GeForce GTX 960 vs GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design
GeForce GTX 960
Popular choices:
GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design
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.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Per Dollar GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design uses modern memory architecture. The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The GeForce GTX 960 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 2.9% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce GTX 960.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 960 | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-2.9%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+2.9%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)) | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GTX 960 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $45 versus $100 for the GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design, it costs 55% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 116% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 960 | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+116%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($45) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($100) |
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.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 960 and GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design
GeForce GTX 960
The GeForce GTX 960 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in January 22 2015. It features the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1127 MHz to 1178 MHz. It has 1024 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 100W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 6,133 points. Launch price was $199.
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.
Graphics Performance
The GeForce GTX 960 scores 6,133 and the GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design reaches 6,309 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2.9% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GTX 960 is built on Maxwell 2.0 while the GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design uses Turing, both on 28 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 1,024 (GeForce GTX 960) vs 1,024 (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design). Raw compute: 2.413 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 960) vs 2.458 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design). Boost clocks: 1178 MHz vs 1200 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 960 | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 6,133 | 6,309+3% |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Turing |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 1024 | 1024 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.413 TFLOPS | 2.458 TFLOPS+2% |
| Boost Clock | 1178 MHz | 1200 MHz+2% |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 64 | 64 |
| L1 Cache | 0.38 MB | 1 MB+163% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce GTX 960 | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) |
| Frame Generation | FSR 3 (Compatible) | FSR 3 (Compatible) |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 4 GB of GDDR5. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 960 | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 112 GB/s | 112 GB/s |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (12_1) (GeForce GTX 960) vs 12 (12_1) (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design). Vulkan: 1.3 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 4.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 960 | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 4 | 4 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC (5th Gen) (GeForce GTX 960) vs NVENC (Turing) (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design). Decoder: NVDEC (2nd Gen) vs NVDEC (4th Gen). Supported codecs: HEVC,H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1,VP8 (GeForce GTX 960) vs H.264,H.265 (HEVC),VP9,H.265 10-bit (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 960 | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC (5th Gen) | NVENC (Turing) |
| Decoder | NVDEC (2nd Gen) | NVDEC (4th Gen) |
| Codecs | HEVC,H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1,VP8 | H.264,H.265 (HEVC),VP9,H.265 10-bit |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 960 draws 100W versus the GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design's 50W — a 66.7% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 400W (GeForce GTX 960) vs 350W (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design). Power connectors: 6-pin vs PCIe-powered. Typical load temperature: 75 C vs 75°C.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 960 | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 100W | 50W-50% |
| Recommended PSU | 400W | 350W-13% |
| Power Connector | 6-pin | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 241mm | — |
| Height | 111mm | — |
| Slots | 2 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | 75 C | 75°C |
| Perf/Watt | 61.3 | 126.2+106% |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 960 costs 55% less ($55 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 136.3 (GeForce GTX 960) vs 63.1 (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design) — the GeForce GTX 960 offers 116% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design is the newer GPU (2020 vs 2015).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 960 | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $199 | — |
| Avg Price (30d) | $45-55% | $100 |
| Performance per Dollar | 136.3+116% | 63.1 |
| Codename | GM206 | TU117 |
| Release | January 22 2015 | April 2 2020 |
| Ranking | #393 | #371 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GeForce GTX 960 and GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design
