Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arrow Lake) vs GeForce GTX 1650
Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arrow Lake)
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. The Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arrow Lake) is positioned at rank #264 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Lower cost-benefit for your build. 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 Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arrow Lake)
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 43.1% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arrow Lake).
| Insight | Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arrow Lake) | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-43.1%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+43.1%) |
| Longevity | Xe LPG (2023) (5nm) | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | — | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GTX 1650 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $75 versus $100 for the Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arrow Lake), it costs 25% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 90.8% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arrow Lake) | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+90.8%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($100) | ✅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 Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arrow Lake) and GeForce GTX 1650
Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arrow Lake)
The Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arrow Lake) is manufactured by an unknown manufacturer. It was released in December 14 2023. It features the Xe LPG architecture. The core clock ranges from 300 MHz to 1950 MHz. It has 4 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 15W. Manufactured using 5 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 5,500 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 Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arrow Lake) scores 5,500 versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 7,869 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 43.1%. The Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arrow Lake) is built on Xe LPG while the GeForce GTX 1650 uses Turing, both on 5 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 4 (Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arrow Lake)) vs 896 (GeForce GTX 1650). Boost clocks: 1950 MHz vs 1665 MHz.
| Feature | Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arrow Lake) | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 5,500 | 7,869+43% |
| Architecture | Xe LPG | Turing |
| Process Node | 5 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 4 | 896+22300% |
| Boost Clock | 1950 MHz+17% | 1665 MHz |
| L1 Cache | 768 KB | 896 KB+17% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arrow Lake) | 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)
Both cards feature 4 GB of video memory. Bus width: System vs 128-bit.
| Feature | Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arrow Lake) | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | Shared | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | System | 128 GB/s |
| Bus Width | System | 128-bit |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 Ultimate (Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arrow Lake)) vs 12 (GeForce GTX 1650). Vulkan: 1.3 vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 3.
| Feature | Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arrow Lake) | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate | 12 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.4+8% |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 4+33% | 3 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: Xe Media Engine (Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arrow Lake)) vs NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650). Decoder: Xe Media Engine vs NVDEC 4th gen. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265,VP9,AV1 (Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arrow Lake)) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650).
| Feature | Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arrow Lake) | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | Xe Media Engine | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) |
| Decoder | Xe Media Engine | NVDEC 4th gen |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265,VP9,AV1 | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arrow Lake) draws 15W versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 75W — a 133.3% difference. The Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arrow Lake) is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arrow Lake)) vs 300W (GeForce GTX 1650). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs None. Card length: 0mm vs 229mm, occupying 0 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 85 vs 70°C.
| Feature | Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arrow Lake) | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 15W-80% | 75W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 300W-14% |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | None |
| Length | 0mm | 229mm |
| Height | 0mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 0-100% | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 85 | 70°C-18% |
| Perf/Watt | 366.7+250% | 104.9 |
Value Analysis
The Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arrow Lake) launched at $300 MSRP and currently averages $100, while the GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 and now averages $75. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 25% less ($25 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 55.0 (Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arrow Lake)) vs 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 90.7% better value. The Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arrow Lake) is the newer GPU (2023 vs 2019).
| Feature | Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arrow Lake) | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $300 | $149-50% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $100 | $75-25% |
| Performance per Dollar | 55.0 | 104.9+91% |
| Codename | Meteor Lake iGPU | TU117 |
| Release | December 14 2023 | April 23 2019 |
| Ranking | #496 | #323 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arrow Lake) and GeForce GTX 1650
