GeForce GTX 1650 vs GeForce GT 750M

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 750M

#42

Radeon RX 6600S

MSRP: $400|Avg: $400

98%

#43

Radeon RX 8060S

MSRP: $500|Avg: $500

96%

#148

Radeon RX 550X (móvel)

MSRP: $35|Avg: $35

326%

#150

GeForce GTX 1070 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $150

296%

#151

GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $100

295%

#155

GeForce GTX 1050 (Mobile)

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50

268%

#156

Radeon RX 6300

MSRP: $60|Avg: $40

266%

#158

GeForce GT 750M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50

100%

#159

GeForce GT 425M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $25

100%

#172

GeForce GT 540M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $30

95%

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 2013). 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 750M 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 490.8% 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 750M.

Insight	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce GT 750M
Performance	✅Leading raw performance (+490.8%)	❌Lower raw frame rates (-490.8%)
Longevity	Turing (2018−2022) (12nm)	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / Kepler (2012−2018))
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	—

💎 Value Proposition

The GeForce GTX 1650 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Although it costs $75 (vs $50), its significant performance lead justifies the premium, offering 293.8% better value per dollar than the GeForce GT 750M.

Insight	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce GT 750M
Cost Efficiency	✅Better overall value (+293.8%)	❌Lower cost efficiency
Upfront Cost	⚠️Higher upfront cost ($75)	✅More affordable ($50)

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 750M Benchmark Check

Loading...

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and GeForce GT 750M

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 750M

The GeForce GT 750M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in January 9 2013. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock ranges from 941 MHz to 967 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,332 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the GeForce GT 750M's 1,332 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 490.8%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the GeForce GT 750M uses Kepler, both on 12 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 384 (GeForce GT 750M). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 0.7427 TFLOPS (GeForce GT 750M). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 967 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce GT 750M
G3D Mark Score	7,869+491%	1,332
Architecture	Turing	Kepler
Process Node	12 nm	28 nm
Shading Units	896+133%	384
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.984 TFLOPS+302%	0.7427 TFLOPS
Boost Clock	1665 MHz+72%	967 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 750M
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 750M 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. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 0.25 MB (GeForce GT 750M) — the GeForce GTX 1650 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce GT 750M
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+300%	0.25 MB

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12 (FL11) (GeForce GT 750M). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.2. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce GT 750M
DirectX	12	12 (FL11)
Vulkan	1.4+17%	1.2
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
Max Displays	3	4+33%

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs NVENC 1st gen (GeForce GT 750M). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs NVDEC 1st gen. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 (GeForce GT 750M).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce GT 750M
Encoder	NVENC 5th gen (Volta)	NVENC 1st gen
Decoder	NVDEC 4th gen	NVDEC 1st gen
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 GT 750M's 50W — a 40% difference. The GeForce GT 750M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (GeForce GT 750M). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 229mm vs 0mm, occupying 2 vs 0 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 80°C.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce GT 750M
TDP	75W	50W-33%
Recommended PSU	300W-14%	350W
Power Connector	None	PCIe-powered
Length	229mm	0mm
Height	111mm	0mm
Slots	2	0-100%
Temp (Load)	70°C-13%	80°C
Perf/Watt	104.9+294%	26.6

💰

Value Analysis

The GeForce GT 750M costs 33.3% less ($25 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 26.6 (GeForce GT 750M) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 294.4% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2013).