GeForce GTX 965M vs GeForce GTX 1650

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 965M is positioned at rank #39 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Great 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 965M

#16

Radeon RX 7600S

MSRP: $269|Avg: $250

90%

#29

Radeon RX 550X (móvel)

MSRP: $35|Avg: $35

169%

#31

GeForce GTX 1070 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $150

153%

#32

GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $100

153%

#36

GeForce GTX 1050 (Mobile)

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50

139%

#37

Radeon RX 6300

MSRP: $60|Avg: $40

138%

#39

GeForce GTX 965M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: N/A

100%

#46

Radeon RX 5500M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $100

93%

#48

GeForce GTX 980 (móvel)

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $150

92%

#49

GeForce 610M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $20

91%

#50

GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile)

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $75

90%

#53

GeForce GTX 980M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $80

88%

#54

GeForce GTX 770M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $40

87%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Per Dollar

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

⚠️ Generational Difference

The GeForce GTX 1650 uses modern memory architecture. The GeForce GTX 1650 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The GeForce GTX 965M lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.

🚀 Performance Leadership

The GeForce GTX 1650 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 103.9% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce GTX 965M.

Insight	GeForce GTX 965M	GeForce GTX 1650
Performance	❌Lower raw frame rates (-103.9%)	✅Leading raw performance (+103.9%)
Longevity	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2016 / 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

While current pricing data is unavailable, the GeForce GTX 1650 remains the clear technical winner. Check real-time availability to determine if the performance gap justifies the market price.

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 965M Benchmark Check

GeForce GTX 1650 Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 965M and GeForce GTX 1650

GeForce GTX 965M

The GeForce GTX 965M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in 2016. It features the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 944 MHz to 1150 MHz. It has 1024 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3,860 points.

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.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 965M scores 3,860 versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 7,869 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 103.9%. The GeForce GTX 965M is built on Maxwell 2.0 while the GeForce GTX 1650 uses Turing, both on 28 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 1,024 (GeForce GTX 965M) vs 896 (GeForce GTX 1650). Raw compute: 2.355 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 965M) vs 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650). Boost clocks: 1150 MHz vs 1665 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 965M	GeForce GTX 1650
G3D Mark Score	3,860	7,869+104%
Architecture	Maxwell 2.0	Turing
Process Node	28 nm	12 nm
Shading Units	1024+14%	896
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.355 TFLOPS	2.984 TFLOPS+27%
Boost Clock	1150 MHz	1665 MHz+45%
ROPs	32	32
TMUs	64+14%	56
L1 Cache	384 KB	896 KB+133%
L2 Cache	1 MB	1 MB

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	GeForce GTX 965M	GeForce GTX 1650
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. Memory bandwidth: 80 GB/s (GeForce GTX 965M) vs 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) — a 60% advantage for the GeForce GTX 1650. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit.

Feature	GeForce GTX 965M	GeForce GTX 1650
VRAM Capacity	4 GB	4 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Memory Bandwidth	80 GB/s	128 GB/s+60%
Bus Width	128-bit	128-bit
L2 Cache	1 MB	1 MB

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 Ultimate (GeForce GTX 965M) vs 12 (GeForce GTX 1650). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 3.

Feature	GeForce GTX 965M	GeForce GTX 1650
DirectX	12 Ultimate	12
Vulkan	1.4	1.4
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
Max Displays	4+33%	3

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th Gen (HEVC) (GeForce GTX 965M) vs NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650). Decoder: PureVideo HD (VP6) vs NVDEC 4th gen. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC (GeForce GTX 965M) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650).

Feature	GeForce GTX 965M	GeForce GTX 1650
Encoder	NVENC 5th Gen (HEVC)	NVENC 5th gen (Volta)
Decoder	PureVideo HD (VP6)	NVDEC 4th gen
Codecs	H.264,H.265/HEVC	H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 965M draws 50W versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 75W — a 40% difference. The GeForce GTX 965M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce GTX 965M) vs 300W (GeForce GTX 1650). Power connectors: 1x 6-pin vs None. Card length: 0mm vs 229mm, occupying 0 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 80°C vs 70°C.

Feature	GeForce GTX 965M	GeForce GTX 1650
TDP	50W-33%	75W
Recommended PSU	350W	300W-14%
Power Connector	1x 6-pin	None
Length	0mm	229mm
Height	0mm	111mm
Slots	0-100%	2
Temp (Load)	80°C	70°C-13%
Perf/Watt	77.2	104.9+36%