GeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon HD 6950
GeForce GTX 1650
Popular choices:
Radeon HD 6950
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
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce GTX 1650 is significantly newer (2019 vs 2010). 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 Radeon HD 6950 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 203.5% higher G3D Mark score and 300% more VRAM (4 GB vs 1 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Radeon HD 6950.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon HD 6950 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+203.5%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-203.5%) |
| Longevity | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2010 / TeraScale 3 (2010−2013)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+300%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | Standard Size (275mm) |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GTX 1650 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $75 versus $100 for the Radeon HD 6950, it costs 25% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 304.6% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon HD 6950 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+304.6%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($75) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($100) |
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 Radeon HD 6950
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.
Radeon HD 6950
The Radeon HD 6950 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in December 14 2010. It features the TeraScale 3 architecture. The boost clock speed is 800 MHz. It has 1408 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 200W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,593 points. Launch price was $299.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Radeon HD 6950's 2,593 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 203.5%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon HD 6950 uses TeraScale 3, both on 12 nm vs 40 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 1,408 (Radeon HD 6950). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2.253 TFLOPS (Radeon HD 6950). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 800 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon HD 6950 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869+203% | 2,593 |
| Architecture | Turing | TeraScale 3 |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 40 nm |
| Shading Units | 896 | 1408+57% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS+32% | 2.253 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz+108% | 800 MHz |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 56 | 88+57% |
| L1 Cache | 896 KB+155% | 352 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+100% | 0.5 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon HD 6950 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | FSR 3 (Compatible) | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | AMD Anti-Lag |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The GeForce GTX 1650 comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the Radeon HD 6950 has 1 GB. The GeForce GTX 1650 offers 300% 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 0.5 MB (Radeon HD 6950) — the GeForce GTX 1650 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon HD 6950 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB+300% | 1 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 128 GB/s | Unknown |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+100% | 0.5 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 11_2 (Radeon HD 6950). Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon HD 6950 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12+9% | 11_2 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 4+33% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs UVD 3 (Radeon HD 6950). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs UVD 3.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon HD 6950 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) | UVD 3 |
| Decoder | NVDEC 4th gen | UVD 3 |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 | — |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Radeon HD 6950's 200W — a 90.9% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 500W (Radeon HD 6950). Power connectors: None vs 2x 6-pin. Card length: 229mm vs 275mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon HD 6950 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W-63% | 200W |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-40% | 500W |
| Power Connector | None | 2x 6-pin |
| Length | 229mm | 275mm |
| Height | 111mm | — |
| Slots | 2 | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9+707% | 13.0 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP and currently averages $75, while the Radeon HD 6950 launched at $299 and now averages $100. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 25% less ($25 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 25.9 (Radeon HD 6950) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 305% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2010).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon HD 6950 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149-50% | $299 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $75-25% | $100 |
| Performance per Dollar | 104.9+305% | 25.9 |
| Codename | TU117 | Cayman |
| Release | April 23 2019 | December 14 2010 |
| Ranking | #323 | #623 |
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 Radeon HD 6950
