GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design vs GeForce RTX 4070 Ti

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.

Value Upgrade Path

This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design is positioned at rank #65 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Balanced cost-benefit for your build. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.•
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design

#19

Radeon RX 5600

MSRP: $229|Avg: $150

98%

#22

Radeon RX 7700

MSRP: $449|Avg: $399

94%

#55

Radeon RX 550X (móvel)

MSRP: $35|Avg: $35

206%

#57

GeForce GTX 1070 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $150

187%

#58

GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $100

187%

#62

GeForce GTX 1050 (Mobile)

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50

170%

#63

Radeon RX 6300

MSRP: $60|Avg: $40

169%

#65

GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $100

100%

#66

GeForce GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50

100%

#68

GeForce GTX 850M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $40

97%

#78

Radeon HD 8970M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $170

92%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Per Dollar GeForce RTX 4070 Ti

#27

GeForce RTX 4060 Ti

MSRP: $399|Avg: $380

111%

#28

Radeon RX 6750 GRE 10GB

MSRP: $269|Avg: $318

110%

#29

Radeon RX 6700 XT

MSRP: $479|Avg: $230

110%

#30

GeForce RTX 3060

MSRP: $329|Avg: $289

110%

#31

Radeon RX 7400

MSRP: $199|Avg: $199

109%

#32

Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB

MSRP: $349|Avg: $349

109%

#33

Radeon RX 9060 XT 16GB

MSRP: $349|Avg: $349

107%

#34

Radeon RX 5300

MSRP: $129|Avg: $50

105%

#35

GeForce GTX 1650 Ti

MSRP: $150|Avg: $77

104%

#36

Radeon RX 6400

MSRP: $159|Avg: $139

104%

#37

GeForce RTX 3070 Ti

MSRP: $599|Avg: $330

104%

#38

Arc A750

MSRP: $289|Avg: $229

103%

#39

Radeon RX 6800

MSRP: $579|Avg: $370

102%

#40

GeForce RTX 3060 8GB

MSRP: $329|Avg: $280

101%

#41

Radeon RX 6750 XT

MSRP: $549|Avg: $320

101%

#42

GeForce RTX 4070 Ti

MSRP: $799|Avg: $590

100%

#43

GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16GB

MSRP: $429|Avg: $429

99%

#44

GeForce RTX 5070

MSRP: $549|Avg: $550

98%

#45

Radeon RX 7600 XT

MSRP: $329|Avg: $330

98%

#46

GeForce RTX 2050

MSRP: $150|Avg: $150

96%

#47

GeForce RTX 3080

MSRP: $699|Avg: $400

96%

#48

GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 16GB

MSRP: $499|Avg: $449

95%

#49

Radeon RX 7900 GRE

MSRP: $549|Avg: $540

94%

#50

GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER

MSRP: $599|Avg: $600

93%

#51

Radeon RX 7800 XT

MSRP: $499|Avg: $490

92%

#52

GeForce RTX 3060 12GB

MSRP: $329|Avg: $340

92%

#53

GeForce RTX 4070

MSRP: $599|Avg: $550

91%

#54

Radeon RX 7650 GRE

MSRP: $279|Avg: $380

91%

#55

GeForce RTX 2060 12GB

MSRP: $470|Avg: $120

90%

#56

Arc A770

MSRP: $349|Avg: $280

89%

#57

Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12GB

MSRP: $289|Avg: $423

89%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

The GeForce RTX 4070 Ti is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 400.5% higher G3D Mark score and 200% more VRAM (12 GB vs 4 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design.

Insight	GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design	GeForce RTX 4070 Ti
Performance	❌Lower raw frame rates (-400.5%)	✅Leading raw performance (+400.5%)
Longevity	Turing (2018−2022) (12nm)	🏆Elite Architecture (Ada Lovelace (2022−2024) / 4nm)
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	✨ DLSS 3/4 + Frame Gen Support
VRAM	❌ Less VRAM capacity	🎮 High Capacity (12 GB)
Efficiency	Normal Efficiency	Normal Efficiency
Case Fit	—	Standard Size (285mm)

💎 Value Proposition

The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $100 versus $590 for the GeForce RTX 4070 Ti, it costs 83% less. While it maintains significantly lower raw performance, this results in a 17.9% higher cost efficiency score.

Insight	GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design	GeForce RTX 4070 Ti
Cost Efficiency	✅Better overall value (+17.9%)	❌Lower cost efficiency
Upfront Cost	✅More affordable ($100)	⚠️Higher upfront cost ($590)

Performance Check

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 7800X3D 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.

GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design Benchmark Check

GeForce RTX 4070 Ti Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design and GeForce RTX 4070 Ti

GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design

The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in April 2 2020. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 1035 MHz to 1200 MHz. It has 1024 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 6,309 points.

GeForce RTX 4070 Ti

The GeForce RTX 4070 Ti is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in January 3 2023. It features the Ada Lovelace architecture. The core clock ranges from 2310 MHz to 2610 MHz. It has 7680 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 285W. Manufactured using 4 nm process technology. It features 60 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 31,578 points. Launch price was $799.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design scores 6,309 versus the GeForce RTX 4070 Ti's 31,578 — the GeForce RTX 4070 Ti leads by 400.5%. The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design is built on Turing while the GeForce RTX 4070 Ti uses Ada Lovelace, both on 12 nm vs 4 nm. Shader units: 1,024 (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design) vs 7,680 (GeForce RTX 4070 Ti). Raw compute: 2.458 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design) vs 40.09 TFLOPS (GeForce RTX 4070 Ti). Boost clocks: 1200 MHz vs 2610 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design	GeForce RTX 4070 Ti
G3D Mark Score	6,309	31,578+401%
Architecture	Turing	Ada Lovelace
Process Node	12 nm	4 nm
Shading Units	1024	7680+650%
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.458 TFLOPS	40.09 TFLOPS+1531%
Boost Clock	1200 MHz	2610 MHz+118%
ROPs	32	80+150%
TMUs	64	240+275%
L1 Cache	1 MB	7.5 MB+650%
L2 Cache	1 MB	48 MB+4700%

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

A critical advantage for the GeForce RTX 4070 Ti is support for DLSS 3 Frame Gen. This allows it to generate entire frames using AI/Algorithms, essentially doubling the frame rate in CPU-bound scenarios or heavy ray-tracing titles. The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design lacks specific hardware/driver support for this native frame generation tier.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design	GeForce RTX 4070 Ti
Upscaling Tech	FSR 2.1 (Compatible)	DLSS 3.5
Frame Generation	FSR 3 (Compatible)	DLSS 3.0 (Native)
Ray Reconstruction	No	Yes (DLSS 3.5)
Low Latency	Standard	NVIDIA Reflex

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce RTX 4070 Ti has 12 GB. The GeForce RTX 4070 Ti offers 200% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 112 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design) vs 504 GB/s (GeForce RTX 4070 Ti) — a 350% advantage for the GeForce RTX 4070 Ti. Bus width: 128-bit vs 192-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design) vs 48 MB (GeForce RTX 4070 Ti) — the GeForce RTX 4070 Ti has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design	GeForce RTX 4070 Ti
VRAM Capacity	4 GB	12 GB+200%
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR6X
Memory Bandwidth	112 GB/s	504 GB/s+350%
Bus Width	128-bit	192-bit+50%
L2 Cache	1 MB	48 MB+4700%

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (12_1) (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design) vs 12 Ultimate (GeForce RTX 4070 Ti). Vulkan: 1.3 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 4.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design	GeForce RTX 4070 Ti
DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 Ultimate
Vulkan	1.3	1.3
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
Max Displays	4	4

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC (Turing) (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design) vs NVENC (8th Gen) (GeForce RTX 4070 Ti). Decoder: NVDEC (4th Gen) vs NVDEC (5th Gen). Supported codecs: H.264,H.265 (HEVC),VP9,H.265 10-bit (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design) vs AV1,H.264,H.265,VP9 (GeForce RTX 4070 Ti).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design	GeForce RTX 4070 Ti
Encoder	NVENC (Turing)	NVENC (8th Gen)
Decoder	NVDEC (4th Gen)	NVDEC (5th Gen)
Codecs	H.264,H.265 (HEVC),VP9,H.265 10-bit	AV1,H.264,H.265,VP9

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design draws 50W versus the GeForce RTX 4070 Ti's 285W — a 140.3% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design) vs 700W (GeForce RTX 4070 Ti). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs 8-pin. Typical load temperature: 75°C vs 70°C.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design	GeForce RTX 4070 Ti
TDP	50W-82%	285W
Recommended PSU	350W-50%	700W
Power Connector	PCIe-powered	8-pin
Length	—	285mm
Height	—	112mm
Slots	0-100%	2
Temp (Load)	75°C	70°C-7%
Perf/Watt	126.2+14%	110.8

💰

Value Analysis

The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design costs 83.1% less ($490 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 63.1 (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design) vs 53.5 (GeForce RTX 4070 Ti) — the GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design offers 17.9% better value. The GeForce RTX 4070 Ti is the newer GPU (2023 vs 2020).