GeForce GTX 1650 vs GeForce GTX 970

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

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

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 GTX 970 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.

🚀 Performance Leadership

The GeForce GTX 970 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 22.5% 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.

Insight	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce GTX 970
Performance	❌Lower raw frame rates (-22.5%)	✅Leading raw performance (+22.5%)
Longevity	Turing (2018−2022) (12nm)	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2014 / Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019))
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	❌ Less VRAM capacity	✅ More VRAM (+0%)
Efficiency	💡 Excellent Perf/Watt	⚡ Higher Power Consumption
Case Fit	📏 Compact / SFF Friendly	Standard Size (267mm)

💎 Value Proposition

The GeForce GTX 970 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $50 versus $75 for the GeForce GTX 1650, it costs 33% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 83.8% higher cost efficiency score.

Insight	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce GTX 970
Cost Efficiency	❌Lower cost efficiency	✅Better overall value (+83.8%)
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 GTX 970 Benchmark Check

Loading...

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and GeForce GTX 970

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 970

The GeForce GTX 970 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in September 19 2014. It features the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1050 MHz to 1178 MHz. It has 1664 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 150W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 9,640 points. Launch price was $329.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the GeForce GTX 970's 9,640 — the GeForce GTX 970 leads by 22.5%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the GeForce GTX 970 uses Maxwell 2.0, both on 12 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 1,664 (GeForce GTX 970). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 3.92 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 970). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1178 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce GTX 970
G3D Mark Score	7,869	9,640+23%
Architecture	Turing	Maxwell 2.0
Process Node	12 nm	28 nm
Shading Units	896	1664+86%
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.984 TFLOPS	3.92 TFLOPS+31%
Boost Clock	1665 MHz+41%	1178 MHz
ROPs	32	56+75%
TMUs	56	104+86%
L1 Cache	896 KB+44%	624 KB
L2 Cache	1 MB	2 MB+100%

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce GTX 970
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 GDDR5. Memory bandwidth: 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 224 GB/s (GeForce GTX 970) — a 75% advantage for the GeForce GTX 970. Bus width: 128-bit vs 256-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2 MB (GeForce GTX 970) — the GeForce GTX 970 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce GTX 970
VRAM Capacity	4 GB	4 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Memory Bandwidth	128 GB/s	224 GB/s+75%
Bus Width	128-bit	256-bit+100%
L2 Cache	1 MB	2 MB+100%

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12 (FL 12_1) (GeForce GTX 970). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce GTX 970
DirectX	12	12 (FL 12_1)
Vulkan	1.4+8%	1.3
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
Max Displays	3	4+33%

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs NVENC 2nd gen (GeForce GTX 970). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs PureVideo VP6. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC (GeForce GTX 970).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce GTX 970
Encoder	NVENC 5th gen (Volta)	NVENC 2nd gen
Decoder	NVDEC 4th gen	PureVideo VP6
Codecs	H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9	H.264,H.265/HEVC

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the GeForce GTX 970's 150W — a 66.7% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 500W (GeForce GTX 970). Power connectors: None vs 2x 6-pin. Card length: 229mm vs 267mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 80°C.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce GTX 970
TDP	75W-50%	150W
Recommended PSU	300W-40%	500W
Power Connector	None	2x 6-pin
Length	229mm	267mm
Height	111mm	111mm
Slots	2	2
Temp (Load)	70°C-13%	80°C
Perf/Watt	104.9+63%	64.3

💰

Value Analysis

The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP and currently averages $75, while the GeForce GTX 970 launched at $329 and now averages $50. The GeForce GTX 970 costs 33.3% less ($25 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 192.8 (GeForce GTX 970) — the GeForce GTX 970 offers 83.8% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2014).