GeForce GTX 1650 vs GeForce 9700M GT

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 9700M GT

#658

Radeon RX 550X (móvel)

MSRP: $35|Avg: $35

6620%

#660

GeForce GTX 1070 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $150

6001%

#661

GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $100

5985%

#665

GeForce GTX 1050 (Mobile)

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50

5443%

#666

Radeon RX 6300

MSRP: $60|Avg: $40

5405%

#668

GeForce 9700M GT

MSRP: $200|Avg: $40

100%

#669

Mobility Radeon X2500

MSRP: $50|Avg: $15

100%

#670

GeForce 9300 SE

MSRP: $50|Avg: $10

100%

#671

GeForce 9800M GTX

MSRP: $300|Avg: $30

92%

#672

Radeon HD 7520G + 8750M Dual

MSRP: $250|Avg: $57

92%

#673

Mobility Radeon HD 4300 Serisi

MSRP: $49|Avg: $10

91%

#674

GeForce 505

MSRP: $99|Avg: $15

88%

#675

GeForce 9200M GE

MSRP: $100|Avg: $15

88%

#676

Mobility Radeon. HD 5470

MSRP: $150|Avg: $25

87%

#677

Radeon HD 2600 XT

MSRP: $199|Avg: $40

87%

#678

GeForce 7500 LE

MSRP: $60|Avg: $15

87%

#679

GeForce 9650M GT

MSRP: $100|Avg: $25

84%

#680

GeForce 9650M GS

MSRP: $199|Avg: $20

83%

#681

GeForce 8400 SE

MSRP: $50|Avg: $10

83%

#682

GeForce 8400M GT

MSRP: $50|Avg: $30

82%

#683

GeForce 9200M GS

MSRP: $100|Avg: $40

79%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

⚠️ Generational Difference

The GeForce GTX 1650 is significantly newer (2019 vs 2008). 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 9700M GT 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 2306.4% 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 9700M GT.

Insight	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce 9700M GT
Performance	✅Leading raw performance (+2306.4%)	❌Lower raw frame rates (-2306.4%)
Longevity	Turing (2018−2022) (12nm)	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2008 / G9x (2007−2010))
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 $40), its significant performance lead justifies the premium, offering 1183.4% better value per dollar than the GeForce 9700M GT.

Insight	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce 9700M GT
Cost Efficiency	✅Better overall value (+1183.4%)	❌Lower cost efficiency
Upfront Cost	⚠️Higher upfront cost ($75)	✅More affordable ($40)

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 9700M GT Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and GeForce 9700M GT

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 9700M GT

The GeForce 9700M GT is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in July 15 2008. It features the G9x architecture. The core clock speed is 500 MHz. It has 224 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 150W. Manufactured using 65 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 327 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the GeForce 9700M GT's 327 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 2306.4%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the GeForce 9700M GT uses G9x, both on 12 nm vs 65 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 224 (GeForce 9700M GT).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce 9700M GT
G3D Mark Score	7,869+2306%	327
Architecture	Turing	G9x
Process Node	12 nm	65 nm
Shading Units	896+300%	224

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce 9700M GT
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 9700M GT has 512 MB. The GeForce GTX 1650 offers 700% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce 9700M GT
VRAM Capacity	4 GB+700%	0.5 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Memory Bandwidth	128 GB/s	Unknown
Bus Width	128-bit+100%	64-bit

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 11.1 (FL10_0) (GeForce 9700M GT). OpenGL: 4.6 vs 3.3. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 2.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce 9700M GT
DirectX	12+8%	11.1 (FL10_0)
OpenGL	4.6+39%	3.3
Max Displays	3+50%	2

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs VP3 (GeForce 9700M GT). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs VP3. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 (GeForce 9700M GT).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce 9700M GT
Encoder	NVENC 5th gen (Volta)	VP3
Decoder	NVDEC 4th gen	VP3
Codecs	H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9	H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the GeForce 9700M GT's 150W — a 66.7% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (GeForce 9700M GT). Power connectors: None vs Legacy. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 80°C.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce 9700M GT
TDP	75W-50%	150W
Recommended PSU	300W-14%	350W
Power Connector	None	Legacy
Length	229mm	—
Height	111mm	—
Slots	2	0-100%
Temp (Load)	70°C-13%	80°C
Perf/Watt	104.9+4668%	2.2

💰

Value Analysis

The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP and currently averages $75, while the GeForce 9700M GT launched at $200 and now averages $40. The GeForce 9700M GT costs 46.7% less ($35 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 8.2 (GeForce 9700M GT) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 1179.3% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2008).