GeForce2 MX/MX 400 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 GeForce2 MX/MX 400 is positioned at rank #750 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Lower 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 GeForce2 MX/MX 400

#740

Radeon RX 550X (móvel)

MSRP: $35|Avg: $35

361900%

#742

GeForce GTX 1070 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $150

328067%

#743

GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $100

327200%

#747

GeForce GTX 1050 (Mobile)

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50

297533%

#748

Radeon RX 6300

MSRP: $60|Avg: $40

295500%

#750

GeForce2 MX/MX 400

MSRP: $129|Avg: $15

100%

#751

GeForce4 MX 440

MSRP: $149|Avg: $49

100%

#752

RADEON 7200

MSRP: $99|Avg: $45

100%

#753

GeForce 256

MSRP: $199|Avg: $20

100%

#754

GeForce2 MX

MSRP: $129|Avg: $49

67%

#755

GeForce4 440

MSRP: $469|Avg: $49

33%

#756

GeForce3

MSRP: $499|Avg: $49

33%

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

🚀 Performance Leadership

The GeForce GTX 1650 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 196625% higher G3D Mark score and 700% more VRAM (4 GB vs 512 MB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce2 MX/MX 400.

Insight	GeForce2 MX/MX 400	GeForce GTX 1650
Performance	❌Lower raw frame rates (-196625%)	✅Leading raw performance (+196625%)
Longevity	Turing (2018−2022) (12nm)	Turing (2018−2022) (12nm)
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	❌ Less VRAM capacity	✅ More VRAM (+700%)
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. Although it costs $75 (vs $15), its significant performance lead justifies the premium, offering 39245% better value per dollar than the GeForce2 MX/MX 400.

Insight	GeForce2 MX/MX 400	GeForce GTX 1650
Cost Efficiency	❌Lower cost efficiency	✅Better overall value (+39245%)
Upfront Cost	✅More affordable ($15)	⚠️Higher upfront cost ($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.

GeForce2 MX/MX 400 Benchmark Check

GeForce GTX 1650 Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce2 MX/MX 400 and GeForce GTX 1650

GeForce2 MX/MX 400

The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in August 1 2020. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 1395 MHz to 1575 MHz. It has 896 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 25W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 4 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 GeForce2 MX/MX 400 scores 4 versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 7,869 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 196625%. The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 is built on Turing while the GeForce GTX 1650 uses Turing, both on a 12 nm process. Shader units: 896 (GeForce2 MX/MX 400) vs 896 (GeForce GTX 1650). Raw compute: 3.226 TFLOPS (GeForce2 MX/MX 400) vs 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650). Boost clocks: 1575 MHz vs 1665 MHz.

Feature	GeForce2 MX/MX 400	GeForce GTX 1650
G3D Mark Score	4	7,869+196625%
Architecture	Turing	Turing
Process Node	12 nm	12 nm
Shading Units	896	896
Compute (TFLOPS)	3.226 TFLOPS+8%	2.984 TFLOPS
Boost Clock	1575 MHz	1665 MHz+6%
ROPs	32	32
TMUs	64+14%	56

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	GeForce2 MX/MX 400	GeForce GTX 1650
Upscaling Tech	FSR 1.0 (Software)	FSR 2.1 (Compatible)
Frame Generation	Not Supported	FSR 3 (Compatible)
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	Standard	Standard

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 comes with 512 MB of VRAM, while the GeForce GTX 1650 has 4 GB. The GeForce GTX 1650 offers 700% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 128-bit.

Feature	GeForce2 MX/MX 400	GeForce GTX 1650
VRAM Capacity	0.5 GB	4 GB+700%
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Bus Width	64-bit	128-bit+100%

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 7.0 (GeForce2 MX/MX 400) vs 12 (GeForce GTX 1650). OpenGL: 1.2 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 3.

Feature	GeForce2 MX/MX 400	GeForce GTX 1650
DirectX	7.0	12+71%
OpenGL	1.2	4.6+283%
Max Displays	2	3+50%

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: None (GeForce2 MX/MX 400) vs NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650). Decoder: MPEG-2 Decoder vs NVDEC 4th gen. Supported codecs: MPEG-2 (GeForce2 MX/MX 400) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650).

Feature	GeForce2 MX/MX 400	GeForce GTX 1650
Encoder	None	NVENC 5th gen (Volta)
Decoder	MPEG-2 Decoder	NVDEC 4th gen
Codecs	MPEG-2	H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 draws 25W versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 75W — a 100% difference. The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce2 MX/MX 400) vs 300W (GeForce GTX 1650). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs None. Typical load temperature: 55°C vs 70°C.

Feature	GeForce2 MX/MX 400	GeForce GTX 1650
TDP	25W-67%	75W
Recommended PSU	350W	300W-14%
Power Connector	PCIe-powered	None
Length	—	229mm
Height	100mm	111mm
Slots	1-50%	2
Temp (Load)	55°C-21%	70°C
Perf/Watt	0.2	104.9+52350%

💰

Value Analysis

The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 launched at $129 MSRP and currently averages $15, while the GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 and now averages $75. The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 costs 80% less ($60 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 0.3 (GeForce2 MX/MX 400) vs 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 34866.7% better value. The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 is the newer GPU (2020 vs 2019).

Feature	GeForce2 MX/MX 400	GeForce GTX 1650
MSRP	$129-13%	$149
Avg Price (30d)	$15-80%	$75
Performance per Dollar	0.3	104.9+34867%
Codename	N17S-G5 / GP107-670-A1	TU117
Release	August 1 2020	April 23 2019
Ranking	#523	#323