GeForce GTX 1650 vs GeForce MX250

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 MX250

#61

GeForce RTX 2070 (móvel)

MSRP: $800|Avg: $350

98%

#62

GeForce RTX 2080 (móvel)

MSRP: $1000|Avg: $350

95%

#281

Radeon RX 550X (móvel)

MSRP: $35|Avg: $35

686%

#283

GeForce GTX 1070 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $150

622%

#284

GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $100

620%

#288

GeForce GTX 1050 (Mobile)

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50

564%

#289

Radeon RX 6300

MSRP: $60|Avg: $40

560%

#291

GeForce MX250

MSRP: $150|Avg: $150

100%

#292

Radeon 630

MSRP: $100|Avg: $50

99%

#293

GeForce MX330

MSRP: $150|Avg: $100

99%

#297

Radeon RX 780

MSRP: $499|Avg: $721

97%

#300

GeForce 940MX

MSRP: $100|Avg: $50

95%

#301

GeForce MX130

MSRP: $120|Avg: $50

95%

#302

Arc Graphics 130V

MSRP: $300|Avg: $250

95%

#303

Radeon R5 430

MSRP: $59|Avg: $50

95%

#304

GeForce MX150

MSRP: $150|Avg: $60

95%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

The GeForce GTX 1650 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 231.3% 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 MX250.

Insight	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce MX250
Performance	✅Leading raw performance (+231.3%)	❌Lower raw frame rates (-231.3%)
Longevity	Turing (2018−2022) (12nm)	Pascal (2016−2021) (14nm)
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	✅ More VRAM (+100%)	❌ Less VRAM capacity
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 $150 for the GeForce MX250, it costs 50% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 562.7% higher cost efficiency score.

Insight	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce MX250
Cost Efficiency	✅Better overall value (+562.7%)	❌Lower cost efficiency
Upfront Cost	✅More affordable ($75)	⚠️Higher upfront cost ($150)

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 MX250 Benchmark Check

Loading...

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and GeForce MX250

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 MX250

The GeForce MX250 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in February 20 2019. It features the Pascal architecture. The core clock ranges from 937 MHz to 1038 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 10W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,375 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the GeForce MX250's 2,375 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 231.3%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the GeForce MX250 uses Pascal, both on 12 nm vs 14 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 384 (GeForce MX250). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 0.7972 TFLOPS (GeForce MX250). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1038 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce MX250
G3D Mark Score	7,869+231%	2,375
Architecture	Turing	Pascal
Process Node	12 nm	14 nm
Shading Units	896+133%	384
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.984 TFLOPS+274%	0.7972 TFLOPS
Boost Clock	1665 MHz+60%	1038 MHz
ROPs	32+100%	16
TMUs	56+133%	24
L1 Cache	896 KB+522%	144 KB
L2 Cache	1 MB+100%	0.5 MB

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce MX250
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 MX250 has 2 GB. The GeForce GTX 1650 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 48 GB/s (GeForce MX250) — a 166.7% advantage for the GeForce GTX 1650. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 0.5 MB (GeForce MX250) — the GeForce GTX 1650 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce MX250
VRAM Capacity	4 GB+100%	2 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Memory Bandwidth	128 GB/s+167%	48 GB/s
Bus Width	128-bit+100%	64-bit
L2 Cache	1 MB+100%	0.5 MB

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12 (12_1) (GeForce MX250). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.2. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 3.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce MX250
DirectX	12	12 (12_1)
Vulkan	1.4+17%	1.2
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
Max Displays	3	3

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs None (GeForce MX250). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs NVDEC 3rd Gen. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs H.264,H.265,VP9 (GeForce MX250).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce MX250
Encoder	NVENC 5th gen (Volta)	None
Decoder	NVDEC 4th gen	NVDEC 3rd Gen
Codecs	H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9	H.264,H.265,VP9

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the GeForce MX250's 10W — a 152.9% difference. The GeForce MX250 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (GeForce MX250). Power connectors: None vs Mobile. Card length: 229mm vs 0mm, occupying 2 vs 0 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 75.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce MX250
TDP	75W	10W-87%
Recommended PSU	300W-14%	350W
Power Connector	None	Mobile
Length	229mm	0mm
Height	111mm	0mm
Slots	2	0-100%
Temp (Load)	70°C-7%	75
Perf/Watt	104.9	237.5+126%

💰

Value Analysis

The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP and currently averages $75, while the GeForce MX250 launched at $150 and now averages $150. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 50% less ($75 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 15.8 (GeForce MX250) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 563.9% better value.