GeForce GTX 1650 vs GeForce GT 240M

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 GT 240M

#382

Radeon RX 550X (móvel)

MSRP: $35|Avg: $35

1280%

#384

GeForce GTX 1070 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $150

1161%

#385

GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $100

1158%

#389

GeForce GTX 1050 (Mobile)

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50

1053%

#390

Radeon RX 6300

MSRP: $60|Avg: $40

1045%

#392

GeForce GT 240M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: N/A

100%

#393

Radeon R9 M485X

MSRP: $450|Avg: $150

100%

#394

Radeon HD 8570D + HD 6670 Dual

MSRP: $150|Avg: $100

99%

#395

Radeon HD 6650A

MSRP: $100|Avg: $50

99%

#396

GeForce 920A

MSRP: $100|Avg: $15

98%

#397

GeForce 930A

MSRP: $150|Avg: $20

98%

#398

Mobility Radeon HD 4650

MSRP: $49|Avg: $15

96%

#400

Radeon R9 M290X

MSRP: $400|Avg: $60

95%

#401

Radeon HD 7670

MSRP: $100|Avg: $25

95%

#402

Radeon HD 8550G + 8750M Dual

MSRP: $100|Avg: $100

94%

#403

Iris Pro Graphics 5200

MSRP: $150|Avg: $40

92%

#404

Mobility Radeon HD 5000

MSRP: $99|Avg: $20

92%

#406

Radeon RX Vega 10 Ryzen 7 3700C

MSRP: $150|Avg: $50

92%

#407

Radeon HD 8650G + 7700M Dual

MSRP: $150|Avg: $30

89%

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 2012). 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 GT 240M 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 3611.8% higher G3D Mark score and 300% more VRAM (4 GB vs 1 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce GT 240M.

Insight	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce GT 240M
Performance	✅Leading raw performance (+3611.8%)	❌Lower raw frame rates (-3611.8%)
Longevity	Turing (2018−2022) (12nm)	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2012 / Kepler (2012−2018))
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	✅ More VRAM (+300%)	❌ Less VRAM capacity
Efficiency	💡 Excellent Perf/Watt	⚡ Higher Power Consumption
Case Fit	📏 Compact / SFF Friendly	—

💎 Value Proposition

While current pricing data is unavailable, the GeForce GTX 1650 remains the clear technical winner. Check real-time availability to determine if the performance gap justifies the market price.

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 GT 240M Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and GeForce GT 240M

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 GT 240M

The GeForce GT 240M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in March 22 2012. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock ranges from Up to 625 MHz to 645 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 32W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 212 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the GeForce GT 240M's 212 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 3611.8%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the GeForce GT 240M uses Kepler, both on 12 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 384 (GeForce GT 240M). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 0.48 TFLOPS (GeForce GT 240M). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 645 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce GT 240M
G3D Mark Score	7,869+3612%	212
Architecture	Turing	Kepler
Process Node	12 nm	28 nm
Shading Units	896+133%	384
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.984 TFLOPS+522%	0.48 TFLOPS
Boost Clock	1665 MHz+158%	645 MHz
ROPs	32+100%	16
TMUs	56+75%	32
L1 Cache	896 KB+2700%	32 KB
L2 Cache	1 MB+300%	0.25 MB

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce GT 240M
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 GT 240M has 1 GB. The GeForce GTX 1650 offers 300% 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 0.25 MB (GeForce GT 240M) — the GeForce GTX 1650 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce GT 240M
VRAM Capacity	4 GB+300%	1 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Memory Bandwidth	128 GB/s	Unknown
Bus Width	128-bit	128-bit
L2 Cache	1 MB+300%	0.25 MB

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 11.1 (10_1) (GeForce GT 240M). Vulkan: 1.4 vs N/A. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 3.3. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 0.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce GT 240M
DirectX	12+8%	11.1 (10_1)
Vulkan	1.4	N/A
OpenGL	4.6+39%	3.3
Max Displays	3	0

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs None (GeForce GT 240M). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs PureVideo HD (VP4). Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs MPEG-2,VC-1,H.264,MPEG-4 (GeForce GT 240M).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce GT 240M
Encoder	NVENC 5th gen (Volta)	None
Decoder	NVDEC 4th gen	PureVideo HD (VP4)
Codecs	H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9	MPEG-2,VC-1,H.264,MPEG-4

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the GeForce GT 240M's 32W — a 80.4% difference. The GeForce GT 240M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (GeForce GT 240M). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 229mm vs 0mm, occupying 2 vs 0 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 70.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce GT 240M
TDP	75W	32W-57%
Recommended PSU	300W-14%	350W
Power Connector	None	PCIe-powered
Length	229mm	0mm
Height	111mm	0mm
Slots	2	0-100%
Temp (Load)	70°C	70
Perf/Watt	104.9+1489%	6.6