GRID K140Q). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2.289 TFLOPS (GRID K140Q).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GRID K140Q
G3D Mark Score	7,869+981%	728
Architecture	Turing	Kepler
Process Node	12 nm	28 nm
Shading Units	896	1536+71%
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.984 TFLOPS+30%	2.289 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	32
TMUs	56	128+129%
L1 Cache	896 KB+600%	128 KB
L2 Cache	1 MB+100%	0.5 MB

✨

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 GRID K140Q relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GRID K140Q
Upscaling Tech	Upscaling support	Upscaling support
Frame Generation	Not Supported	Not Supported
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	NVIDIA Reflex	Standard

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

The GeForce GTX 1650 comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the GRID K140Q has 512 MB. The GeForce GTX 1650 offers 700% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 0.5 MB (GRID K140Q) — the GeForce GTX 1650 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GRID K140Q
VRAM Capacity	4 GB+700%	0.5 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Bus Width	128-bit+100%	64-bit
L2 Cache	1 MB+100%	0.5 MB

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 11_0 (GRID K140Q). Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 0.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GRID K140Q
DirectX	12+9%	11_0
Max Displays	3	0

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs NVENC 3rd Gen (GRID K140Q). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs NVDEC 1st Gen.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GRID K140Q
Encoder	NVENC 5th gen (Volta)	NVENC 3rd Gen
Decoder	NVDEC 4th gen	NVDEC 1st Gen
Codecs	H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9	—

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the GRID K140Q's 225W — a 100% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (GRID K140Q). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 229mm vs 267mm, occupying 2 vs 1 slots.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GRID K140Q
TDP	75W-67%	225W
Recommended PSU	300W-14%	350W
Power Connector	None	PCIe-powered
Length	229mm	267mm
Height	111mm	—
Slots	2	1-50%
Temp (Load)	70°C	—
Perf/Watt	104.9+3178%	3.2

💰

Value Analysis

The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP, while the GRID K140Q launched at $125. The GRID K140Q costs 16.1% less ($24 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 5.8 (GRID K140Q) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 810.3% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2013).