GeForce3 Ti 200 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 GeForce3 Ti 200 is positioned at rank #382 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 GeForce3 Ti 200

#1

GeForce RTX 3060 Ti

MSRP: $399|Avg: $280

241800%

#2

GeForce RTX 5060

MSRP: $299|Avg: $299

232300%

#3

Radeon RX 5600 XT

MSRP: $279|Avg: $180

229600%

#4

Radeon RX 9060

MSRP: $249|Avg: $249

229200%

#5

GeForce RTX 5050

MSRP: $249|Avg: $249

228733%

#6

GeForce RTX 3050 OEM

MSRP: $249|Avg: $150

227433%

#7

Arc A580

MSRP: $179|Avg: $179

224567%

#8

Radeon RX 9060 XT

MSRP: $299|Avg: $299

223733%

#9

Radeon RX 9060 XT 8GB

MSRP: $299|Avg: $299

221667%

#10

Radeon RX 7600

MSRP: $269|Avg: $250

221067%

#11

Radeon RX 6600

MSRP: $329|Avg: $180

218400%

#12

GeForce RTX 4060

MSRP: $299|Avg: $299

217933%

#13

Arc B570

MSRP: $219|Avg: $219

214000%

#14

Arc B580

MSRP: $249|Avg: $249

213867%

#367

Radeon R5 430 OEM

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $13

266667%

#382

GeForce3 Ti 200

MSRP: $149|Avg: $49

100%

#383

GeForce4 Ti 4200

MSRP: $199|Avg: $5

100%

#384

GeForce4 Ti 4400

MSRP: $299|Avg: $49

67%

#385

GeForce4 MX 460

MSRP: $179|Avg: $15

67%

#386

GeForce4 Ti 4800 SE

MSRP: $299|Avg: $30

67%

#387

GeForce4 Ti 4800

MSRP: $399|Avg: $40

67%

#388

GeForce4 Ti 4600

MSRP: $399|Avg: $40

67%

#389

RADEON 7500

MSRP: $199|Avg: $50

67%

#390

GeForce3 Ti 500

MSRP: $349|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 GeForce3 Ti 200.

Insight	GeForce3 Ti 200	GeForce GTX 1650
Performance	❌Lower raw frame rates (-196625%)	✅Leading raw performance (+196625%)
Longevity	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2018 / Turing (2018−2022))	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	📏 Compact / SFF Friendly

💎 Value Proposition

The GeForce GTX 1650 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Although it costs $75 (vs $49), its significant performance lead justifies the premium, offering 128427% better value per dollar than the GeForce3 Ti 200.

Insight	GeForce3 Ti 200	GeForce GTX 1650
Cost Efficiency	❌Lower cost efficiency	✅Better overall value (+128427%)
Upfront Cost	✅More affordable ($49)	⚠️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.

GeForce3 Ti 200 Benchmark Check

GeForce GTX 1650 Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce3 Ti 200 and GeForce GTX 1650

GeForce3 Ti 200

The GeForce3 Ti 200 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: 4 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

In G3D Mark, the GeForce3 Ti 200 scores 4 versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 7,869 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 196625%. The GeForce3 Ti 200 is built on Turing while the GeForce GTX 1650 uses Turing, both on a 12 nm process. Shader units: 2,944 (GeForce3 Ti 200) vs 896 (GeForce GTX 1650). Raw compute: 10.07 TFLOPS (GeForce3 Ti 200) vs 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650). Boost clocks: 1710 MHz vs 1665 MHz.

Feature	GeForce3 Ti 200	GeForce GTX 1650
G3D Mark Score	4	7,869+196625%
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)

Feature	GeForce3 Ti 200	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 GeForce3 Ti 200 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. L2 Cache: 4 MB (GeForce3 Ti 200) vs 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce3 Ti 200 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce3 Ti 200	GeForce GTX 1650
VRAM Capacity	0.5 GB	4 GB+700%
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Bus Width	64-bit	128-bit+100%
L2 Cache	4 MB+300%	1 MB

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 8.1 (GeForce3 Ti 200) vs 12 (GeForce GTX 1650). Vulkan: N/A vs 1.4. OpenGL: 1.3 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 3.

Feature	GeForce3 Ti 200	GeForce GTX 1650
DirectX	8.1	12+48%
Vulkan	N/A	1.4
OpenGL	1.3	4.6+254%
Max Displays	2	3+50%

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: None (GeForce3 Ti 200) vs NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650). Decoder: None vs NVDEC 4th gen. Supported codecs: MPEG-2 (GeForce3 Ti 200) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650).

Feature	GeForce3 Ti 200	GeForce GTX 1650
Encoder	None	NVENC 5th gen (Volta)
Decoder	None	NVDEC 4th gen
Codecs	MPEG-2	H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce3 Ti 200 draws 215W versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 75W — a 96.6% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce3 Ti 200) vs 300W (GeForce GTX 1650). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs None. Card length: 183mm vs 229mm, occupying 1 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 60 vs 70°C.

Feature	GeForce3 Ti 200	GeForce GTX 1650
TDP	215W	75W-65%
Recommended PSU	350W	300W-14%
Power Connector	PCIe-powered	None
Length	183mm	229mm
Height	100mm	111mm
Slots	1-50%	2
Temp (Load)	60-14%	70°C
Perf/Watt	0.0	104.9

💰

Value Analysis

The GeForce3 Ti 200 launched at $149 MSRP and currently averages $49, while the GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 and now averages $75. The GeForce3 Ti 200 costs 34.7% less ($26 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 0.1 (GeForce3 Ti 200) vs 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 104800% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2018).