GeForce GTX 1650 vs GeForce GTX 1650 Ti
GeForce GTX 1650
Popular choices:
GeForce GTX 1650 Ti
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 GTX 1650 Ti
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 GTX 1650 Ti 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 4.6% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+4.6%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-4.6%) |
| Longevity | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2012 / Kepler (2012−2018)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GTX 1650 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $75 versus $77 for the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti, it costs 3% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 7.4% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+7.4%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($75) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($77) |
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 GTX 1650 Ti
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 GTX 1650 Ti
The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in October 9 2012. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock speed is 928 MHz. It has 768 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 7,525 points. Launch price was $149.
Graphics Performance
The GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 and the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti reaches 7,525 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 4.6% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti uses Kepler, both on 12 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 768 (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 1.425 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869+5% | 7,525 |
| Architecture | Turing | Kepler |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 896+17% | 768 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS+109% | 1.425 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32+100% | 16 |
| TMUs | 56 | 64+14% |
| L1 Cache | 896 KB+1300% | 64 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+300% | 0.25 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) |
| Frame Generation | FSR 3 (Compatible) | FSR 3 (Compatible) |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 4 GB of video memory. Memory bandwidth: 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 192 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) — a 50% advantage for the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 0.25 MB (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) — the GeForce GTX 1650 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 128 GB/s | 192 GB/s+50% |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+300% | 0.25 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12 (12_1) (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 3.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (12_1) |
| Vulkan | 1.4+8% | 1.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 3 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs NVENC 6 (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs NVDEC 4. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs H.264,H.265,VP9,AV1 (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) | NVENC 6 (Volta) |
| Decoder | NVDEC 4th gen | NVDEC 4 |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 | H.264,H.265,VP9,AV1 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti's 50W — a 40% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 0W (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti). Power connectors: None vs None. Card length: 229mm vs 0mm, occupying 2 vs 0 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 75.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W | 50W-33% |
| Recommended PSU | 300W | 0W-100% |
| Power Connector | None | None |
| Length | 229mm | 0mm |
| Height | 111mm | 0mm |
| Slots | 2 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C-7% | 75 |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9 | 150.5+43% |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP and currently averages $75, while the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti launched at $150 and now averages $77. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 2.6% less ($2 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 97.7 (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 7.4% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2012).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149 | $150 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $75-3% | $77 |
| Performance per Dollar | 104.9+7% | 97.7 |
| Codename | TU117 | GK106 |
| Release | April 23 2019 | October 9 2012 |
| Ranking | #323 | #633 |
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 GTX 1650 Ti
