
GeForce GTX 1650 vs RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation

GeForce GTX 1650
Popular choices:

RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation
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 RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 162.7% higher G3D Mark score. However, the GeForce GTX 1650 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1650 | RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-162.7%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+162.7%) |
| Longevity | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) | 🏆Elite Architecture (Ada Lovelace / 5nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | ✨ DLSS 3/4 + Frame Gen Support |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) | 🎮 High Capacity (2 GB) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| 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 $1,450 for the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation, it costs 95% less. While it maintains significantly lower raw performance, this results in a 636% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1650 | RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+636%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($75) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($1,450) |
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 RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation

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.

RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation
The RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in March 21 2023. It features the Ada Lovelace architecture. The core clock ranges from 720 MHz to 1560 MHz. It has 6144 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 70W. Manufactured using 5 nm process technology. It features 48 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 20,669 points.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation's 20,669 — the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation leads by 162.7%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation uses Ada Lovelace, both on 12 nm vs 5 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 6,144 (RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 19.17 TFLOPS (RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1560 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869 | 20,669+163% |
| Architecture | Turing | Ada Lovelace |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 5 nm |
| Shading Units | 896 | 6144+586% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS | 19.17 TFLOPS+542% |
| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz+7% | 1560 MHz |
| ROPs | 32 | 64+100% |
| TMUs | 56 | 192+243% |
| L1 Cache | 0.88 MB | 6 MB+582% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 48 MB+4700% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
A critical advantage for the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation is support for DLSS 3 Frame Gen. This allows it to generate entire frames using AI/Algorithms, essentially doubling the frame rate in CPU-bound scenarios or heavy ray-tracing titles. The GeForce GTX 1650 lacks specific hardware/driver support for this native frame generation tier.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) | DLSS 3.5 |
| Frame Generation | FSR 3 (Compatible) | DLSS 3.0 (Native) |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | Yes (DLSS 3.5) |
| Low Latency | Standard | NVIDIA Reflex |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The GeForce GTX 1650 comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation has 2 GB. The GeForce GTX 1650 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 280 GB/s (RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation) — a 118.8% advantage for the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation. Bus width: 128-bit vs 160-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 48 MB (RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation) — the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB+100% | 2 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 ECC |
| Memory Bandwidth | 128 GB/s | 280 GB/s+119% |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 160-bit+25% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 48 MB+4700% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12.2 (RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12.2+2% |
| 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 8th Gen NVENC (2x) (RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs 5th Gen NVDEC. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 (RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) | 8th Gen NVENC (2x) |
| Decoder | NVDEC 4th gen | 5th Gen NVDEC |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation's 70W — a 6.9% difference. The RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 750W (RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation). Power connectors: None vs 1x 8-pin. Card length: 229mm vs 267mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 80°C.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W | 70W-7% |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-60% | 750W |
| Power Connector | None | 1x 8-pin |
| Length | 229mm | 267mm |
| Height | 111mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 2 | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C-13% | 80°C |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9 | 295.3+182% |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP and currently averages $75, while the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation launched at $1999 and now averages $1450. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 94.8% less ($1375 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 14.3 (RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 633.6% better value. The RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation is the newer GPU (2023 vs 2019).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149-93% | $1999 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $75-95% | $1450 |
| Performance per Dollar | 104.9+634% | 14.3 |
| Codename | TU117 | AD104 |
| Release | April 23 2019 | March 21 2023 |
| Ranking | #323 | #71 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.











