GeForce GTX 1650 vs RTX A400

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.

GeForce GTX 1650 vs RTX A400 FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with Ryzen 7 9800X3D to isolate GPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

GeForce GTX 1650 vs RTX A400: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each GPU makes more sense in practice: raw FPS, VRAM, features, power draw, pricing, and long-term headroom.

GeForce GTX 1650

2019

Why buy it

✅105.9% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
✅Delivers 19.2% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 44.3 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $135 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in newer AAA releases.
❌50% higher power demand at 75W vs 50W.

RTX A400

2024

Why buy it

✅Costs $14 less on MSRP ($135 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
✅Better long-term bet: Ampere (2020−2025) on 8nm gives it a newer hardware base for upcoming games.
✅Draws 50W instead of 75W, a 25W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower average FPS than GeForce GTX 1650 across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 44.3 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($135 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).

Quick Answers

Which GPU is faster for gaming right now?

GeForce GTX 1650 is the faster gaming card right now. In our data, it leads by 105.9% in average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data and by 31.5% in PassMark G3D (7,869 vs 5,983), so the answer here is pretty clean.

Which GPU is the safer long-term pick for 2026 and beyond?

RTX A400 is the safer long-term pick for 2026 and beyond. The case is simple: a 8nm process instead of 12nm, 6 vs 0 ray-tracing units, and a newer 2024 generation instead of 2019. That gives it the more rounded hardware package for newer games.

Which GPU is the better buy today?

GeForce GTX 1650 makes the most sense to buy today. It is $14 more expensive on MSRP at $149 vs $135, and it leads G3D-per-dollar by 19.2% (52.8 vs 44.3), so the value case lines up with the gaming result. If you are mainly targeting 1080p and some 1440p, GeForce GTX 1650 is the easier value choice. If you care more about 1080p and some 1440p headroom, RTX A400 has the stronger long-term case.

GeForce GTX 1650 vs RTX A400 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

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.

RTX A400

The RTX A400 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in April 16 2024. It features the Ampere architecture. The core clock ranges from 727 MHz to 1762 MHz. It has 768 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 8 nm process technology. It features 6 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 5,983 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the RTX A400's 5,983 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 31.5%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the RTX A400 uses Ampere, both on 12 nm vs 8 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 768 (RTX A400). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2.706 TFLOPS (RTX A400). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1762 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	RTX A400
G3D Mark Score	7,869+32%	5,983
Architecture	Turing	Ampere
Process Node	12 nm	8 nm
Shading Units	896+17%	768
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.984 TFLOPS+10%	2.706 TFLOPS
Boost Clock	1665 MHz	1762 MHz+6%
ROPs	32+100%	16
TMUs	56+133%	24

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	RTX A400
Upscaling Tech	Upscaling support	Upscaling support
Frame Generation	Not Supported	Not Supported
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	NVIDIA Reflex	NVIDIA Reflex

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

Both cards ship with 4 GB of video memory. Memory bus width is 128-bit on the GeForce GTX 1650 and 128-bit on the RTX A400.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	RTX A400
VRAM Capacity	4 GB	4 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR6
Bus Width	128-bit	128-bit

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the RTX A400's 50W — a 40% difference. The RTX A400 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (RTX A400). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	RTX A400
TDP	75W	50W-33%
Recommended PSU	300W-14%	350W
Power Connector	None	PCIe-powered
Length	229mm	—
Height	111mm	—
Slots	2	—
Temp (Load)	70°C	—
Perf/Watt	104.9	119.7+14%

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the GeForce GTX 1650 came in at $149, while the RTX A400 launched at $135. On MSRP, RTX A400 was 9.4% cheaper ($14 less). Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 44.3 (RTX A400) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 19.2% better value. The newer card here is RTX A400 (2024 vs 2019).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	RTX A400
MSRP	$149	$135-9%
Performance per Dollar	52.8+19%	44.3
Codename	TU117	GA107
Release	April 23 2019	April 16 2024
Ranking	#323	#397

Search GeForce GTX 1650 on Amazon

Search RTX A400 on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.