
GeForce GTX 1650
Popular choices:

Tesla K20c
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
- ✅+77.5% higher PassMark G3D performance.
- ✅Costs $3,050 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $3,199 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 3712% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 1.4 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $3,199 MSRP).
- ✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs 2 GB).
- ✅Less risky long-term buy than Tesla K20c: it remains the more sensible modern option while Tesla K20c is already obsolete for modern gaming.
Trade-offs
- ❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.
Tesla K20c
2012Why buy it
- ✅Competitive enough if your priority is price, power, or specific feature preference.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (4,432 vs 7,869).
- ❌Less VRAM, with 2 GB vs 4 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
- ❌Very weak future-proofing: 2012-era hardware with 2 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
- ❌2047% HIGHER MSRP$3,199 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 1.4 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($3,199 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
GeForce GTX 1650
2019Tesla K20c
2012Why buy it
- ✅+77.5% higher PassMark G3D performance.
- ✅Costs $3,050 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $3,199 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 3712% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 1.4 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $3,199 MSRP).
- ✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs 2 GB).
- ✅Less risky long-term buy than Tesla K20c: it remains the more sensible modern option while Tesla K20c is already obsolete for modern gaming.
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 (4,432 vs 7,869).
- ❌Less VRAM, with 2 GB vs 4 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
- ❌Very weak future-proofing: 2012-era hardware with 2 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
- ❌2047% HIGHER MSRP$3,199 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 1.4 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($3,199 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
Quick Answers
So, is GeForce GTX 1650 better than Tesla K20c?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper card?
Is Tesla K20c 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 | Tesla K20c |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 94 FPS | 102 FPS |
| medium | 83 FPS | 83 FPS |
| high | 70 FPS | 66 FPS |
| ultra | 58 FPS | 39 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 87 FPS | 85 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 71 FPS |
| high | 60 FPS | 50 FPS |
| ultra | 50 FPS | 29 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 41 FPS | 28 FPS |
| medium | 39 FPS | 26 FPS |
| high | 27 FPS | 17 FPS |
| ultra | 24 FPS | 15 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Tesla K20c |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 136 FPS | 88 FPS |
| medium | 113 FPS | 62 FPS |
| high | 94 FPS | 48 FPS |
| ultra | 71 FPS | 32 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 79 FPS | 49 FPS |
| medium | 62 FPS | 32 FPS |
| high | 44 FPS | 24 FPS |
| ultra | 35 FPS | 17 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 36 FPS | 18 FPS |
| medium | 27 FPS | 12 FPS |
| high | 21 FPS | 9 FPS |
| ultra | 15 FPS | 7 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Tesla K20c |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 323 FPS | 199 FPS |
| medium | 283 FPS | 160 FPS |
| high | 205 FPS | 133 FPS |
| ultra | 169 FPS | 100 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 225 FPS | 150 FPS |
| medium | 202 FPS | 120 FPS |
| high | 151 FPS | 100 FPS |
| ultra | 117 FPS | 75 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 130 FPS | 100 FPS |
| medium | 117 FPS | 80 FPS |
| high | 79 FPS | 66 FPS |
| ultra | 50 FPS | 50 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Tesla K20c |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 261 FPS | 182 FPS |
| medium | 211 FPS | 146 FPS |
| high | 191 FPS | 124 FPS |
| ultra | 166 FPS | 94 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 201 FPS | 127 FPS |
| medium | 158 FPS | 104 FPS |
| high | 135 FPS | 89 FPS |
| ultra | 113 FPS | 66 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 99 FPS | 74 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 57 FPS |
| high | 65 FPS | 46 FPS |
| ultra | 51 FPS | 31 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Tesla K20c

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.

Tesla K20c
Tesla K20c
The Tesla K20c is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in November 12 2012. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock speed is 706 MHz. It has 2496 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 225W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 4,432 points. Launch price was $3,199.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Tesla K20c's 4,432 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 77.5%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Tesla K20c uses Kepler, both on 12 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2,496 (Tesla K20c). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 3.524 TFLOPS (Tesla K20c).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Tesla K20c |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869+78% | 4,432 |
| Architecture | Turing | Kepler |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 896 | 2496+179% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS | 3.524 TFLOPS+18% |
| ROPs | 32 | 40+25% |
| TMUs | 56 | 208+271% |
| L1 Cache | 896 KB+331% | 208 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1.25 MB+25% |
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 Tesla K20c relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Tesla K20c |
|---|---|---|
| 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 Tesla K20c 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 1.25 MB (Tesla K20c) — the Tesla K20c has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Tesla K20c |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB+100% | 2 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+100% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1.25 MB+25% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 11_0 (Tesla K20c). Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 0.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Tesla K20c |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12+9% | 11_0 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 0 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Tesla K20c's 225W — a 100% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (Tesla K20c). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 229mm vs 267mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Tesla K20c |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W-67% | 225W |
| 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+432% | 19.7 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP, while the Tesla K20c launched at $3199. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 95.3% less ($3050 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 1.4 (Tesla K20c) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 3671.4% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2012).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Tesla K20c |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149-95% | $3199 |
| Performance per Dollar | 52.8+3671% | 1.4 |
| Codename | TU117 | GK110 |
| Release | April 23 2019 | November 12 2012 |
| Ranking | #323 | #549 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.













