
GeForce GTX 1650 vs GeForce MX570

GeForce GTX 1650
Popular choices:

GeForce MX570
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 MX570
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GTX 1650 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 37.1% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce MX570.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce MX570 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+37.1%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-37.1%) |
| Longevity | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) | Ampere (2020−2025) (8nm) |
| 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 $120 for the GeForce MX570, it costs 38% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 119.4% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce MX570 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+119.4%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($75) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($120) |
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 MX570

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 MX570
The GeForce MX570 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in Maio 2022. It features the Ampere architecture. The core clock ranges from 832 MHz to 1155 MHz. It has 2048 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 25W. Manufactured using 8 nm process technology. It features 16 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 5,738 points.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the GeForce MX570's 5,738 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 37.1%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the GeForce MX570 uses Ampere, both on 12 nm vs 8 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2,048 (GeForce MX570). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 4.731 TFLOPS (GeForce MX570). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1155 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce MX570 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869+37% | 5,738 |
| Architecture | Turing | Ampere |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 8 nm |
| Shading Units | 896 | 2048+129% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS | 4.731 TFLOPS+59% |
| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz+44% | 1155 MHz |
| ROPs | 32 | 40+25% |
| TMUs | 56 | 64+14% |
| L1 Cache | 0.88 MB | 2 MB+127% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 2 MB+100% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce MX570 |
|---|---|---|
| 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)
Both cards feature 4 GB of video memory. Memory bandwidth: 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 96 GB/s (GeForce MX570) — a 33.3% advantage for the GeForce GTX 1650. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2 MB (GeForce MX570) — the GeForce MX570 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce MX570 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 128 GB/s+33% | 96 GB/s |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+100% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 2 MB+100% |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the GeForce MX570's 25W — a 100% difference. The GeForce MX570 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (GeForce MX570). Power connectors: None vs Mobile.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce MX570 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W | 25W-67% |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-14% | 350W |
| Power Connector | None | Mobile |
| Length | 229mm | — |
| Height | 111mm | — |
| Slots | 2 | — |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9 | 229.5+119% |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP and currently averages $75, while the GeForce MX570 launched at $150 and now averages $120. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 37.5% less ($45 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 47.8 (GeForce MX570) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 119.5% better value. The GeForce MX570 is the newer GPU (2022 vs 2019).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce MX570 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149 | $150 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $75-38% | $120 |
| Performance per Dollar | 104.9+119% | 47.8 |
| Codename | TU117 | GA107 |
| Release | April 23 2019 | Maio 2022 |
| Ranking | #323 | #407 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.











