GeForce GTX 1650 vs GeForce2 MX/MX 400

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 GeForce2 MX/MX 400

#740

Radeon RX 550X (móvel)

MSRP: $35|Avg: $35

361900%

#742

GeForce GTX 1070 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $150

328067%

#743

GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $100

327200%

#747

GeForce GTX 1050 (Mobile)

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50

297533%

#748

Radeon RX 6300

MSRP: $60|Avg: $40

295500%

#750

GeForce2 MX/MX 400

MSRP: $129|Avg: $15

100%

#751

GeForce4 MX 440

MSRP: $149|Avg: $49

100%

#752

RADEON 7200

MSRP: $99|Avg: $45

100%

#753

GeForce 256

MSRP: $199|Avg: $20

100%

#754

GeForce2 MX

MSRP: $129|Avg: $49

67%

#755

GeForce4 440

MSRP: $469|Avg: $49

33%

#756

GeForce3

MSRP: $499|Avg: $49

33%

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 196625% higher G3D Mark score and 700% more VRAM (4 GB vs 512 MB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce2 MX/MX 400.

Insight	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce2 MX/MX 400
Performance	✅Leading raw performance (+196625%)	❌Lower raw frame rates (-196625%)
Longevity	Turing (2018−2022) (12nm)	Turing (2018−2022) (12nm)
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	✅ More VRAM (+700%)	❌ Less VRAM capacity
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. Although it costs $75 (vs $15), its significant performance lead justifies the premium, offering 39245% better value per dollar than the GeForce2 MX/MX 400.

Insight	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce2 MX/MX 400
Cost Efficiency	✅Better overall value (+39245%)	❌Lower cost efficiency
Upfront Cost	⚠️Higher upfront cost ($75)	✅More affordable ($15)

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

GeForce2 MX/MX 400 Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and GeForce2 MX/MX 400

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.

GeForce2 MX/MX 400

The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in August 1 2020. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 1395 MHz to 1575 MHz. It has 896 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 25W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 4 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the GeForce2 MX/MX 400's 4 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 196625%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the GeForce2 MX/MX 400 uses Turing, both on a 12 nm process. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 896 (GeForce2 MX/MX 400). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 3.226 TFLOPS (GeForce2 MX/MX 400). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1575 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce2 MX/MX 400
G3D Mark Score	7,869+196625%	4
Architecture	Turing	Turing
Process Node	12 nm	12 nm
Shading Units	896	896
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.984 TFLOPS	3.226 TFLOPS+8%
Boost Clock	1665 MHz+6%	1575 MHz
ROPs	32	32
TMUs	56	64+14%

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce2 MX/MX 400
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 GeForce2 MX/MX 400 has 512 MB. The GeForce GTX 1650 offers 700% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce2 MX/MX 400
VRAM Capacity	4 GB+700%	0.5 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Bus Width	128-bit+100%	64-bit

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 7.0 (GeForce2 MX/MX 400). OpenGL: 4.6 vs 1.2. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 2.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce2 MX/MX 400
DirectX	12+71%	7.0
OpenGL	4.6+283%	1.2
Max Displays	3+50%	2

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs None (GeForce2 MX/MX 400). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs MPEG-2 Decoder. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs MPEG-2 (GeForce2 MX/MX 400).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce2 MX/MX 400
Encoder	NVENC 5th gen (Volta)	None
Decoder	NVDEC 4th gen	MPEG-2 Decoder
Codecs	H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9	MPEG-2

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the GeForce2 MX/MX 400's 25W — a 100% difference. The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (GeForce2 MX/MX 400). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 55°C.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce2 MX/MX 400
TDP	75W	25W-67%
Recommended PSU	300W-14%	350W
Power Connector	None	PCIe-powered
Length	229mm	—
Height	111mm	100mm
Slots	2	1-50%
Temp (Load)	70°C	55°C-21%
Perf/Watt	104.9+52350%	0.2

💰

Value Analysis

The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP and currently averages $75, while the GeForce2 MX/MX 400 launched at $129 and now averages $15. The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 costs 80% less ($60 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 0.3 (GeForce2 MX/MX 400) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 34866.7% better value. The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 is the newer GPU (2020 vs 2019).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce2 MX/MX 400
MSRP	$149	$129-13%
Avg Price (30d)	$75	$15-80%
Performance per Dollar	104.9+34867%	0.3
Codename	TU117	N17S-G5 / GP107-670-A1
Release	April 23 2019	August 1 2020
Ranking	#323	#523