
GeForce GTX 1650 vs GeForce RTX 5050

GeForce GTX 1650
Popular choices:

GeForce RTX 5050
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 5050
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce RTX 5050 is significantly newer (2025 vs 2019). The GeForce RTX 5050 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The GeForce GTX 1650 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce RTX 5050 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 117.1% higher G3D Mark score and 100% more VRAM (8 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 5050 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-117.1%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+117.1%) |
| Longevity | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) | 🏆Elite Architecture (Blackwell / 5nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | ✨ DLSS 3/4 + Frame Gen Support |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | 🎮 High Capacity (8 GB) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GTX 1650 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $75 versus $249 for the GeForce RTX 5050, it costs 70% less. While it maintains significantly lower raw performance, this results in a 52.9% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce RTX 5050 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+52.9%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($75) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($249) |
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 5050

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 5050
The GeForce RTX 5050 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in June 24 2025. It features the Blackwell 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 2317 MHz to 2572 MHz. It has 2560 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 130W. Manufactured using 5 nm process technology. It features 20 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 17,087 points. Launch price was $249.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the GeForce RTX 5050's 17,087 — the GeForce RTX 5050 leads by 117.1%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the GeForce RTX 5050 uses Blackwell 2.0, both on 12 nm vs 5 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2,560 (GeForce RTX 5050). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 13.17 TFLOPS (GeForce RTX 5050). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 2572 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce RTX 5050 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869 | 17,087+117% |
| Architecture | Turing | Blackwell 2.0 |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 5 nm |
| Shading Units | 896 | 2560+186% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS | 13.17 TFLOPS+341% |
| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz | 2572 MHz+54% |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 56 | 80+43% |
| L1 Cache | 0.88 MB | 2.5 MB+184% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 24 MB+2300% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce RTX 5050 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | FSR 3 (Compatible) | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | NVIDIA Reflex |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The GeForce GTX 1650 comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce RTX 5050 has 8 GB. The GeForce RTX 5050 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 320 GB/s (GeForce RTX 5050) — a 150% advantage for the GeForce RTX 5050. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 24 MB (GeForce RTX 5050) — the GeForce RTX 5050 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce RTX 5050 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 8 GB+100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 128 GB/s | 320 GB/s+150% |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 24 MB+2300% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12.2 (GeForce RTX 5050). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce RTX 5050 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12.2+2% |
| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 4+33% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 9th Gen NVENC (GeForce RTX 5050). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs 6th Gen NVDEC. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 (GeForce RTX 5050).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce RTX 5050 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) | 9th Gen NVENC |
| Decoder | NVDEC 4th gen | 6th 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 5050's 130W — a 53.7% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 450W (GeForce RTX 5050). Power connectors: None vs 8-pin. Card length: 229mm vs 241mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 75°C.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce RTX 5050 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W-42% | 130W |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-33% | 450W |
| Power Connector | None | 8-pin |
| Length | 229mm | 241mm |
| Height | 111mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 2 | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C-7% | 75°C |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9 | 131.4+25% |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP and currently averages $75, while the GeForce RTX 5050 launched at $249 and now averages $249. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 69.9% less ($174 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 68.6 (GeForce RTX 5050) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 52.9% better value. The GeForce RTX 5050 is the newer GPU (2025 vs 2019).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce RTX 5050 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149-40% | $249 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $75-70% | $249 |
| Performance per Dollar | 104.9+53% | 68.6 |
| Codename | TU117 | GB207 |
| Release | April 23 2019 | June 24 2025 |
| Ranking | #323 | #112 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.












