
GeForce GTX 1650
Popular choices:

P102-100
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
- ✅+138.4% higher PassMark G3D performance.
- ✅Costs $451 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $600 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 859.9% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 5.5 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $600 MSRP).
- ✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs 2 GB).
- ✅Less risky long-term buy than P102-100: it remains the more sensible modern option while P102-100 is already legacy-tier future-proofing.
Trade-offs
- ❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.
P102-100
2018Why buy it
- ✅Competitive enough if your priority is price, power, or specific feature preference.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (3,301 vs 7,869).
- ❌Less VRAM, with 2 GB vs 4 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
- ❌Poor future-proofing: 2018-era hardware with 2 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.
- ❌302.7% HIGHER MSRP$600 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 5.5 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($600 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
GeForce GTX 1650
2019P102-100
2018Why buy it
- ✅+138.4% higher PassMark G3D performance.
- ✅Costs $451 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $600 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 859.9% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 5.5 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $600 MSRP).
- ✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs 2 GB).
- ✅Less risky long-term buy than P102-100: it remains the more sensible modern option while P102-100 is already legacy-tier future-proofing.
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 (3,301 vs 7,869).
- ❌Less VRAM, with 2 GB vs 4 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
- ❌Poor future-proofing: 2018-era hardware with 2 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.
- ❌302.7% HIGHER MSRP$600 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 5.5 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($600 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
Quick Answers
So, is GeForce GTX 1650 better than P102-100?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper card?
Is P102-100 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 | P102-100 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 94 FPS | 142 FPS |
| medium | 83 FPS | 119 FPS |
| high | 70 FPS | 99 FPS |
| ultra | 58 FPS | 74 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 87 FPS | 111 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 89 FPS |
| high | 60 FPS | 74 FPS |
| ultra | 50 FPS | 56 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 41 FPS | 57 FPS |
| medium | 39 FPS | 50 FPS |
| high | 27 FPS | 41 FPS |
| ultra | 24 FPS | 37 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | P102-100 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 136 FPS | 149 FPS |
| medium | 113 FPS | 119 FPS |
| high | 94 FPS | 99 FPS |
| ultra | 71 FPS | 74 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 79 FPS | 111 FPS |
| medium | 62 FPS | 89 FPS |
| high | 44 FPS | 74 FPS |
| ultra | 35 FPS | 56 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 36 FPS | 62 FPS |
| medium | 27 FPS | 50 FPS |
| high | 21 FPS | 47 FPS |
| ultra | 15 FPS | 37 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | P102-100 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 |

Valorant
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | P102-100 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | 50 FPS |
| ultra | 51 FPS | 37 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and P102-100

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.

P102-100
P102-100
The P102-100 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in February 12 2018. It features the Pascal architecture. The core clock ranges from 1582 MHz to 1683 MHz. It has 3200 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 250W. Manufactured using 16 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3,301 points. Launch price was $599.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the P102-100's 3,301 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 138.4%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the P102-100 uses Pascal, both on 12 nm vs 16 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 3,200 (P102-100). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 10.77 TFLOPS (P102-100). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1683 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | P102-100 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869+138% | 3,301 |
| Architecture | Turing | Pascal |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 16 nm |
| Shading Units | 896 | 3200+257% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS | 10.77 TFLOPS+261% |
| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz | 1683 MHz+1% |
| ROPs | 32 | 80+150% |
| TMUs | 56 | 200+257% |
| L1 Cache | 0.88 MB | 1.2 MB+36% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 2.5 MB+150% |
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 P102-100 relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | P102-100 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 P102-100 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 2.5 MB (P102-100) — the P102-100 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | P102-100 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB+100% | 2 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+100% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 2.5 MB+150% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12_1 (P102-100). Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 0.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | P102-100 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12_1 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 0 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the P102-100's 250W — a 107.7% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (P102-100). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 229mm vs 267mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | P102-100 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W-70% | 250W |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-14% | 350W |
| Power Connector | None | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 229mm | 267mm |
| Height | 111mm | — |
| Slots | 2 | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9+695% | 13.2 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP, while the P102-100 launched at $600. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 75.2% less ($451 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 5.5 (P102-100) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 860% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2018).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | P102-100 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149-75% | $600 |
| Performance per Dollar | 52.8+860% | 5.5 |
| Codename | TU117 | GP102 |
| Release | April 23 2019 | February 12 2018 |
| Ranking | #323 | #560 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.













