
GeForce GTX 1650
Popular choices:

GRID K220Q
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
- ✅+762.8% higher PassMark G3D performance.
- ✅Costs $320 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $469 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 2615.9% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 1.9 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $469 MSRP).
- ✅700% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs 512 MB).
- ✅Less risky long-term buy than GRID K220Q: it remains the more sensible modern option while GRID K220Q is already obsolete for modern gaming.
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 K220Q
2014Why buy it
- ✅Competitive enough if your priority is price, power, or specific feature preference.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (912 vs 7,869).
- ❌Less VRAM, with 512 MB vs 4 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
- ❌Very weak future-proofing: 2014-era hardware with 512 MB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
- ❌214.8% HIGHER MSRP$469 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 1.9 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($469 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
GeForce GTX 1650
2019GRID K220Q
2014Why buy it
- ✅+762.8% higher PassMark G3D performance.
- ✅Costs $320 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $469 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 2615.9% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 1.9 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $469 MSRP).
- ✅700% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs 512 MB).
- ✅Less risky long-term buy than GRID K220Q: it remains the more sensible modern option while GRID K220Q is already obsolete for modern gaming.
Why buy it
- ✅Competitive enough if your priority is price, power, or specific feature preference.
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 (912 vs 7,869).
- ❌Less VRAM, with 512 MB vs 4 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
- ❌Very weak future-proofing: 2014-era hardware with 512 MB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
- ❌214.8% HIGHER MSRP$469 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 1.9 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($469 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
Quick Answers
So, is GeForce GTX 1650 better than GRID K220Q?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper card?
Is GRID K220Q 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 | GRID K220Q |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 94 FPS | 41 FPS |
| medium | 83 FPS | 33 FPS |
| high | 70 FPS | 27 FPS |
| ultra | 58 FPS | 21 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 87 FPS | 31 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 25 FPS |
| high | 60 FPS | 21 FPS |
| ultra | 50 FPS | 15 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 41 FPS | 21 FPS |
| medium | 39 FPS | 16 FPS |
| high | 27 FPS | 14 FPS |
| ultra | 24 FPS | 10 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | GRID K220Q |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 136 FPS | 41 FPS |
| medium | 113 FPS | 33 FPS |
| high | 94 FPS | 27 FPS |
| ultra | 71 FPS | 21 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 79 FPS | 31 FPS |
| medium | 62 FPS | 25 FPS |
| high | 44 FPS | 21 FPS |
| ultra | 35 FPS | 15 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 36 FPS | 18 FPS |
| medium | 27 FPS | 12 FPS |
| high | 21 FPS | 9 FPS |
| ultra | 15 FPS | 7 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | GRID K220Q |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 323 FPS | 41 FPS |
| medium | 283 FPS | 33 FPS |
| high | 205 FPS | 27 FPS |
| ultra | 169 FPS | 21 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 225 FPS | 31 FPS |
| medium | 202 FPS | 25 FPS |
| high | 151 FPS | 21 FPS |
| ultra | 117 FPS | 15 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 130 FPS | 21 FPS |
| medium | 117 FPS | 16 FPS |
| high | 79 FPS | 14 FPS |
| ultra | 50 FPS | 10 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | GRID K220Q |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 261 FPS | 41 FPS |
| medium | 211 FPS | 33 FPS |
| high | 191 FPS | 27 FPS |
| ultra | 166 FPS | 21 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 201 FPS | 31 FPS |
| medium | 158 FPS | 25 FPS |
| high | 135 FPS | 21 FPS |
| ultra | 113 FPS | 15 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 99 FPS | 21 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 16 FPS |
| high | 65 FPS | 14 FPS |
| ultra | 51 FPS | 10 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and GRID K220Q

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.

GRID K220Q
GRID K220Q
The GRID K220Q is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in July 2 2014. 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: 912 points. Launch price was $469.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the GRID K220Q's 912 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 762.8%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the GRID K220Q uses Kepler, both on 12 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 1,536 (GRID K220Q). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2.289 TFLOPS (GRID K220Q).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GRID K220Q |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869+763% | 912 |
| 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 K220Q relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GRID K220Q |
|---|---|---|
| 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 K220Q 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 K220Q) — the GeForce GTX 1650 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GRID K220Q |
|---|---|---|
| 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 K220Q). Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 2.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GRID K220Q |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12+9% | 11_0 |
| Max Displays | 3+50% | 2 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the GRID K220Q's 225W — a 100% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (GRID K220Q). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 229mm vs 265mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GRID K220Q |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W-67% | 225W |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-14% | 350W |
| Power Connector | None | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 229mm | 265mm |
| Height | 111mm | — |
| Slots | 2 | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9+2459% | 4.1 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP, while the GRID K220Q launched at $469. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 68.2% less ($320 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 1.9 (GRID K220Q) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 2678.9% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2014).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GRID K220Q |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149-68% | $469 |
| Performance per Dollar | 52.8+2679% | 1.9 |
| Codename | TU117 | GK104 |
| Release | April 23 2019 | July 2 2014 |
| Ranking | #323 | #907 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.













