GeForce GTX 1650 vs Arc A380
GeForce GTX 1650
Popular choices:
Arc A380
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.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Per Dollar Arc A380
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GTX 1650 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 24.9% higher G3D Mark score. However, the Arc A380 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1650 | Arc A380 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+24.9%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-24.9%) |
| Longevity | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) | Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) (6nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+50%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| 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 $119 for the Arc A380, it costs 37% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 98.2% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1650 | Arc A380 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+98.2%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($75) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($119) |
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 GeForce GTX 1650 and Arc A380
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.
Arc A380
The Arc A380 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in June 14 2022. It features the Generation 12.7 architecture. The core clock ranges from 2000 MHz to 2050 MHz. It has 1024 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 6 nm process technology. It features 8 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 6,301 points. Launch price was $149.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Arc A380's 6,301 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 24.9%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Arc A380 uses Generation 12.7, both on 12 nm vs 6 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 1,024 (Arc A380). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 4.198 TFLOPS (Arc A380). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 2050 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Arc A380 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869+25% | 6,301 |
| Architecture | Turing | Generation 12.7 |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 6 nm |
| Shading Units | 896 | 1024+14% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS | 4.198 TFLOPS+41% |
| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz | 2050 MHz+23% |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 56 | 64+14% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 4 MB+300% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Arc A380 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) | XeSS |
| Frame Generation | FSR 3 (Compatible) | FSR 3 (Compatible) |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The GeForce GTX 1650 comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the Arc A380 has 6 GB. The Arc A380 offers 50% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 186 GB/s (Arc A380) — a 45.3% advantage for the Arc A380. Bus width: 128-bit vs 96-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 4 MB (Arc A380) — the Arc A380 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Arc A380 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 6 GB+50% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 128 GB/s | 186 GB/s+45% |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+33% | 96-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 4 MB+300% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12 Ultimate (Arc A380). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Arc A380 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12 Ultimate |
| Vulkan | 1.4+8% | 1.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 4+33% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs Xe Media Engine (Arc A380). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs Xe Media Engine. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs AV1,H.265,H.264,VP9 (Arc A380).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Arc A380 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) | Xe Media Engine |
| Decoder | NVDEC 4th gen | Xe Media Engine |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 | AV1,H.265,H.264,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Arc A380's 75W — a 0% difference. The Arc A380 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 300W (Arc A380). Power connectors: None vs None. Card length: 229mm vs 190mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 59.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Arc A380 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W | 75W |
| Recommended PSU | 300W | 300W |
| Power Connector | None | None |
| Length | 229mm | 190mm |
| Height | 111mm | 114mm |
| Slots | 2 | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C | 59-16% |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9+25% | 84.0 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP and currently averages $75, while the Arc A380 launched at $149 and now averages $119. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 37% less ($44 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 52.9 (Arc A380) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 98.3% better value. The Arc A380 is the newer GPU (2022 vs 2019).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Arc A380 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149 | $149 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $75-37% | $119 |
| Performance per Dollar | 104.9+98% | 52.9 |
| Codename | TU117 | DG2-128 |
| Release | April 23 2019 | June 14 2022 |
| Ranking | #323 | #384 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GeForce GTX 1650 and Arc A380
