GRID M10-2Q vs GeForce GTX 1650
GRID M10-2Q
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 GRID M10-2Q is positioned at rank #342 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 GRID M10-2Q
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce GTX 1650 uses modern memory architecture. 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 M10-2Q 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 192.3% 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 M10-2Q.
| Insight | GRID M10-2Q | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-192.3%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+192.3%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)) | 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. Priced at $75 versus $150 for the GRID M10-2Q, it costs 50% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 484.6% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GRID M10-2Q | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+484.6%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($150) | ✅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.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GRID M10-2Q and GeForce GTX 1650
GRID M10-2Q
The GRID M10-2Q is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in August 30 2015. It features the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 557 MHz to 1178 MHz. It has 2048 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 225W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,692 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 GRID M10-2Q scores 2,692 versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 7,869 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 192.3%. The GRID M10-2Q is built on Maxwell 2.0 while the GeForce GTX 1650 uses Turing, both on 28 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 2,048 (GRID M10-2Q) vs 896 (GeForce GTX 1650). Raw compute: 4.825 TFLOPS (GRID M10-2Q) vs 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650). Boost clocks: 1178 MHz vs 1665 MHz.
| Feature | GRID M10-2Q | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 2,692 | 7,869+192% |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Turing |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 2048+129% | 896 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 4.825 TFLOPS+62% | 2.984 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1178 MHz | 1665 MHz+41% |
| ROPs | 64+100% | 32 |
| TMUs | 128+129% | 56 |
| L1 Cache | 768 KB | 896 KB+17% |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB+100% | 1 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GRID M10-2Q | 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 M10-2Q 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: 2 MB (GRID M10-2Q) vs 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GRID M10-2Q has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GRID M10-2Q | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 2 GB | 4 GB+100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 128-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB+100% | 1 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12_1 (GRID M10-2Q) vs 12 (GeForce GTX 1650). Maximum simultaneous displays: 0 vs 3.
| Feature | GRID M10-2Q | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12_1 | 12 |
| Max Displays | 0 | 3 |
Power & Dimensions
The GRID M10-2Q draws 225W versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 75W — a 100% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GRID M10-2Q) vs 300W (GeForce GTX 1650). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs None. Card length: 1mm vs 229mm, occupying 0 vs 2 slots.
| Feature | GRID M10-2Q | 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) | — | 70°C |
| Perf/Watt | 12.0 | 104.9+774% |
Value Analysis
The GRID M10-2Q launched at $2500 MSRP and currently averages $150, while the GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 and now averages $75. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 50% less ($75 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 17.9 (GRID M10-2Q) vs 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 486% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2015).
| Feature | GRID M10-2Q | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $2500 | $149-94% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $150 | $75-50% |
| Performance per Dollar | 17.9 | 104.9+486% |
| Codename | GM204 | TU117 |
| Release | August 30 2015 | April 23 2019 |
| Ranking | #433 | #323 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GRID M10-2Q and GeForce GTX 1650
