GRID K140Q vs GeForce GTX 1650

GRID K140Q

2013Core: 745 MHz

GeForce GTX 1650

2019Core: 1485 MHzBoost: 1665 MHz

Performance Spectrum - GPU

GRID K140Q

225

728

0.0%

GeForce GTX 760 Ti OEM

GeForce GTX 1060 6 GB

GeForce GTX 1070 Ti

GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER

GeForce GTX 1650

7,869

+980.9%

GeForce GTX 880M SLI

GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448

GeForce GTX 960

GeForce GTX 1650 (móvel)

GeForce RTX 3050 OEM

GeForce GTX 1080

GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER

GeForce RTX 3070 Ti

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 GRID K140Q is positioned at rank #197 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 GRID K140Q

#86

Radeon Pro WX 9100

MSRP: $2199|Avg: $550

96%

#87

A10G

MSRP: $2500|Avg: $2000

93%

#88

Tesla T4

MSRP: $1880|Avg: $1000

93%

#89

Tesla M40 24GB

MSRP: $2000|Avg: $120

91%

#90

Quadro P5000

MSRP: $2499|Avg: $400

87%

#182

Tesla K20m

MSRP: $3199|Avg: $55

2538%

#197

GRID K140Q

MSRP: $125|Avg: $500

100%

#200

Radeon Pro Duo

MSRP: $1499|Avg: $799

95%

#201

P102-100

MSRP: $600|Avg: $80

95%

#203

Quadro FX 2700

MSRP: $100|Avg: $50

93%

#206

FirePro V3900

MSRP: $119|Avg: $30

91%

#207

Radeon R7 PRO A10-9700B

MSRP: $119|Avg: $89

91%

#208

Tesla K8

MSRP: $1000|Avg: $100

88%

#210

GRID K240Q

MSRP: $500|Avg: $40

87%

#211

FirePro M4150

MSRP: $200|Avg: $50

87%

#212

FirePro V4900

MSRP: $200|Avg: $47

87%

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 is significantly newer (2019 vs 2013). 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 GRID K140Q 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 980.9% 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 GRID K140Q.

Insight	GRID K140Q	GeForce GTX 1650
Performance	❌Lower raw frame rates (-980.9%)	✅Leading raw performance (+980.9%)
Longevity	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / Kepler (2012−2018))	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	Standard Size (267mm)	📏 Compact / SFF Friendly

💎 Value Proposition

The GeForce GTX 1650 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $75 versus $500 for the GRID K140Q, it costs 85% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 7106% higher cost efficiency score.

Insight	GRID K140Q	GeForce GTX 1650
Cost Efficiency	❌Lower cost efficiency	✅Better overall value (+7106%)
Upfront Cost	⚠️Higher upfront cost ($500)	✅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.

GRID K140Q Benchmark Check

GeForce GTX 1650 Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GRID K140Q and GeForce GTX 1650

GRID K140Q

The GRID K140Q is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in June 28 2013. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock speed is 745 MHz. It has 1536 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 225W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 728 points. Launch price was $469.

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 GRID K140Q scores 728 versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 7,869 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 980.9%. The GRID K140Q is built on Kepler while the GeForce GTX 1650 uses Turing, both on 28 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 1,536 (GRID K140Q) vs 896 (GeForce GTX 1650). Raw compute: 2.289 TFLOPS (GRID K140Q) vs 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650).

Feature	GRID K140Q	GeForce GTX 1650
G3D Mark Score	728	7,869+981%
Architecture	Kepler	Turing
Process Node	28 nm	12 nm
Shading Units	1536+71%	896
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.289 TFLOPS	2.984 TFLOPS+30%
ROPs	32	32
TMUs	128+129%	56
L1 Cache	128 KB	896 KB+600%
L2 Cache	0.5 MB	1 MB+100%

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	GRID K140Q	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 GRID K140Q 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: 0.5 MB (GRID K140Q) vs 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GRID K140Q	GeForce GTX 1650
VRAM Capacity	0.5 GB	4 GB+700%
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Bus Width	64-bit	128-bit+100%
L2 Cache	0.5 MB	1 MB+100%

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 11_0 (GRID K140Q) vs 12 (GeForce GTX 1650). Maximum simultaneous displays: 0 vs 3.

Feature	GRID K140Q	GeForce GTX 1650
DirectX	11_0	12+9%
Max Displays	0	3

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC 3rd Gen (GRID K140Q) vs NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650). Decoder: NVDEC 1st Gen vs NVDEC 4th gen.

Feature	GRID K140Q	GeForce GTX 1650
Encoder	NVENC 3rd Gen	NVENC 5th gen (Volta)
Decoder	NVDEC 1st Gen	NVDEC 4th gen
Codecs	—	H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GRID K140Q draws 225W versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 75W — a 100% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GRID K140Q) vs 300W (GeForce GTX 1650). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs None. Card length: 267mm vs 229mm, occupying 1 vs 2 slots.

Feature	GRID K140Q	GeForce GTX 1650
TDP	225W	75W-67%
Recommended PSU	350W	300W-14%
Power Connector	PCIe-powered	None
Length	267mm	229mm
Height	—	111mm
Slots	1-50%	2
Temp (Load)	—	70°C
Perf/Watt	3.2	104.9+3178%

💰

Value Analysis

The GRID K140Q launched at $125 MSRP and currently averages $500, while the GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 and now averages $75. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 85% less ($425 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 1.5 (GRID K140Q) vs 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 6893.3% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2013).