GRID P40-8Q vs GeForce GTX 1650 Ti
GRID P40-8Q
Popular choices:
GeForce GTX 1650 Ti
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 P40-8Q is positioned at rank #265 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 P40-8Q
Performance Per Dollar GeForce GTX 1650 Ti
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.2% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GRID P40-8Q.
| Insight | GRID P40-8Q | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.2%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.2%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2012 / Kepler (2012−2018)) |
| 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
The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti holds the technical lead. Priced at $77 (vs $150), it costs 49% less, resulting in a 95.3% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GRID P40-8Q | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+95.3%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($150) | ✅More affordable ($77) |
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 P40-8Q and GeForce GTX 1650 Ti
GRID P40-8Q
The GRID P40-8Q 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: 7,507 points.
GeForce GTX 1650 Ti
The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in October 9 2012. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock speed is 928 MHz. It has 768 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 7,525 points. Launch price was $149.
Graphics Performance
The GRID P40-8Q scores 7,507 and the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti reaches 7,525 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.2% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GRID P40-8Q is built on Maxwell 2.0 while the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti uses Kepler, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 2,048 (GRID P40-8Q) vs 768 (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti). Raw compute: 4.825 TFLOPS (GRID P40-8Q) vs 1.425 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti).
| Feature | GRID P40-8Q | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,507 | 7,525 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Kepler |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 2048+167% | 768 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 4.825 TFLOPS+239% | 1.425 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64+300% | 16 |
| TMUs | 128+100% | 64 |
| L1 Cache | 768 KB+1100% | 64 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB+700% | 0.25 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GRID P40-8Q | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti |
|---|---|---|
| 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: 2 MB (GRID P40-8Q) vs 0.25 MB (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) — the GRID P40-8Q has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GRID P40-8Q | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB+700% | 0.25 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12.0 (GRID P40-8Q) vs 12 (12_1) (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti). Vulkan: 1.1 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.5 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 0 vs 3.
| Feature | GRID P40-8Q | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12.0 | 12 (12_1) |
| Vulkan | 1.1 | 1.3+18% |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6+2% |
| Max Displays | 0 | 3 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 4.0 (GRID P40-8Q) vs NVENC 6 (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti). Decoder: PureVideo HD VP7 vs NVDEC 4. Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9 (GRID P40-8Q) vs H.264,H.265,VP9,AV1 (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti).
| Feature | GRID P40-8Q | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 4.0 | NVENC 6 (Volta) |
| Decoder | PureVideo HD VP7 | NVDEC 4 |
| Codecs | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9 | H.264,H.265,VP9,AV1 |
Power & Dimensions
The GRID P40-8Q draws 225W versus the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti's 50W — a 127.3% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GRID P40-8Q) vs 0W (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs None. Card length: 267mm vs 0mm, occupying 2 vs 0 slots.
| Feature | GRID P40-8Q | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 225W | 50W-78% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 0W-100% |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | None |
| Length | 267mm | 0mm |
| Height | 111mm | 0mm |
| Slots | 2 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | — | 75 |
| Perf/Watt | 33.4 | 150.5+351% |
Value Analysis
The GRID P40-8Q launched at $3000 MSRP and currently averages $150, while the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti launched at $150 and now averages $77. The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti costs 48.7% less ($73 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 50.0 (GRID P40-8Q) vs 97.7 (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) — the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti offers 95.4% better value. The GRID P40-8Q is the newer GPU (2015 vs 2012).
| Feature | GRID P40-8Q | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $3000 | $150-95% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $150 | $77-49% |
| Performance per Dollar | 50.0 | 97.7+95% |
| Codename | GM204 | GK106 |
| Release | August 30 2015 | October 9 2012 |
| Ranking | #505 | #633 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GRID P40-8Q and GeForce GTX 1650 Ti
