GeForce GTX 1650 vs GeForce RTX 2050
GeForce GTX 1650
Popular choices:
GeForce RTX 2050
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 RTX 2050
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GTX 1650 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 2% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce RTX 2050.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce RTX 2050 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+2%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-2%) |
| Longevity | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2018 / Turing (2018−2022)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | ✨ DLSS 3/4 + Frame Gen Support |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| 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. Priced at $75 versus $150 for the GeForce RTX 2050, it costs 50% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 104% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce RTX 2050 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+104%) | ❌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.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and GeForce RTX 2050
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 RTX 2050
The GeForce RTX 2050 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in September 20 2018. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 1515 MHz to 1710 MHz. It has 2944 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 215W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. It features 46 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 7,714 points. Launch price was $699.
Graphics Performance
The GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 and the GeForce RTX 2050 reaches 7,714 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the GeForce RTX 2050 uses Turing, both on a 12 nm process. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2,944 (GeForce RTX 2050). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 10.07 TFLOPS (GeForce RTX 2050). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1710 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce RTX 2050 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869+2% | 7,714 |
| Architecture | Turing | Turing |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 896 | 2944+229% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS | 10.07 TFLOPS+237% |
| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz | 1710 MHz+3% |
| ROPs | 32 | 64+100% |
| TMUs | 56 | 184+229% |
| L1 Cache | 0.88 MB | 2.9 MB+230% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 4 MB+300% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce RTX 2050 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) | DLSS 2.0 |
| Frame Generation | FSR 3 (Compatible) | FSR 3 / AFMF (Compatible) |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | NVIDIA Reflex |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 4 GB of video memory. Memory bandwidth: 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 112 GB/s (GeForce RTX 2050) — a 14.3% advantage for the GeForce GTX 1650. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 4 MB (GeForce RTX 2050) — the GeForce RTX 2050 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce RTX 2050 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 128 GB/s+14% | 112 GB/s |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+100% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 4 MB+300% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12.2 (GeForce RTX 2050). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce RTX 2050 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12.2+2% |
| 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 8.0 (GeForce RTX 2050). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs PureVideo HD VP11. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 (Decode) (GeForce RTX 2050).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce RTX 2050 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) | NVENC 8.0 |
| Decoder | NVDEC 4th gen | PureVideo HD VP11 |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 (Decode) |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the GeForce RTX 2050's 215W — a 96.6% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 300W (GeForce RTX 2050). Power connectors: None vs 6-pin. Card length: 229mm vs 0mm, occupying 2 vs 0 slots.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce RTX 2050 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W-65% | 215W |
| Recommended PSU | 300W | 300W |
| Power Connector | None | 6-pin |
| Length | 229mm | 0mm |
| Height | 111mm | 0mm |
| Slots | 2 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9+192% | 35.9 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP and currently averages $75, while the GeForce RTX 2050 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 51.4 (GeForce RTX 2050) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 104.1% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2018).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce RTX 2050 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149 | $150 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $75-50% | $150 |
| Performance per Dollar | 104.9+104% | 51.4 |
| Codename | TU117 | TU104 |
| Release | April 23 2019 | September 20 2018 |
| Ranking | #323 | #94 |
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 RTX 2050
