
GeForce GTX 1650
Popular choices:

GRID P40-4Q
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
- ✅+32.8% higher PassMark G3D performance.
- ✅Costs $2,851 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $3,000 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 2573.6% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 2.0 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $3,000 MSRP).
- ✅Less risky long-term buy than GRID P40-4Q: it remains the more sensible modern option while GRID P40-4Q 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.
- ❌22800% longer card at 229mm vs 1mm.
GRID P40-4Q
2013Why buy it
- ✅Measures 1mm instead of 229mm, a 228mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (5,926 vs 7,869).
- ❌Very weak future-proofing: 2013-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
- ❌1913.4% HIGHER MSRP$3,000 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 2.0 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($3,000 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
- ❌200% higher power demand at 225W vs 75W.
GeForce GTX 1650
2019GRID P40-4Q
2013Why buy it
- ✅+32.8% higher PassMark G3D performance.
- ✅Costs $2,851 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $3,000 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 2573.6% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 2.0 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $3,000 MSRP).
- ✅Less risky long-term buy than GRID P40-4Q: it remains the more sensible modern option while GRID P40-4Q is already obsolete for modern gaming.
- ✅Draws 75W instead of 225W, a 150W reduction.
Why buy it
- ✅Measures 1mm instead of 229mm, a 228mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.
Trade-offs
- ❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.
- ❌22800% longer card at 229mm vs 1mm.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (5,926 vs 7,869).
- ❌Very weak future-proofing: 2013-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
- ❌1913.4% HIGHER MSRP$3,000 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 2.0 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($3,000 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
- ❌200% higher power demand at 225W vs 75W.
Quick Answers
So, is GeForce GTX 1650 better than GRID P40-4Q?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper card?
Is GRID P40-4Q 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 P40-4Q |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 94 FPS | 103 FPS |
| medium | 83 FPS | 89 FPS |
| high | 70 FPS | 70 FPS |
| ultra | 58 FPS | 42 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 87 FPS | 90 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 79 FPS |
| high | 60 FPS | 56 FPS |
| ultra | 50 FPS | 32 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 41 FPS | 29 FPS |
| medium | 39 FPS | 27 FPS |
| high | 27 FPS | 18 FPS |
| ultra | 24 FPS | 16 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | GRID P40-4Q |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 136 FPS | 111 FPS |
| medium | 113 FPS | 78 FPS |
| high | 94 FPS | 57 FPS |
| ultra | 71 FPS | 39 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 79 FPS | 72 FPS |
| medium | 62 FPS | 49 FPS |
| high | 44 FPS | 37 FPS |
| ultra | 35 FPS | 27 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 36 FPS | 36 FPS |
| medium | 27 FPS | 25 FPS |
| high | 21 FPS | 20 FPS |
| ultra | 15 FPS | 14 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | GRID P40-4Q |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 323 FPS | 267 FPS |
| medium | 283 FPS | 213 FPS |
| high | 205 FPS | 178 FPS |
| ultra | 169 FPS | 133 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 225 FPS | 200 FPS |
| medium | 202 FPS | 160 FPS |
| high | 151 FPS | 133 FPS |
| ultra | 117 FPS | 100 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 130 FPS | 133 FPS |
| medium | 117 FPS | 107 FPS |
| high | 79 FPS | 89 FPS |
| ultra | 50 FPS | 67 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | GRID P40-4Q |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 261 FPS | 166 FPS |
| medium | 211 FPS | 133 FPS |
| high | 191 FPS | 117 FPS |
| ultra | 166 FPS | 90 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 201 FPS | 121 FPS |
| medium | 158 FPS | 99 FPS |
| high | 135 FPS | 87 FPS |
| ultra | 113 FPS | 62 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 99 FPS | 70 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 54 FPS |
| high | 65 FPS | 44 FPS |
| ultra | 51 FPS | 29 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and GRID P40-4Q

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 P40-4Q
GRID P40-4Q
The GRID P40-4Q 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: 5,926 points. Launch price was $469.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the GRID P40-4Q's 5,926 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 32.8%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the GRID P40-4Q uses Kepler, both on 12 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 1,536 (GRID P40-4Q). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2.289 TFLOPS (GRID P40-4Q).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GRID P40-4Q |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869+33% | 5,926 |
| 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 P40-4Q relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GRID P40-4Q |
|---|---|---|
| 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 128-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 0.5 MB (GRID P40-4Q) — the GeForce GTX 1650 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GRID P40-4Q |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+100% | 0.5 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12_1 (GRID P40-4Q). Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 0.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GRID P40-4Q |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12_1 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 0 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the GRID P40-4Q's 225W — a 100% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (GRID P40-4Q). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 229mm vs 1mm, occupying 2 vs 0 slots.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GRID P40-4Q |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W-67% | 225W |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-14% | 350W |
| Power Connector | None | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 229mm | 1mm |
| Height | 111mm | — |
| Slots | 2 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9+299% | 26.3 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP, while the GRID P40-4Q launched at $3000. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 95% less ($2851 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2.0 (GRID P40-4Q) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 2540% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2013).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GRID P40-4Q |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149-95% | $3000 |
| Performance per Dollar | 52.8+2540% | 2.0 |
| Codename | TU117 | GK104 |
| Release | April 23 2019 | June 28 2013 |
| Ranking | #323 | #628 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.













