GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE 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 970XM FORCE is positioned at rank #90 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 970XM FORCE

#25

Radeon RX 7600M XT

MSRP: $329|Avg: $300

100%

#28

Radeon RX 6650M XT

MSRP: $400|Avg: $400

95%

#80

Radeon RX 550X (móvel)

MSRP: $35|Avg: $35

243%

#82

GeForce GTX 1070 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $150

220%

#83

GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $100

220%

#87

GeForce GTX 1050 (Mobile)

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50

200%

#88

Radeon RX 6300

MSRP: $60|Avg: $40

198%

#90

GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE

MSRP: N/A|Avg: N/A

100%

#92

Radeon RX 550 (móvel)

MSRP: $79|Avg: $40

99%

#95

GeForce GT 555M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $35

97%

#97

GeForce GTX 760M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $40

97%

#100

GeForce 945M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $98

94%

#103

Radeon RX 460 (móvel)

MSRP: $99|Avg: $45

93%

#105

GeForce GTX 680M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50

92%

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 970XM FORCE 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 17.3% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE.

Insight	GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE	GeForce GTX 1650
Performance	❌Lower raw frame rates (-17.3%)	✅Leading raw performance (+17.3%)
Longevity	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2014 / 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	Standard Size (267mm)	📏 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 970XM FORCE Benchmark Check

GeForce GTX 1650 Benchmark Check

League of Legends

No prediction data available

League of Legends

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE and GeForce GTX 1650

GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE

The GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in October 7 2014. It features the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 924 MHz to 1038 MHz. It has 1280 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 81W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 6,707 points. Launch price was $2,560.89.

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 970XM FORCE scores 6,707 versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 7,869 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 17.3%. The GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE is built on Maxwell 2.0 while the GeForce GTX 1650 uses Turing, both on 28 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 1,280 (GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE) vs 896 (GeForce GTX 1650). Raw compute: 2.657 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE) vs 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650). Boost clocks: 1038 MHz vs 1665 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE	GeForce GTX 1650
G3D Mark Score	6,707	7,869+17%
Architecture	Maxwell 2.0	Turing
Process Node	28 nm	12 nm
Shading Units	1280+43%	896
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.657 TFLOPS	2.984 TFLOPS+12%
Boost Clock	1038 MHz	1665 MHz+60%
ROPs	48+50%	32
TMUs	80+43%	56
L1 Cache	480 KB	896 KB+87%
L2 Cache	1.5 MB+50%	1 MB

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE	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: 120 GB/s (GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE) vs 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) — a 6.7% advantage for the GeForce GTX 1650. Bus width: 192-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 1.5 MB (GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE) vs 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE	GeForce GTX 1650
VRAM Capacity	4 GB	4 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Memory Bandwidth	120 GB/s	128 GB/s+7%
Bus Width	192-bit+50%	128-bit
L2 Cache	1.5 MB+50%	1 MB

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (12_1) (GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE) 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 970XM FORCE	GeForce GTX 1650
DirectX	12 (12_1)	12
Vulkan	1.4	1.4
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
Max Displays	4+33%	3

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: 5th Gen NVENC (Maxwell) (GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE) vs NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650). Decoder: 1st Gen NVDEC vs NVDEC 4th gen. Supported codecs: H.264,HEVC,VC-1,MPEG-2 (GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650).

Feature	GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE	GeForce GTX 1650
Encoder	5th Gen NVENC (Maxwell)	NVENC 5th gen (Volta)
Decoder	1st Gen NVDEC	NVDEC 4th gen
Codecs	H.264,HEVC,VC-1,MPEG-2	H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE draws 81W versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 75W — a 7.7% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE) vs 300W (GeForce GTX 1650). Power connectors: 1x 6-pin vs None. Card length: 267mm vs 229mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 75°C vs 70°C.

Feature	GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE	GeForce GTX 1650
TDP	81W	75W-7%
Recommended PSU	350W	300W-14%
Power Connector	1x 6-pin	None
Length	267mm	229mm
Height	111mm	111mm
Slots	2	2
Temp (Load)	75°C	70°C-7%
Perf/Watt	82.8	104.9+27%