GeForce GTX 1650 vs GeForce RTX 4090
GeForce GTX 1650
Popular choices:
GeForce RTX 4090
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 4090
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce RTX 4090 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 384.3% higher G3D Mark score and 500% more VRAM (24 GB vs 4 GB). 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 RTX 4090 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-384.3%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+384.3%) |
| Longevity | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) | 🏆Elite Architecture (Ada Lovelace (2022−2024) / 5nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | ✨ DLSS 3/4 + Frame Gen Support |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | 🎮 High Capacity (24 GB) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | Standard Size (304mm) |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GTX 1650 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $75 versus $1,649 for the GeForce RTX 4090, it costs 95% less. While it maintains significantly lower raw performance, this results in a 354% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce RTX 4090 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+354%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($75) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($1,649) |
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 4090
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 4090
The GeForce RTX 4090 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in September 20 2022. It features the Ada Lovelace architecture. The core clock ranges from 2235 MHz to 2520 MHz. It has 16384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 450W. Manufactured using 5 nm process technology. It features 128 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 38,112 points. Launch price was $1,599.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the GeForce RTX 4090's 38,112 — the GeForce RTX 4090 leads by 384.3%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the GeForce RTX 4090 uses Ada Lovelace, both on 12 nm vs 5 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 16,384 (GeForce RTX 4090). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 82.58 TFLOPS (GeForce RTX 4090). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 2520 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce RTX 4090 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869 | 38,112+384% |
| Architecture | Turing | Ada Lovelace |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 5 nm |
| Shading Units | 896 | 16384+1729% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS | 82.58 TFLOPS+2667% |
| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz | 2520 MHz+51% |
| ROPs | 32 | 176+450% |
| TMUs | 56 | 512+814% |
| L1 Cache | 0.88 MB | 16 MB+1718% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 72 MB+7100% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
A critical advantage for the GeForce RTX 4090 is support for DLSS 3 Frame Gen. This allows it to generate entire frames using AI/Algorithms, essentially doubling the frame rate in CPU-bound scenarios or heavy ray-tracing titles. The GeForce GTX 1650 lacks specific hardware/driver support for this native frame generation tier.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce RTX 4090 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) | DLSS 3.5 |
| Frame Generation | FSR 3 (Compatible) | DLSS 3.0 (Native) |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | Yes (DLSS 3.5) |
| Low Latency | Standard | NVIDIA Reflex |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The GeForce GTX 1650 comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce RTX 4090 has 24 GB. The GeForce RTX 4090 offers 500% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 1008 GB/s (GeForce RTX 4090) — a 687.5% advantage for the GeForce RTX 4090. Bus width: 128-bit vs 384-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 72 MB (GeForce RTX 4090) — the GeForce RTX 4090 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce RTX 4090 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 24 GB+500% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6X |
| Memory Bandwidth | 128 GB/s | 1008 GB/s+688% |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 384-bit+200% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 72 MB+7100% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12.2 (GeForce RTX 4090). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce RTX 4090 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 8th Gen NVENC (2x) (GeForce RTX 4090). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs 5th Gen NVDEC. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 (GeForce RTX 4090).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce RTX 4090 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) | 8th Gen NVENC (2x) |
| Decoder | NVDEC 4th gen | 5th Gen NVDEC |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the GeForce RTX 4090's 450W — a 142.9% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 1000W (GeForce RTX 4090). Power connectors: None vs 16-pin (12VHPWR). Card length: 229mm vs 304mm, occupying 2 vs 3 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 80°C.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce RTX 4090 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W-83% | 450W |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-70% | 1000W |
| Power Connector | None | 16-pin (12VHPWR) |
| Length | 229mm | 304mm |
| Height | 111mm | 137mm |
| Slots | 2-33% | 3 |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C-13% | 80°C |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9+24% | 84.7 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP and currently averages $75, while the GeForce RTX 4090 launched at $1599 and now averages $1649. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 95.5% less ($1574 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 23.1 (GeForce RTX 4090) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 354.1% better value. The GeForce RTX 4090 is the newer GPU (2022 vs 2019).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce RTX 4090 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149-91% | $1599 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $75-95% | $1649 |
| Performance per Dollar | 104.9+354% | 23.1 |
| Codename | TU117 | AD102 |
| Release | April 23 2019 | September 20 2022 |
| Ranking | #323 | #4 |
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 4090
