GeForce GTX 1650 vs GRID K240Q

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 GRID K240Q

#91

RTX PRO 6000

MSRP: $8565|Avg: $8565

99%

#92

RTX A6000

MSRP: $4649|Avg: $3500

97%

#93

Quadro RTX A6000

MSRP: $4649|Avg: $3500

96%

#195

Tesla K20m

MSRP: $3199|Avg: $55

2908%

#210

GRID K240Q

MSRP: $500|Avg: $40

100%

#211

FirePro M4150

MSRP: $200|Avg: $50

100%

#212

FirePro V4900

MSRP: $200|Avg: $47

99%

#213

GRID K160Q

MSRP: $125|Avg: $30

99%

#215

Quadro

MSRP: $1000|Avg: $50

98%

#216

FirePro W5000

MSRP: $599|Avg: $40

97%

#219

FirePro W7000 Adapter

MSRP: $899|Avg: $15

96%

#220

Quadro K420

MSRP: $150|Avg: $20

95%

#223

FirePro W7000

MSRP: $899|Avg: $50

94%

#224

Radeon R7 PRO A10-9700

MSRP: $169|Avg: $100

94%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

⚠️ Generational Difference

The GeForce GTX 1650 is significantly newer (2019 vs 2013). The GeForce GTX 1650 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The GRID K240Q lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.

🚀 Performance Leadership

The GeForce GTX 1650 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 209.7% higher G3D Mark score and 100% more VRAM (4 GB vs 2 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GRID K240Q.

Insight	GeForce GTX 1650	GRID K240Q
Performance	✅Leading raw performance (+209.7%)	❌Lower raw frame rates (-209.7%)
Longevity	Turing (2018−2022) (12nm)	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / Kepler (2012−2018))
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	✅ More VRAM (+100%)	❌ Less VRAM capacity
Efficiency	💡 Excellent Perf/Watt	⚡ Higher Power Consumption
Case Fit	📏 Compact / SFF Friendly	📏 Compact / SFF Friendly

💎 Value Proposition

The GeForce GTX 1650 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Although it costs $75 (vs $40), its significant performance lead justifies the premium, offering 65.2% better value per dollar than the GRID K240Q.

Insight	GeForce GTX 1650	GRID K240Q
Cost Efficiency	✅Better overall value (+65.2%)	❌Lower cost efficiency
Upfront Cost	⚠️Higher upfront cost ($75)	✅More affordable ($40)

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

GRID K240Q Benchmark Check

Loading...

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and GRID K240Q

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.

GRID K240Q

The GRID K240Q is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in June 28 2013. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock speed is 745 MHz. It has 1536 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 225W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,541 points. Launch price was $469.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the GRID K240Q's 2,541 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 209.7%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the GRID K240Q uses Kepler, both on 12 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 1,536 (GRID K240Q). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2.289 TFLOPS (GRID K240Q).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GRID K240Q
G3D Mark Score	7,869+210%	2,541
Architecture	Turing	Kepler
Process Node	12 nm	28 nm
Shading Units	896	1536+71%
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.984 TFLOPS+30%	2.289 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	32
TMUs	56	128+129%
L1 Cache	896 KB+600%	128 KB
L2 Cache	1 MB+100%	0.5 MB

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GRID K240Q
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 GRID K240Q has 2 GB. The GeForce GTX 1650 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 0.5 MB (GRID K240Q) — the GeForce GTX 1650 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GRID K240Q
VRAM Capacity	4 GB+100%	2 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Bus Width	128-bit+100%	64-bit
L2 Cache	1 MB+100%	0.5 MB

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 11_0 (GRID K240Q). OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 0.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GRID K240Q
DirectX	12+9%	11_0
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
Max Displays	3	0

🎬

Media & Encoding

Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 (GRID K240Q).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GRID K240Q
Encoder	NVENC 5th gen (Volta)	—
Decoder	NVDEC 4th gen	—
Codecs	H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9	H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the GRID K240Q's 225W — a 100% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (GRID K240Q). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 229mm vs 1mm, occupying 2 vs 0 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 80°C.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GRID K240Q
TDP	75W-67%	225W
Recommended PSU	300W-14%	350W
Power Connector	None	PCIe-powered
Length	229mm	1mm
Height	111mm	—
Slots	2	0-100%
Temp (Load)	70°C-13%	80°C
Perf/Watt	104.9+828%	11.3

💰

Value Analysis

The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP and currently averages $75, while the GRID K240Q launched at $500 and now averages $40. The GRID K240Q costs 46.7% less ($35 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 63.5 (GRID K240Q) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 65.2% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2013).