GeForce GTX 1650 vs Intel Arc Pro B60
GeForce GTX 1650
Popular choices:
Intel Arc Pro B60
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 Intel Arc Pro B60
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The Intel Arc Pro B60 is significantly newer (2025 vs 2019). The Intel Arc Pro B60 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 Intel Arc Pro B60 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 75.5% 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 | Intel Arc Pro B60 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-75.5%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+75.5%) |
| Longevity | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) | 🔮Strong Longevity (Xe2 (2024) / 5nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | 🎮 High Capacity (8 GB) |
| 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. Priced at $75 versus $450 for the Intel Arc Pro B60, it costs 83% less. While it maintains lower overall performance, this results in a 242% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1650 | Intel Arc Pro B60 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+242%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($75) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($450) |
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 Intel Arc Pro B60
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.
Intel Arc Pro B60
The Intel Arc Pro B60 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in September 5 2025. It features the Xe2 architecture. The core clock ranges from 2000 MHz to 2400 MHz. It has 2560 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 200W. Manufactured using 5 nm process technology. It features 20 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 13,807 points. Launch price was $499.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Intel Arc Pro B60's 13,807 — the Intel Arc Pro B60 leads by 75.5%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Intel Arc Pro B60 uses Xe2, both on 12 nm vs 5 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2,560 (Intel Arc Pro B60). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12.29 TFLOPS (Intel Arc Pro B60). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 2400 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Intel Arc Pro B60 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869 | 13,807+75% |
| Architecture | Turing | Xe2 |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 5 nm |
| Shading Units | 896 | 2560+186% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS | 12.29 TFLOPS+312% |
| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz | 2400 MHz+44% |
| ROPs | 32+100% | 16 |
| TMUs | 56 | 160+186% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 4 MB+300% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Intel Arc Pro B60 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) | XeSS |
| Frame Generation | FSR 3 (Compatible) | FSR 3 (Compatible) |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The GeForce GTX 1650 comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the Intel Arc Pro B60 has 8 GB. The Intel Arc Pro B60 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 4 MB (Intel Arc Pro B60) — the Intel Arc Pro B60 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Intel Arc Pro B60 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 8 GB+100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 4 MB+300% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12 Ultimate (Intel Arc Pro B60). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Intel Arc Pro B60 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12 Ultimate |
| 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 Xe Media Engine (Battlemage) (Intel Arc Pro B60). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs Xe Media Engine (Battlemage). Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs H.264,H.265,AV1,VP9 (Intel Arc Pro B60).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Intel Arc Pro B60 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) | Xe Media Engine (Battlemage) |
| Decoder | NVDEC 4th gen | Xe Media Engine (Battlemage) |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 | H.264,H.265,AV1,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Intel Arc Pro B60's 200W — a 90.9% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 500W (Intel Arc Pro B60). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 229mm vs 267mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 82.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Intel Arc Pro B60 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W-63% | 200W |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-40% | 500W |
| Power Connector | None | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 229mm | 267mm |
| Height | 111mm | 112mm |
| Slots | 2 | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C-15% | 82 |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9+52% | 69.0 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP and currently averages $75, while the Intel Arc Pro B60 launched at $500 and now averages $450. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 83.3% less ($375 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 30.7 (Intel Arc Pro B60) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 241.7% better value. The Intel Arc Pro B60 is the newer GPU (2025 vs 2019).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Intel Arc Pro B60 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149-70% | $500 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $75-83% | $450 |
| Performance per Dollar | 104.9+242% | 30.7 |
| Codename | TU117 | BMG-G21 |
| Release | April 23 2019 | September 5 2025 |
| Ranking | #323 | #175 |
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 Intel Arc Pro B60
