GeForce GTX 1650
RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell
GeForce GTX 1650 vs RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell Performance Spectrum
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.
GeForce GTX 1650 vs RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell 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.
Path of Exile 2
Counter-Strike 2
League of Legends
Valorant
Among Us
Apex Legends
ARC Raiders
Baldur's Gate 3
Call of Duty: Black Ops 6
GeForce GTX 1650 vs RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell: 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
2019Why buy it
- ✅Costs $1,850 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $1,999 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 298.4% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 13.3 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $1,999 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 75W instead of 140W, a 65W reduction.
- ✅Measures 229mm instead of 267mm, a 38mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower average FPS than RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ❌Less VRAM, with 4 GB vs 24 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
- ❌Older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in newer AAA releases.
RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell
2025Why buy it
- ✅217.5% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ✅500% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (24 GB vs 4 GB).
- ✅Better long-term bet: Blackwell 2.0 (2025−2026) on 5nm gives it a newer hardware base for upcoming games.
Trade-offs
- ❌1241.6% HIGHER MSRP$1,999 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 13.3 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($1,999 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
- ❌86.7% higher power demand at 140W vs 75W.
- ❌16.6% longer card at 267mm vs 229mm.
Quick Answers
Which GPU is faster for gaming right now?
Which GPU is the safer long-term pick for 2026 and beyond?
Which GPU is the better buy today?
GeForce GTX 1650 vs RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell 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 PRO 4000 Blackwell
The RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in March 18 2025. It features the Blackwell 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1230 MHz to 2055 MHz. It has 8960 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 140W. Manufactured using 5 nm process technology. It features 70 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 26,498 points.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell's 26,498 — the RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell leads by 236.7%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell uses Blackwell 2.0, both on 12 nm vs 5 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 8,960 (RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 36.83 TFLOPS (RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 2055 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869 | 26,498+237% |
| Architecture | Turing | Blackwell 2.0 |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 5 nm |
| Shading Units | 896 | 8960+900% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS | 36.83 TFLOPS+1134% |
| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz | 2055 MHz+23% |
| ROPs | 32 | 96+200% |
| TMUs | 56 | 280+400% |
| L1 Cache | 0.88 MB | 8.8 MB+900% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 48 MB+4700% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell |
|---|---|---|
| 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)
The GeForce GTX 1650 has 4 GB of VRAM, while the RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell carries 24 GB. RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell gives you 500% more memory capacity, which matters more once you move into heavier textures, mods, or higher resolutions. Memory bandwidth: 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 432 GB/s (RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell) — a 237.5% advantage for the RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell. Memory bus width is 128-bit on the GeForce GTX 1650 and 192-bit on the RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 48 MB (RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell) — the RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 24 GB+500% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 128 GB/s | 432 GB/s+238% |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 192-bit+50% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 48 MB+4700% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12.2 (RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12.2+2% |
| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 4+33% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 9th Gen NVENC (2x) (RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs 6th Gen NVDEC. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 (RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) | 9th Gen NVENC (2x) |
| Decoder | NVDEC 4th gen | 6th Gen NVDEC |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell's 140W — a 60.5% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 650W (RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 229mm vs 267mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 80°C.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W-46% | 140W |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-54% | 650W |
| Power Connector | None | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 229mm | 267mm |
| Height | 111mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 2 | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C-13% | 80°C |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9 | 189.3+80% |
Value Analysis
At launch, the GeForce GTX 1650 came in at $149, while the RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell launched at $1999. On MSRP, GeForce GTX 1650 was 92.5% cheaper ($1850 less). Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 13.3 (RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 297% better value. The newer card here is RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell (2025 vs 2019).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149-93% | $1999 |
| Performance per Dollar | 52.8+297% | 13.3 |
| Codename | TU117 | GB203 |
| Release | April 23 2019 | March 18 2025 |
| Ranking | #323 | #48 |
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.
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GeForce GTX 1650 and RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell
