GeForce GTX 1650 vs GeForce 9500M G

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 9500M G

#509

Radeon RX 550X (móvel)

MSRP: $35|Avg: $35

2668%

#511

GeForce GTX 1070 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $150

2418%

#512

GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $100

2412%

#516

GeForce GTX 1050 (Mobile)

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50

2193%

#517

Radeon RX 6300

MSRP: $60|Avg: $40

2178%

#519

GeForce 9500M G

MSRP: $30|Avg: $30

100%

#520

Radeon HD 7640G + HD 8500M Dual

MSRP: $150|Avg: $50

100%

#521

Radeon HD 8650G + HD 8600M Dual

MSRP: $150|Avg: $35

99%

#522

Radeon HD 8550G + 8500M Dual

MSRP: $150|Avg: $150

99%

#523

Radeon HD 8610G + 8670M Dual

MSRP: $150|Avg: $150

98%

#524

Radeon HD 7640G + HD 8750M Dual

MSRP: $250|Avg: $40

98%

#525

Radeon HD 8550G + HD 8600M Dual

MSRP: $150|Avg: $40

97%

#526

Mobility Radeon HD 4830

MSRP: $130|Avg: $20

97%

#527

Radeon HD 7640G + HD 7700M Dual

MSRP: $150|Avg: $40

97%

#528

Radeon HD 8610G + 8600M Dual

MSRP: $150|Avg: $150

97%

#529

Radeon HD 7660G + 8670M Dual

MSRP: $150|Avg: $40

96%

#530

Mobility Radeon HD 4550

MSRP: $49|Avg: $15

96%

#531

Radeon HD 7660G + HD 7700M Dual

MSRP: $200|Avg: $50

96%

#532

Radeon HD 7620G + 8670M Dual

MSRP: $150|Avg: $30

95%

#533

Radeon HD 8610G + HD 8670M Dual

MSRP: $150|Avg: $150

95%

#534

Radeon HD 7640G + HD 7400M Dual

MSRP: $150|Avg: $30

95%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

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 GeForce 9500M G 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 6350% 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 9500M G.

Insight	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce 9500M G
Performance	✅Leading raw performance (+6350%)	❌Lower raw frame rates (-6350%)
Longevity	Turing (2018−2022) (12nm)	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell (2014−2017))
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	—

💎 Value Proposition

The GeForce GTX 1650 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Although it costs $75 (vs $30), its significant performance lead justifies the premium, offering 2480% better value per dollar than the GeForce 9500M G.

Insight	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce 9500M G
Cost Efficiency	✅Better overall value (+2480%)	❌Lower cost efficiency
Upfront Cost	⚠️Higher upfront cost ($75)	✅More affordable ($30)

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 9500M G Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and GeForce 9500M G

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 9500M G

The GeForce 9500M G is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in October 27 2015. It features the Maxwell architecture. The core clock ranges from 928 MHz to 1020 MHz. It has 640 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 122 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the GeForce 9500M G's 122 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 6350%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the GeForce 9500M G uses Maxwell, both on 12 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 640 (GeForce 9500M G). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 1.306 TFLOPS (GeForce 9500M G). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1020 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce 9500M G
G3D Mark Score	7,869+6350%	122
Architecture	Turing	Maxwell
Process Node	12 nm	28 nm
Shading Units	896+40%	640
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.984 TFLOPS+128%	1.306 TFLOPS
Boost Clock	1665 MHz+63%	1020 MHz
ROPs	32+100%	16
TMUs	56+40%	40
L1 Cache	896 KB+180%	320 KB
L2 Cache	1 MB	2 MB+100%

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce 9500M G
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 9500M G 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 2 MB (GeForce 9500M G) — the GeForce 9500M G has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce 9500M G
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	2 MB+100%

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 10.0 (GeForce 9500M G). Vulkan: 1.4 vs None. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 3.3. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 1.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce 9500M G
DirectX	12+20%	10.0
Vulkan	1.4	None
OpenGL	4.6+39%	3.3
Max Displays	3+200%	1

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs No (GeForce 9500M G). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs PureVideo HD VP3. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1 (GeForce 9500M G).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce 9500M G
Encoder	NVENC 5th gen (Volta)	No
Decoder	NVDEC 4th gen	PureVideo HD VP3
Codecs	H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9	MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the GeForce 9500M G's 75W — a 0% difference. The GeForce 9500M G is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (GeForce 9500M G). Power connectors: None vs Legacy. Card length: 229mm vs 0mm, occupying 2 vs 0 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 70°C.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce 9500M G
TDP	75W	75W
Recommended PSU	300W-14%	350W
Power Connector	None	Legacy
Length	229mm	0mm
Height	111mm	0mm
Slots	2	0-100%
Temp (Load)	70°C	70°C
Perf/Watt	104.9+6456%	1.6

💰

Value Analysis

The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP and currently averages $75, while the GeForce 9500M G launched at $30 and now averages $30. The GeForce 9500M G costs 60% less ($45 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 4.1 (GeForce 9500M G) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 2458.5% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2015).