Chipversus Index
Jump to Section

GeForce GTX 1650 vs GRID K140Q

CPUCPUGPUGPU
NVIDIA

GeForce GTX 1650

2019Core: 1485 MHzBoost: 1665 MHz
GTX family
·······
Buy on Amazon
VS

GRID K140Q

2013Core: 745 MHz
Similar parts
·······
Buy on Amazon

GeForce GTX 1650 vs GRID K140Q Performance Spectrum

GeForce GTX 1650
4 GB 75
7,869
+980.9%
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
GRID K140Q
0.5 GB 225
728
0.0%
brand logoGeForce 8800 GTS
brand logoGeForce GT 625M
brand logoGeForce GT 720A
brand logoGeForce GTS 360M
brand logoGeForce GTX 760 Ti OEM
brand logoGeForce GTX 1060 6 GB
brand logoGeForce GTX 1070 Ti
brand logoGeForce RTX 2080 SUPER

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 GRID K140Q: 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

  • ✅+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).
  • ✅GRID K140Q is already obsolete for modern gaming, so GeForce GTX 1650 is the less risky modern option long term.
  • ✅Draws 75W instead of 225W, a 150W reduction.

Trade-offs

  • ❌Older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in newer AAA releases.

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.
  • ❌2013 hardware with 512 MB of VRAM is already well past its comfortable zone for modern gaming, so it is hard to recommend now.
  • ❌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

Which GPU is faster for gaming right now?
GeForce GTX 1650 is the faster gaming card right now based on the synthetic data we have. It leads by 980.9% in PassMark G3D (7,869 vs 728), which is the best performance signal available in this matchup.
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, a 12nm process instead of 28nm, and a newer 2019 generation instead of 2013. 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 $24 more expensive on MSRP at $149 vs $125, and it leads G3D-per-dollar by 806.8% (52.8 vs 5.8), so the value case lines up with the gaming result.

GeForce GTX 1650 vs GRID K140Q 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

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).

FeatureGeForce GTX 1650GRID 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 gets NVIDIA DLSS, which still tends to look cleaner in motion. The GRID K140Q leans on FSR, which is flexible and widely supported, but usually a bit rougher at the same settings.

FeatureGeForce GTX 1650GRID 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 has 4 GB of VRAM, while the GRID K140Q 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 GRID K140Q. 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.

FeatureGeForce GTX 1650GRID 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.

FeatureGeForce GTX 1650GRID 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.

FeatureGeForce GTX 1650GRID 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.

FeatureGeForce GTX 1650GRID 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

At launch, the GeForce GTX 1650 came in at $149, while the GRID K140Q launched at $125. On MSRP, GRID K140Q was 16.1% cheaper ($24 less). 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 newer card here is GeForce GTX 1650 (2019 vs 2013).

FeatureGeForce GTX 1650GRID K140Q
MSRP
$149
$125-16%
Performance per Dollar
52.8+810%
5.8
Codename
TU117
GK104
Release
April 23 2019
June 28 2013
Ranking
#323
#628
Search GeForce GTX 1650 on AmazonSearch GRID K140Q 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.