
GeForce GTX 1650
Popular choices:

GRID P40-8Q
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
- ✅Costs $2,851 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $3,000 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 2010.5% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 2.5 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $3,000 MSRP).
- ✅Less risky long-term buy than GRID P40-8Q: it remains the more sensible modern option while GRID P40-8Q is already legacy-tier future-proofing.
- ✅Draws 75W instead of 225W, a 150W reduction.
- ✅Measures 229mm instead of 267mm, a 38mm 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.
GRID P40-8Q
2015Why buy it
- ✅Competitive enough if your priority is price, power, or specific feature preference.
Trade-offs
- ❌Poor future-proofing: 2015-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.
- ❌1913.4% HIGHER MSRP$3,000 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 2.5 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($3,000 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
- ❌200% higher power demand at 225W vs 75W.
- ❌16.6% longer card at 267mm vs 229mm.
GeForce GTX 1650
2019GRID P40-8Q
2015Why buy it
- ✅Costs $2,851 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $3,000 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 2010.5% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 2.5 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $3,000 MSRP).
- ✅Less risky long-term buy than GRID P40-8Q: it remains the more sensible modern option while GRID P40-8Q is already legacy-tier future-proofing.
- ✅Draws 75W instead of 225W, a 150W reduction.
- ✅Measures 229mm instead of 267mm, a 38mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.
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
- ❌Poor future-proofing: 2015-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.
- ❌1913.4% HIGHER MSRP$3,000 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 2.5 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($3,000 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
- ❌200% higher power demand at 225W vs 75W.
- ❌16.6% longer card at 267mm vs 229mm.
Quick Answers
So, is GeForce GTX 1650 better than GRID P40-8Q?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper card?
Is GRID P40-8Q 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 P40-8Q |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 94 FPS | 104 FPS |
| medium | 83 FPS | 90 FPS |
| high | 70 FPS | 73 FPS |
| ultra | 58 FPS | 44 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 87 FPS | 91 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 80 FPS |
| high | 60 FPS | 58 FPS |
| ultra | 50 FPS | 33 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 P40-8Q |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 136 FPS | 162 FPS |
| medium | 113 FPS | 128 FPS |
| high | 94 FPS | 94 FPS |
| ultra | 71 FPS | 75 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 79 FPS | 119 FPS |
| medium | 62 FPS | 92 FPS |
| high | 44 FPS | 74 FPS |
| ultra | 35 FPS | 57 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 36 FPS | 68 FPS |
| medium | 27 FPS | 52 FPS |
| high | 21 FPS | 43 FPS |
| ultra | 15 FPS | 32 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | GRID P40-8Q |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 323 FPS | 338 FPS |
| medium | 283 FPS | 270 FPS |
| high | 205 FPS | 225 FPS |
| ultra | 169 FPS | 169 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 225 FPS | 253 FPS |
| medium | 202 FPS | 203 FPS |
| high | 151 FPS | 169 FPS |
| ultra | 117 FPS | 127 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 130 FPS | 169 FPS |
| medium | 117 FPS | 135 FPS |
| high | 79 FPS | 113 FPS |
| ultra | 50 FPS | 84 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | GRID P40-8Q |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 261 FPS | 182 FPS |
| medium | 211 FPS | 148 FPS |
| high | 191 FPS | 133 FPS |
| ultra | 166 FPS | 103 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 201 FPS | 132 FPS |
| medium | 158 FPS | 110 FPS |
| high | 135 FPS | 99 FPS |
| ultra | 113 FPS | 77 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 99 FPS | 77 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 60 FPS |
| high | 65 FPS | 49 FPS |
| ultra | 51 FPS | 36 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and GRID P40-8Q

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 P40-8Q
GRID P40-8Q
The GRID P40-8Q is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in August 30 2015. It features the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 557 MHz to 1178 MHz. It has 2048 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 225W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 7,507 points.
Graphics Performance
The GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 and the GRID P40-8Q reaches 7,507 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 4.8% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the GRID P40-8Q uses Maxwell 2.0, both on 12 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2,048 (GRID P40-8Q). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 4.825 TFLOPS (GRID P40-8Q). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1178 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GRID P40-8Q |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869+5% | 7,507 |
| Architecture | Turing | Maxwell 2.0 |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 896 | 2048+129% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS | 4.825 TFLOPS+62% |
| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz+41% | 1178 MHz |
| ROPs | 32 | 64+100% |
| TMUs | 56 | 128+129% |
| L1 Cache | 896 KB+17% | 768 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 2 MB+100% |
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 P40-8Q relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GRID P40-8Q |
|---|---|---|
| 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 2 MB (GRID P40-8Q) — the GRID P40-8Q has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GRID P40-8Q |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 2 MB+100% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12.0 (GRID P40-8Q). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.1. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.5. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 0.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GRID P40-8Q |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.4+27% | 1.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6+2% | 4.5 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 0 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs NVENC 4.0 (GRID P40-8Q). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs PureVideo HD VP7. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9 (GRID P40-8Q).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GRID P40-8Q |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) | NVENC 4.0 |
| Decoder | NVDEC 4th gen | PureVideo HD VP7 |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the GRID P40-8Q's 225W — a 100% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (GRID P40-8Q). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 229mm vs 267mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GRID P40-8Q |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W-67% | 225W |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-14% | 350W |
| Power Connector | None | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 229mm | 267mm |
| Height | 111mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 2 | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9+214% | 33.4 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP, while the GRID P40-8Q 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 2.5 (GRID P40-8Q) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 2012% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2015).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GRID P40-8Q |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149-95% | $3000 |
| Performance per Dollar | 52.8+2012% | 2.5 |
| Codename | TU117 | GM204 |
| Release | April 23 2019 | August 30 2015 |
| Ranking | #323 | #505 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.













