CPU
GPU
GRID P40-3Q
Popular choices:
GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design
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. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The GRID P40-3Q is positioned at rank 341 and the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design is on rank 160, so the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar GRID P40-3Q
Performance Per Dollar GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design is significantly newer (2020 vs 2013). The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The GRID P40-3Q lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.1% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GRID P40-3Q.
| Insight | GRID P40-3Q | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.1%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.1%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / Kepler (2012−2018)) | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | Standard Size (267mm) | — |
💎 Value Proposition
While current pricing data is unavailable, the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design remains the clear technical winner. Check real-time availability to determine if the performance gap justifies the market price.
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 P40-3Q and GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design
GRID P40-3Q
The GRID P40-3Q 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: 6,570 points. Launch price was $469.
GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design
The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in April 2 2020. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 1035 MHz to 1200 MHz. It has 1024 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 6,574 points.
Graphics Performance
The GRID P40-3Q scores 6,570 and the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design reaches 6,574 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.1% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GRID P40-3Q is built on Kepler while the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design uses Turing, both on 28 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 1,536 (GRID P40-3Q) vs 1,024 (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design). Raw compute: 2.289 TFLOPS (GRID P40-3Q) vs 2.458 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design).
| Feature | GRID P40-3Q | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 6,570 | 6,574 |
| Architecture | Kepler | Turing |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 1536+50% | 1024 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.289 TFLOPS | 2.458 TFLOPS+7% |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 128+100% | 64 |
| L1 Cache | 0.13 MB | 1 MB+669% |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 1 MB+100% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GRID P40-3Q | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| 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 GDDR6. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 0.5 MB (GRID P40-3Q) vs 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design) — the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GRID P40-3Q | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 1 MB+100% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (11_0) (GRID P40-3Q) vs 12 (12_1) (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design). Vulkan: 1.3 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 4.
| Feature | GRID P40-3Q | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 4 | 4 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: Tesla NVENC x24 (GRID P40-3Q) vs NVENC (Turing) (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design). Decoder: Tesla NVDEC vs NVDEC (4th Gen). Supported codecs: H.264,HEVC (GRID P40-3Q) vs H.264,H.265 (HEVC),VP9,H.265 10-bit (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design).
| Feature | GRID P40-3Q | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | Tesla NVENC x24 | NVENC (Turing) |
| Decoder | Tesla NVDEC | NVDEC (4th Gen) |
| Codecs | H.264,HEVC | H.264,H.265 (HEVC),VP9,H.265 10-bit |
Power & Dimensions
The GRID P40-3Q draws 225W versus the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design's 50W — a 127.3% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GRID P40-3Q) vs 350W (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Typical load temperature: 85°C vs 75°C.
| Feature | GRID P40-3Q | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 225W | 50W-78% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 267mm | — |
| Height | 111mm | — |
| Slots | 2 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | 85°C | 75°C-12% |
| Perf/Watt | 29.2 | 131.5+350% |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design is the newer GPU (2020 vs 2013).
| Feature | GRID P40-3Q | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $5699 | — |
| Avg Price (30d) | $5699 | — |
| Codename | GK104 | TU117 |
| Release | June 28 2013 | April 2 2020 |
| Ranking | #628 | #371 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GRID P40-3Q and GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design
