
GeForce GTX 1650
Popular choices:

Iris Graphics 540
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
- β +519.6% higher PassMark G3D performance.
- β Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 0 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).
- β 100+% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs Unknown).
- β Less risky long-term buy than Iris Graphics 540: it remains the more sensible modern option while Iris Graphics 540 is already obsolete for modern gaming.
Trade-offs
- βLimited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.
- β400% higher power demand at 75W vs 15W.
Iris Graphics 540
2015Why buy it
- β Draws 15W instead of 75W, a 60W reduction.
Trade-offs
- βLower PassMark G3D performance (1,270 vs 7,869).
- βLess VRAM, with Unknown vs 4 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
- βVery weak future-proofing: 2015-era hardware with Unknown of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
- βLower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 52.8 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
GeForce GTX 1650
2019Iris Graphics 540
2015Why buy it
- β +519.6% higher PassMark G3D performance.
- β Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 0 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).
- β 100+% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs Unknown).
- β Less risky long-term buy than Iris Graphics 540: it remains the more sensible modern option while Iris Graphics 540 is already obsolete for modern gaming.
Why buy it
- β Draws 15W instead of 75W, a 60W reduction.
Trade-offs
- βLimited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.
- β400% higher power demand at 75W vs 15W.
Trade-offs
- βLower PassMark G3D performance (1,270 vs 7,869).
- βLess VRAM, with Unknown vs 4 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
- βVery weak future-proofing: 2015-era hardware with Unknown of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
- βLower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 52.8 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
Quick Answers
So, is GeForce GTX 1650 better than Iris Graphics 540?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper card?
Is Iris Graphics 540 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 | Iris Graphics 540 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 94 FPS | 16 FPS |
| medium | 83 FPS | 11 FPS |
| high | 70 FPS | 7 FPS |
| ultra | 58 FPS | 4 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 87 FPS | 11 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 6 FPS |
| high | 60 FPS | 3 FPS |
| ultra | 50 FPS | 1 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 41 FPS | 4 FPS |
| medium | 39 FPS | 2 FPS |
| high | 27 FPS | 1 FPS |
| ultra | 24 FPS | 1 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Iris Graphics 540 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 136 FPS | 57 FPS |
| medium | 113 FPS | 46 FPS |
| high | 94 FPS | 32 FPS |
| ultra | 71 FPS | 23 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 79 FPS | 43 FPS |
| medium | 62 FPS | 28 FPS |
| high | 44 FPS | 20 FPS |
| ultra | 35 FPS | 15 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 36 FPS | 23 FPS |
| medium | 27 FPS | 15 FPS |
| high | 21 FPS | 12 FPS |
| ultra | 15 FPS | 8 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Iris Graphics 540 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 323 FPS | 57 FPS |
| medium | 283 FPS | 46 FPS |
| high | 205 FPS | 38 FPS |
| ultra | 169 FPS | 29 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 225 FPS | 43 FPS |
| medium | 202 FPS | 34 FPS |
| high | 151 FPS | 29 FPS |
| ultra | 117 FPS | 21 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 130 FPS | 29 FPS |
| medium | 117 FPS | 23 FPS |
| high | 79 FPS | 19 FPS |
| ultra | 50 FPS | 14 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Iris Graphics 540 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 261 FPS | 57 FPS |
| medium | 211 FPS | 46 FPS |
| high | 191 FPS | 37 FPS |
| ultra | 166 FPS | 24 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 201 FPS | 11 FPS |
| medium | 158 FPS | 8 FPS |
| high | 135 FPS | 6 FPS |
| ultra | 113 FPS | 5 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 99 FPS | 7 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 5 FPS |
| high | 65 FPS | 4 FPS |
| ultra | 51 FPS | 3 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Iris Graphics 540

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.

Iris Graphics 540
Iris Graphics 540
The Iris Graphics 540 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in September 1 2015. It features the Generation 9.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 300 MHz to 1000 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 15W. Manufactured using 14 nm+ process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,270 points.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Iris Graphics 540's 1,270 β the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 519.6%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Iris Graphics 540 uses Generation 9.0, both on 12 nm vs 14 nm+. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 384 (Iris Graphics 540). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 0.768 TFLOPS (Iris Graphics 540). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1000 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Iris Graphics 540 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869+520% | 1,270 |
| Architecture | Turing | Generation 9.0 |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 14 nm+ |
| Shading Units | 896+133% | 384 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS+289% | 0.768 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz+67% | 1000 MHz |
| ROPs | 32+433% | 6 |
| TMUs | 56+17% | 48 |
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 Iris Graphics 540 relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Iris Graphics 540 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 Iris Graphics 540 has 0 MB. The GeForce GTX 1650 offers 100+% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs System.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Iris Graphics 540 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | Shared System RAM |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | Shared |
| Memory Bandwidth | 128 GB/s | System |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | System |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12 (FL 12_1) (Iris Graphics 540). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 3.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Iris Graphics 540 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (FL 12_1) |
| Vulkan | 1.4+8% | 1.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 3 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs Quick Sync (Iris Graphics 540). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs Quick Sync. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs H.264,HEVC,VP8 (Iris Graphics 540).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Iris Graphics 540 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) | Quick Sync |
| Decoder | NVDEC 4th gen | Quick Sync |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 | H.264,HEVC,VP8 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Iris Graphics 540's 15W β a 133.3% difference. The Iris Graphics 540 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 1W (Iris Graphics 540). Power connectors: None vs Integrated.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Iris Graphics 540 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W | 15W-80% |
| Recommended PSU | 300W | 1W-100% |
| Power Connector | None | Integrated |
| Length | 229mm | β |
| Height | 111mm | β |
| Slots | 2 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | 70Β°C | β |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9+24% | 84.7 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP, while the Iris Graphics 540 launched at $0. The Iris Graphics 540 costs 100+% less ($149 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs Infinity (Iris Graphics 540) β the Iris Graphics 540 offers Infinity% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2015).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Iris Graphics 540 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149 | $0-100% |
| Performance per Dollar | 52.8 | Infinity |
| Codename | TU117 | Skylake GT3e |
| Release | April 23 2019 | September 1 2015 |
| Ranking | #323 | #808 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.













