GeForce GTX 1650 vs GRID T4-1Q

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

✅+138.2% higher PassMark G3D performance.
✅Costs $1,731 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $1,880 MSRP).
✅Delivers 2906% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 1.8 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $1,880 MSRP).
✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs 2 GB).
✅Less risky long-term buy than GRID T4-1Q: it remains the more sensible modern option while GRID T4-1Q 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.
❌22800% longer card at 229mm vs 1mm.

GRID T4-1Q

2015

Why buy it

✅Measures 1mm instead of 229mm, a 228mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (3,303 vs 7,869).
❌Less VRAM, with 2 GB vs 4 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
❌Very weak future-proofing: 2015-era hardware with 2 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
❌
1161.7% HIGHER MSRP
$1,880 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 1.8 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($1,880 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).

GeForce GTX 1650

2019

GRID T4-1Q

2015

Why buy it

✅+138.2% higher PassMark G3D performance.
✅Costs $1,731 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $1,880 MSRP).
✅Delivers 2906% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 1.8 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $1,880 MSRP).
✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs 2 GB).
✅Less risky long-term buy than GRID T4-1Q: it remains the more sensible modern option while GRID T4-1Q is already obsolete for modern gaming.

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 (3,303 vs 7,869).
❌Less VRAM, with 2 GB vs 4 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
❌Very weak future-proofing: 2015-era hardware with 2 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
❌
1161.7% HIGHER MSRP
$1,880 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 1.8 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($1,880 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is GeForce GTX 1650 better than GRID T4-1Q?

Yes. GeForce GTX 1650 is clearly the better overall GPU here. You are also looking at 7,869 vs 3,303 in G3D Mark. On top of that, GeForce GTX 1650 is a 2019 card with no meaningful modern upscaling stack, while GRID T4-1Q is a 2015 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 2015, 138.2% more raw performance headroom, more VRAM at 4 GB instead of 2 GB, 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 today, but it is not as lopsided as a simple winner label makes it sound. GeForce GTX 1650 is about $1,731 cheaper on MSRP at $149 MSRP versus $1,880 MSRP, and you are getting 138.2% higher G3D Mark. It also leads G3D-per-dollar by 2906%. That is why the better overall card still comes out as the smarter buy today, not just the faster one.

Is GRID T4-1Q still worth buying for gaming in 2026?

Yes. GRID T4-1Q is still a strong modern gaming GPU: it is still comfortable for 1080p and decent for 1440p, though 4K is more situational. It remains a good buy when you can get it meaningfully cheaper than the alternative around $1,880 MSRP, even if GeForce GTX 1650 is still the cleaner recommendation on overall value today.

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 T4-1Q Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	GRID T4-1Q
1080p
low	94 FPS	103 FPS
medium	83 FPS	85 FPS
high	70 FPS	67 FPS
ultra	58 FPS	40 FPS
1440p
low	87 FPS	86 FPS
medium	74 FPS	72 FPS
high	60 FPS	51 FPS
ultra	50 FPS	29 FPS
4K
low	41 FPS	28 FPS
medium	39 FPS	26 FPS
high	27 FPS	17 FPS
ultra	24 FPS	15 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open GRID T4-1Q

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	GRID T4-1Q
1080p
low	136 FPS	128 FPS
medium	113 FPS	101 FPS
high	94 FPS	82 FPS
ultra	71 FPS	63 FPS
1440p
low	79 FPS	88 FPS
medium	62 FPS	65 FPS
high	44 FPS	53 FPS
ultra	35 FPS	40 FPS
4K
low	36 FPS	41 FPS
medium	27 FPS	32 FPS
high	21 FPS	29 FPS
ultra	15 FPS	24 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open GRID T4-1Q

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	GRID T4-1Q
1080p
low	323 FPS	149 FPS
medium	283 FPS	119 FPS
high	205 FPS	99 FPS
ultra	169 FPS	74 FPS
1440p
low	225 FPS	111 FPS
medium	202 FPS	89 FPS
high	151 FPS	74 FPS
ultra	117 FPS	56 FPS
4K
low	130 FPS	74 FPS
medium	117 FPS	59 FPS
high	79 FPS	50 FPS
ultra	50 FPS	37 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open GRID T4-1Q

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	GRID T4-1Q
1080p
low	261 FPS	149 FPS
medium	211 FPS	119 FPS
high	191 FPS	99 FPS
ultra	166 FPS	74 FPS
1440p
low	201 FPS	111 FPS
medium	158 FPS	89 FPS
high	135 FPS	74 FPS
ultra	113 FPS	56 FPS
4K
low	99 FPS	74 FPS
medium	74 FPS	59 FPS
high	65 FPS	49 FPS
ultra	51 FPS	36 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open GRID T4-1Q

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and GRID T4-1Q

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 T4-1Q

The GRID T4-1Q 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: 3,303 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the GRID T4-1Q's 3,303 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 138.2%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the GRID T4-1Q uses Maxwell 2.0, both on 12 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2,048 (GRID T4-1Q). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 4.825 TFLOPS (GRID T4-1Q). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1178 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GRID T4-1Q
G3D Mark Score	7,869+138%	3,303
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 T4-1Q relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GRID T4-1Q
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 T4-1Q has 2 GB. The GeForce GTX 1650 offers 100% 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 2 MB (GRID T4-1Q) — the GRID T4-1Q has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GRID T4-1Q
VRAM Capacity	4 GB+100%	2 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Bus Width	128-bit+100%	64-bit
L2 Cache	1 MB	2 MB+100%

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12_1 (GRID T4-1Q). Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 0.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GRID T4-1Q
DirectX	12	12_1
Max Displays	3	0

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the GRID T4-1Q's 225W — a 100% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (GRID T4-1Q). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 229mm vs 1mm, occupying 2 vs 0 slots.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GRID T4-1Q
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+614%	14.7

💰

Value Analysis

The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP, while the GRID T4-1Q launched at $1880. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 92.1% less ($1731 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 1.8 (GRID T4-1Q) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 2833.3% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2015).