
GeForce GTX 1650
Popular choices:

T400 4GB
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
- ✅+106.9% higher PassMark G3D performance.
- ✅Costs $10 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $159 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 120.8% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 23.9 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $159 MSRP).
- ✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs 2 GB).
Trade-offs
- ❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.
- ❌150% higher power demand at 75W vs 30W.
- ❌46.8% longer card at 229mm vs 156mm.
T400 4GB
2021Why buy it
- ✅Draws 30W instead of 75W, a 45W reduction.
- ✅Measures 156mm instead of 229mm, a 73mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (3,803 vs 7,869).
- ❌Less VRAM, with 2 GB vs 4 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
- ❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 2 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.
- ❌6.7% HIGHER MSRP$159 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 23.9 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($159 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
GeForce GTX 1650
2019T400 4GB
2021Why buy it
- ✅+106.9% higher PassMark G3D performance.
- ✅Costs $10 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $159 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 120.8% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 23.9 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $159 MSRP).
- ✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs 2 GB).
Why buy it
- ✅Draws 30W instead of 75W, a 45W reduction.
- ✅Measures 156mm instead of 229mm, a 73mm 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.
- ❌150% higher power demand at 75W vs 30W.
- ❌46.8% longer card at 229mm vs 156mm.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (3,803 vs 7,869).
- ❌Less VRAM, with 2 GB vs 4 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
- ❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 2 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.
- ❌6.7% HIGHER MSRP$159 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 23.9 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($159 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
Quick Answers
So, is GeForce GTX 1650 better than T400 4GB?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper card?
When does T400 4GB make more sense than GeForce GTX 1650?
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 | T400 4GB |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 94 FPS | 35 FPS |
| medium | 83 FPS | 22 FPS |
| high | 70 FPS | 14 FPS |
| ultra | 58 FPS | 8 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 87 FPS | 21 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 13 FPS |
| high | 60 FPS | 6 FPS |
| ultra | 50 FPS | 4 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 41 FPS | 8 FPS |
| medium | 39 FPS | 6 FPS |
| high | 27 FPS | 3 FPS |
| ultra | 24 FPS | 2 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | T400 4GB |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 136 FPS | 48 FPS |
| medium | 113 FPS | 26 FPS |
| high | 94 FPS | 19 FPS |
| ultra | 71 FPS | 12 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 79 FPS | 14 FPS |
| medium | 62 FPS | 9 FPS |
| high | 44 FPS | 6 FPS |
| ultra | 35 FPS | 5 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 36 FPS | 5 FPS |
| medium | 27 FPS | 3 FPS |
| high | 21 FPS | 3 FPS |
| ultra | 15 FPS | 2 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | T400 4GB |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 323 FPS | 171 FPS |
| medium | 283 FPS | 137 FPS |
| high | 205 FPS | 114 FPS |
| ultra | 169 FPS | 86 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 225 FPS | 128 FPS |
| medium | 202 FPS | 103 FPS |
| high | 151 FPS | 86 FPS |
| ultra | 117 FPS | 64 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 130 FPS | 86 FPS |
| medium | 117 FPS | 68 FPS |
| high | 79 FPS | 57 FPS |
| ultra | 50 FPS | 43 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | T400 4GB |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 261 FPS | 170 FPS |
| medium | 211 FPS | 137 FPS |
| high | 191 FPS | 114 FPS |
| ultra | 166 FPS | 86 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 201 FPS | 116 FPS |
| medium | 158 FPS | 94 FPS |
| high | 135 FPS | 81 FPS |
| ultra | 113 FPS | 61 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 99 FPS | 69 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 53 FPS |
| high | 65 FPS | 43 FPS |
| ultra | 51 FPS | 30 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and T400 4GB

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.
T400 4GB
T400 4GB
The T400 4GB is manufactured by an unknown manufacturer. It was released in May 6 2021. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 420 MHz to 1425 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 30W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3,803 points.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the T400 4GB's 3,803 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 106.9%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the T400 4GB uses Turing, both on a 12 nm process. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 384 (T400 4GB). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 1.094 TFLOPS (T400 4GB). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1425 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | T400 4GB |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869+107% | 3,803 |
| Architecture | Turing | Turing |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 896+133% | 384 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS+173% | 1.094 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz+17% | 1425 MHz |
| ROPs | 32+100% | 16 |
| TMUs | 56+133% | 24 |
| L1 Cache | 896 KB+133% | 384 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1 MB |
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 T400 4GB relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | T400 4GB |
|---|---|---|
| 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 T400 4GB 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.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | T400 4GB |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB+100% | 2 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+100% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12_0 (T400 4GB). Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 3.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | T400 4GB |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12_0 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 3 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs NVENC 7th Gen (T400 4GB). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs NVDEC 4th Gen.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | T400 4GB |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) | NVENC 7th Gen |
| Decoder | NVDEC 4th gen | NVDEC 4th Gen |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 | — |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the T400 4GB's 30W — a 85.7% difference. The T400 4GB is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (T400 4GB). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 229mm vs 156mm, occupying 2 vs 1 slots.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | T400 4GB |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W | 30W-60% |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-14% | 350W |
| Power Connector | None | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 229mm | 156mm |
| Height | 111mm | — |
| Slots | 2 | 1-50% |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9 | 126.8+21% |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP, while the T400 4GB launched at $159. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 6.3% less ($10 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 23.9 (T400 4GB) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 120.9% better value. The T400 4GB is the newer GPU (2021 vs 2019).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | T400 4GB |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149-6% | $159 |
| Performance per Dollar | 52.8+121% | 23.9 |
| Codename | TU117 | TU117 |
| Release | April 23 2019 | May 6 2021 |
| Ranking | #323 | #518 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.














