GeForce GTX 1650 vs GRID K520

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 K520

#335

Tesla K20m

MSRP: $3199|Avg: $55

15074%

#350

GRID K520

MSRP: $3599|Avg: $50

100%

#351

GRID P40-12Q

MSRP: $5699|Avg: $5699

99%

#352

FirePro 2270

MSRP: $149|Avg: $30

97%

#353

FirePro 2460

MSRP: $180|Avg: $10

96%

#355

Quadro FX 580

MSRP: $199|Avg: $500

93%

#356

FirePro 3D V5700

MSRP: $599|Avg: $25

93%

#357

GRID M60-1B

MSRP: $2500|Avg: $120

92%

#359

FireStream 9270

MSRP: $1499|Avg: $20

91%

#360

Quadro 400

MSRP: $169|Avg: $500

90%

#361

FirePro 2260

MSRP: $129|Avg: $15

90%

#362

Quadro FX 380 LP

MSRP: $169|Avg: $15

88%

#364

Quadro FX 1800

MSRP: $489|Avg: $100

83%

#365

FirePro 3D V8700

MSRP: $1499|Avg: $1229

82%

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 K520 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 123.8% 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 K520.

Insight	GeForce GTX 1650	GRID K520
Performance	✅Leading raw performance (+123.8%)	❌Lower raw frame rates (-123.8%)
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	Standard Size (267mm)

💎 Value Proposition

The GeForce GTX 1650 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Although it costs $75 (vs $50), its significant performance lead justifies the premium, offering 49.2% better value per dollar than the GRID K520.

Insight	GeForce GTX 1650	GRID K520
Cost Efficiency	✅Better overall value (+49.2%)	❌Lower cost efficiency
Upfront Cost	⚠️Higher upfront cost ($75)	✅More affordable ($50)

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 K520 Benchmark Check

Loading...

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and GRID K520

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 K520

The GRID K520 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in July 23 2013. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock speed is 745 MHz. It has 1536 ×2 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 225W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3,516 points. Launch price was $3,599.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the GRID K520's 3,516 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 123.8%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the GRID K520 uses Kepler, both on 12 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 1,536 (GRID K520). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2.289 TFLOPS ×2 (GRID K520).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GRID K520
G3D Mark Score	7,869+124%	3,516
Architecture	Turing	Kepler
Process Node	12 nm	28 nm
Shading Units	896	1536 ×2+71%
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.984 TFLOPS+30%	2.289 TFLOPS ×2
ROPs	32	32 ×2
TMUs	56	128 ×2+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 K520
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 K520 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 K520) — the GeForce GTX 1650 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GRID K520
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 12 (11_0) (GRID K520). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.2. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 0.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GRID K520
DirectX	12	12 (11_0)
Vulkan	1.4+17%	1.2
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
Max Displays	3	0

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs NVENC 1 (GRID K520). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs NVDEC 1. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1 (GRID K520).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GRID K520
Encoder	NVENC 5th gen (Volta)	NVENC 1
Decoder	NVDEC 4th gen	NVDEC 1
Codecs	H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9	H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the GRID K520's 225W — a 100% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (GRID K520). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 229mm vs 267mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 75°C.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GRID K520
TDP	75W-67%	225W
Recommended PSU	300W-14%	350W
Power Connector	None	PCIe-powered
Length	229mm	267mm
Height	111mm	111mm
Slots	2	2
Temp (Load)	70°C-7%	75°C
Perf/Watt	104.9+572%	15.6

💰

Value Analysis

The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP and currently averages $75, while the GRID K520 launched at $3599 and now averages $50. The GRID K520 costs 33.3% less ($25 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 70.3 (GRID K520) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 49.2% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2013).