GeForce GTX 1650 vs GeForce GT 520
GeForce GTX 1650
Popular choices:
GeForce GT 520
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 GeForce GT 520
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 GT 520 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 2336.2% higher G3D Mark score and 100% more VRAM (4 GB vs 2 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce GT 520.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce GT 520 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+2336.2%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-2336.2%) |
| Longevity | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) | ❌ 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 $15), its significant performance lead justifies the premium, offering 387.2% better value per dollar than the GeForce GT 520.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce GT 520 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+387.2%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($75) | ✅More affordable ($15) |
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 GeForce GT 520
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 520
The GeForce GT 520 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in August 20 2015. It features the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1024 MHz to 1188 MHz. It has 768 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 90W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 323 points. Launch price was $159.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the GeForce GT 520's 323 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 2336.2%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the GeForce GT 520 uses Maxwell 2.0, both on 12 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 768 (GeForce GT 520). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 1.825 TFLOPS (GeForce GT 520). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1188 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce GT 520 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869+2336% | 323 |
| Architecture | Turing | Maxwell 2.0 |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 896+17% | 768 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS+64% | 1.825 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz+40% | 1188 MHz |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 56+17% | 48 |
| L1 Cache | 896 KB+211% | 288 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce GT 520 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 520 has 2 GB. The GeForce GTX 1650 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce GT 520 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB+100% | 2 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 128 GB/s | Unknown |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+100% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 11.0 (GeForce GT 520). Vulkan: 1.4 vs None. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.1. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 2.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce GT 520 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12+9% | 11.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.4 | None |
| OpenGL | 4.6+12% | 4.1 |
| Max Displays | 3+50% | 2 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs No (GeForce GT 520). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs PureVideo HD VP4. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1,MPEG-4 ASP (GeForce GT 520).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce GT 520 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) | No |
| Decoder | NVDEC 4th gen | PureVideo HD VP4 |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 | MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1,MPEG-4 ASP |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the GeForce GT 520's 90W — a 18.2% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 250W (GeForce GT 520). Power connectors: None vs None. Card length: 229mm vs 145mm, occupying 2 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 65°C.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce GT 520 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W-17% | 90W |
| Recommended PSU | 300W | 250W-17% |
| Power Connector | None | None |
| Length | 229mm | 145mm |
| Height | 111mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 2 | 1-50% |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C | 65°C-7% |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9+2814% | 3.6 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP and currently averages $75, while the GeForce GT 520 launched at $59 and now averages $15. The GeForce GT 520 costs 80% less ($60 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 21.5 (GeForce GT 520) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 387.9% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2015).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce GT 520 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149 | $59-60% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $75 | $15-80% |
| Performance per Dollar | 104.9+388% | 21.5 |
| Codename | TU117 | GM206 |
| Release | April 23 2019 | August 20 2015 |
| Ranking | #323 | #425 |
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 GeForce GT 520
