
GeForce GTX 1650

Tesla M40
GeForce GTX 1650 vs Tesla M40 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 Tesla M40 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
GeForce GTX 1650 vs Tesla M40: 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 $2,351 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $2,500 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 1191.9% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 4.1 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $2,500 MSRP).
- ✅Tesla M40 is already legacy-tier future-proofing, so GeForce GTX 1650 is the less risky modern option long term.
- ✅Draws 75W instead of 250W, a 175W reduction.
- ✅Measures 229mm instead of 267mm, a 38mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (7,869 vs 10,220).
- ❌Less VRAM, with 4 GB vs 8 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.
Tesla M40
2015Why buy it
- ✅+29.9% higher PassMark G3D performance.
- ✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (8 GB vs 4 GB).
Trade-offs
- ❌2015 hardware with 8 GB of VRAM already sits in legacy territory for modern games.
- ❌1577.9% HIGHER MSRP$2,500 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 4.1 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($2,500 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
- ❌233.3% higher power demand at 250W 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 Tesla M40 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.

Tesla M40
The Tesla M40 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in November 10 2015. It features the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 948 MHz to 1112 MHz. It has 3072 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 250W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 10,220 points.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Tesla M40's 10,220 — the Tesla M40 leads by 29.9%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Tesla M40 uses Maxwell 2.0, both on 12 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 3,072 (Tesla M40). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 6.832 TFLOPS (Tesla M40). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1112 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Tesla M40 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869 | 10,220+30% |
| Architecture | Turing | Maxwell 2.0 |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 896 | 3072+243% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS | 6.832 TFLOPS+129% |
| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz+50% | 1112 MHz |
| ROPs | 32 | 96+200% |
| TMUs | 56 | 192+243% |
| L1 Cache | 0.88 MB | 1.1 MB+25% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 3 MB+200% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
The GeForce GTX 1650 gets NVIDIA DLSS, which still tends to look cleaner in motion. The Tesla M40 leans on FSR, which is flexible and widely supported, but usually a bit rougher at the same settings.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Tesla M40 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 has 4 GB of VRAM, while the Tesla M40 carries 8 GB. Tesla M40 gives you 100% more memory capacity, which matters more once you move into heavier textures, mods, or higher resolutions. Memory bus width is 128-bit on the GeForce GTX 1650 and 256-bit on the Tesla M40. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 3 MB (Tesla M40) — the Tesla M40 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Tesla M40 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 8 GB+100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 256-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 3 MB+200% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12.0 (Tesla M40). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.1. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.5. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 0.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Tesla M40 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.4+27% | 1.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6+2% | 4.5 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 0 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs NVENC 2.0 (2x) (Tesla M40). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs PureVideo HD VP6. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1 (Tesla M40).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Tesla M40 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) | NVENC 2.0 (2x) |
| Decoder | NVDEC 4th gen | PureVideo HD VP6 |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 | MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Tesla M40's 250W — a 107.7% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 500W (Tesla M40). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 229mm vs 267mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 85°C.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Tesla M40 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W-70% | 250W |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-40% | 500W |
| Power Connector | None | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 229mm | 267mm |
| Height | 111mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 2 | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C-18% | 85°C |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9+156% | 40.9 |
Value Analysis
At launch, the GeForce GTX 1650 came in at $149, while the Tesla M40 launched at $2500. On MSRP, GeForce GTX 1650 was 94% cheaper ($2351 less). Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 4.1 (Tesla M40) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 1187.8% better value. The newer card here is GeForce GTX 1650 (2019 vs 2015).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Tesla M40 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149-94% | $2500 |
| Performance per Dollar | 52.8+1188% | 4.1 |
| Codename | TU117 | GM200 |
| Release | April 23 2019 | November 10 2015 |
| Ranking | #323 | #256 |
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.















