GeForce GTX 1650 vs GeForce 256

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.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.•
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Per Dollar GeForce 256

#737

Radeon RX 550X (móvel)

MSRP: $35|Avg: $35

361900%

#739

GeForce GTX 1070 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $150

328067%

#740

GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $100

327200%

#744

GeForce GTX 1050 (Mobile)

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50

297533%

#745

Radeon RX 6300

MSRP: $60|Avg: $40

295500%

#747

GeForce2 MX/MX 400

MSRP: $129|Avg: $15

100%

#748

GeForce4 MX 440

MSRP: $149|Avg: $49

100%

#749

RADEON 7200

MSRP: $99|Avg: $45

100%

#750

GeForce 256

MSRP: $199|Avg: $20

100%

#751

GeForce2 MX

MSRP: $129|Avg: $49

67%

#752

GeForce4 440

MSRP: $469|Avg: $49

33%

#753

GeForce3

MSRP: $499|Avg: $49

33%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

The GeForce GTX 1650 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 157280% higher G3D Mark score and 700% more VRAM (4 GB vs 512 MB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce 256.

Insight	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce 256
Performance	✅Leading raw performance (+157280%)	❌Lower raw frame rates (-157280%)
Longevity	Turing (2018−2022) (12nm)	Pascal (2016−2021) (14nm)
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	✅ More VRAM (+700%)	❌ Less VRAM capacity
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. Although it costs $75 (vs $20), its significant performance lead justifies the premium, offering 41868% better value per dollar than the GeForce 256.

Insight	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce 256
Cost Efficiency	✅Better overall value (+41868%)	❌Lower cost efficiency
Upfront Cost	⚠️Higher upfront cost ($75)	✅More affordable ($20)

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.

GeForce GTX 1650 Benchmark Check

GeForce 256 Benchmark Check

Loading...

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and GeForce 256

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.

GeForce 256

The GeForce 256 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in February 20 2019. It features the Pascal architecture. The core clock ranges from 937 MHz to 1038 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 10W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 5 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the GeForce 256's 5 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 157280%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the GeForce 256 uses Pascal, both on 12 nm vs 14 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 384 (GeForce 256). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 0.7972 TFLOPS (GeForce 256). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1038 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce 256
G3D Mark Score	7,869+157280%	5
Architecture	Turing	Pascal
Process Node	12 nm	14 nm
Shading Units	896+133%	384
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.984 TFLOPS+274%	0.7972 TFLOPS
Boost Clock	1665 MHz+60%	1038 MHz
ROPs	32+100%	16
TMUs	56+133%	24
L1 Cache	896 KB+522%	144 KB
L2 Cache	1 MB+100%	0.5 MB

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce 256
Upscaling Tech	FSR 2.1 (Compatible)	FSR 1.0 (Software)
Frame Generation	FSR 3 (Compatible)	Not Supported
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	Standard	Standard

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

The GeForce GTX 1650 comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce 256 has 512 MB. The GeForce GTX 1650 offers 700% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 0.5 MB (GeForce 256) — the GeForce GTX 1650 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce 256
VRAM Capacity	4 GB+700%	0.5 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Memory Bandwidth	128 GB/s	Unknown
Bus Width	128-bit	128-bit
L2 Cache	1 MB+100%	0.5 MB

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 7.0 (GeForce 256). OpenGL: 4.6 vs 1.2. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 1.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce 256
DirectX	12+71%	7.0
OpenGL	4.6+283%	1.2
Max Displays	3+200%	1

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs None (GeForce 256). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs MPEG-2 Motion Comp. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs MPEG-2 (GeForce 256).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce 256
Encoder	NVENC 5th gen (Volta)	None
Decoder	NVDEC 4th gen	MPEG-2 Motion Comp
Codecs	H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9	MPEG-2

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the GeForce 256's 10W — a 152.9% difference. The GeForce 256 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (GeForce 256). Power connectors: None vs Legacy. Card length: 229mm vs 165mm, occupying 2 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 60°C.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce 256
TDP	75W	10W-87%
Recommended PSU	300W-14%	350W
Power Connector	None	Legacy
Length	229mm	165mm
Height	111mm	100mm
Slots	2	1-50%
Temp (Load)	70°C	60°C-14%
Perf/Watt	104.9+20880%	0.5

💰

Value Analysis

The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP and currently averages $75, while the GeForce 256 launched at $199 and now averages $20. The GeForce 256 costs 73.3% less ($55 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 0.3 (GeForce 256) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 34866.7% better value.