GRID K240Q vs GeForce GTX 1650

GRID K240Q

2013Core: 745 MHz

GeForce GTX 1650

2019Core: 1485 MHzBoost: 1665 MHz

Performance Spectrum - GPU

GRID K240Q

225

2,541

0.0%

GeForce RTX 2070 with Max-Q Design

GeForce RTX 2060 12GB

GeForce RTX 3060 Ti

GeForce GTX 1650

7,869

+209.7%

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 K240Q is positioned at rank #210 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 K240Q

#91

RTX PRO 6000

MSRP: $8565|Avg: $8565

99%

#92

RTX A6000

MSRP: $4649|Avg: $3500

97%

#93

Quadro RTX A6000

MSRP: $4649|Avg: $3500

96%

#195

Tesla K20m

MSRP: $3199|Avg: $55

2908%

#210

GRID K240Q

MSRP: $500|Avg: $40

100%

#211

FirePro M4150

MSRP: $200|Avg: $50

100%

#212

FirePro V4900

MSRP: $200|Avg: $47

99%

#213

GRID K160Q

MSRP: $125|Avg: $30

99%

#215

Quadro

MSRP: $1000|Avg: $50

98%

#216

FirePro W5000

MSRP: $599|Avg: $40

97%

#219

FirePro W7000 Adapter

MSRP: $899|Avg: $15

96%

#220

Quadro K420

MSRP: $150|Avg: $20

95%

#223

FirePro W7000

MSRP: $899|Avg: $50

94%

#224

Radeon R7 PRO A10-9700

MSRP: $169|Avg: $100

94%

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 K240Q 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 209.7% higher G3D Mark score and 100% more VRAM (4 GB vs 2 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GRID K240Q.

Insight	GRID K240Q	GeForce GTX 1650
Performance	❌Lower raw frame rates (-209.7%)	✅Leading raw performance (+209.7%)
Longevity	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / Kepler (2012−2018))	Turing (2018−2022) (12nm)
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	❌ Less VRAM capacity	✅ More VRAM (+100%)
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 $40), its significant performance lead justifies the premium, offering 65.2% better value per dollar than the GRID K240Q.

Insight	GRID K240Q	GeForce GTX 1650
Cost Efficiency	❌Lower cost efficiency	✅Better overall value (+65.2%)
Upfront Cost	✅More affordable ($40)	⚠️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.

GRID K240Q Benchmark Check

GeForce GTX 1650 Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GRID K240Q and GeForce GTX 1650

GRID K240Q

The GRID K240Q 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: 2,541 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 K240Q scores 2,541 versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 7,869 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 209.7%. The GRID K240Q is built on Kepler while the GeForce GTX 1650 uses Turing, both on 28 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 1,536 (GRID K240Q) vs 896 (GeForce GTX 1650). Raw compute: 2.289 TFLOPS (GRID K240Q) vs 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650).

Feature	GRID K240Q	GeForce GTX 1650
G3D Mark Score	2,541	7,869+210%
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 K240Q	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 K240Q comes with 2 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce GTX 1650 has 4 GB. The GeForce GTX 1650 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 0.5 MB (GRID K240Q) vs 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GRID K240Q	GeForce GTX 1650
VRAM Capacity	2 GB	4 GB+100%
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 K240Q) vs 12 (GeForce GTX 1650). OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 0 vs 3.

Feature	GRID K240Q	GeForce GTX 1650
DirectX	11_0	12+9%
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
Max Displays	0	3

🎬

Media & Encoding

Supported codecs: H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 (GRID K240Q) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650).

Feature	GRID K240Q	GeForce GTX 1650
Encoder	—	NVENC 5th gen (Volta)
Decoder	—	NVDEC 4th gen
Codecs	H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2	H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GRID K240Q draws 225W versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 75W — a 100% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GRID K240Q) vs 300W (GeForce GTX 1650). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs None. Card length: 1mm vs 229mm, occupying 0 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 80°C vs 70°C.

Feature	GRID K240Q	GeForce GTX 1650
TDP	225W	75W-67%
Recommended PSU	350W	300W-14%
Power Connector	PCIe-powered	None
Length	1mm	229mm
Height	—	111mm
Slots	0-100%	2
Temp (Load)	80°C	70°C-13%
Perf/Watt	11.3	104.9+828%

💰

Value Analysis

The GRID K240Q launched at $500 MSRP and currently averages $40, while the GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 and now averages $75. The GRID K240Q costs 46.7% less ($35 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 63.5 (GRID K240Q) vs 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 65.2% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2013).