GeForce RTX 2050 vs GeForce GTX 1650
GeForce RTX 2050
Popular choices:
GeForce GTX 1650
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 GeForce RTX 2050
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GTX 1650 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 2% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce RTX 2050.
| Insight | GeForce RTX 2050 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-2%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+2%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2018 / Turing (2018−2022)) | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) |
| Ecosystem | ✨ DLSS 3/4 + Frame Gen Support | 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 1650 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $75 versus $150 for the GeForce RTX 2050, it costs 50% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 104% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce RTX 2050 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+104%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($150) | ✅More affordable ($75) |
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.
Path of Exile 2
Counter-Strike 2
League of Legends
Valorant
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce RTX 2050 and GeForce GTX 1650
GeForce RTX 2050
The GeForce RTX 2050 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in September 20 2018. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 1515 MHz to 1710 MHz. It has 2944 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 215W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. It features 46 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 7,714 points. Launch price was $699.
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
The GeForce RTX 2050 scores 7,714 and the GeForce GTX 1650 reaches 7,869 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce RTX 2050 is built on Turing while the GeForce GTX 1650 uses Turing, both on a 12 nm process. Shader units: 2,944 (GeForce RTX 2050) vs 896 (GeForce GTX 1650). Raw compute: 10.07 TFLOPS (GeForce RTX 2050) vs 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650). Boost clocks: 1710 MHz vs 1665 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce RTX 2050 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,714 | 7,869+2% |
| Architecture | Turing | Turing |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 2944+229% | 896 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 10.07 TFLOPS+237% | 2.984 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1710 MHz+3% | 1665 MHz |
| ROPs | 64+100% | 32 |
| TMUs | 184+229% | 56 |
| L1 Cache | 2.9 MB+230% | 0.88 MB |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB+300% | 1 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
The GeForce RTX 2050 gives access to NVIDIA DLSS (Deep Learning Super Sampling), widely regarding as the superior upscaling method for image quality. The GeForce GTX 1650 relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.
| Feature | GeForce RTX 2050 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | DLSS 2.0 | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) |
| Frame Generation | FSR 3 / AFMF (Compatible) | FSR 3 (Compatible) |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | NVIDIA Reflex | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 4 GB of video memory. Memory bandwidth: 112 GB/s (GeForce RTX 2050) vs 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) — a 14.3% advantage for the GeForce GTX 1650. Bus width: 64-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 4 MB (GeForce RTX 2050) vs 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce RTX 2050 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce RTX 2050 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 112 GB/s | 128 GB/s+14% |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 128-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB+300% | 1 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12.2 (GeForce RTX 2050) vs 12 (GeForce GTX 1650). Vulkan: 1.3 vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 3.
| Feature | GeForce RTX 2050 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12.2+2% | 12 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.4+8% |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 4+33% | 3 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 8.0 (GeForce RTX 2050) vs NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650). Decoder: PureVideo HD VP11 vs NVDEC 4th gen. Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 (Decode) (GeForce RTX 2050) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650).
| Feature | GeForce RTX 2050 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 8.0 | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) |
| Decoder | PureVideo HD VP11 | NVDEC 4th gen |
| Codecs | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 (Decode) | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce RTX 2050 draws 215W versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 75W — a 96.6% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce RTX 2050) vs 300W (GeForce GTX 1650). Power connectors: 6-pin vs None. Card length: 0mm vs 229mm, occupying 0 vs 2 slots.
| Feature | GeForce RTX 2050 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 215W | 75W-65% |
| Recommended PSU | 300W | 300W |
| Power Connector | 6-pin | None |
| Length | 0mm | 229mm |
| Height | 0mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 0-100% | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | — | 70°C |
| Perf/Watt | 35.9 | 104.9+192% |
Value Analysis
The GeForce RTX 2050 launched at $150 MSRP and currently averages $150, while the GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 and now averages $75. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 50% less ($75 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 51.4 (GeForce RTX 2050) vs 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 104.1% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2018).
| Feature | GeForce RTX 2050 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $150 | $149 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $150 | $75-50% |
| Performance per Dollar | 51.4 | 104.9+104% |
| Codename | TU104 | TU117 |
| Release | September 20 2018 | April 23 2019 |
| Ranking | #94 | #323 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GeForce RTX 2050 and GeForce GTX 1650
