GeForce GTX 1650 vs RTX A2000

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 RTX A2000

#9

Intel Arc Pro B50

MSRP: $349|Avg: $349

117%

#11

Quadro RTX 4000 (móvel)

MSRP: $900|Avg: $300

111%

#16

Radeon PRO W7500

MSRP: $429|Avg: $401

104%

#18

Radeon Pro V520 MxGPU

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $340

102%

#19

RTX A2000 12GB

MSRP: $449|Avg: $380

102%

#20

Radeon Pro Vega 56

MSRP: $399|Avg: $60

101%

#21

RTX A2000

MSRP: $450|Avg: $320

100%

#23

Intel Arc Pro B60

MSRP: $500|Avg: $450

92%

#24

Radeon PRO W7600

MSRP: $599|Avg: $599

92%

#25

RTX 2000 Ada Generation

MSRP: $625|Avg: $750

92%

#26

Radeon Pro Vega 48

MSRP: $450|Avg: $450

84%

#27

Radeon Pro 5700 XT

MSRP: $500|Avg: $280

83%

#28

Quadro P5200

MSRP: $500|Avg: $240

78%

#29

Radeon PRO W7700

MSRP: $999|Avg: $999

77%

#30

Radeon PRO W6600

MSRP: $649|Avg: $649

77%

#32

Radeon AI PRO R9700

MSRP: $1299|Avg: $1450

74%

#33

Radeon Pro Vega 64

MSRP: $599|Avg: $114

72%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

The RTX A2000 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 71.1% 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	RTX A2000
Performance	❌Lower raw frame rates (-71.1%)	✅Leading raw performance (+71.1%)
Longevity	Turing (2018−2022) (12nm)	🔮Strong Longevity (Ampere (2020−2025) / 8nm)
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	✨ DLSS 2 Upscaling
VRAM	❌ Less VRAM capacity	🎮 High Capacity (8 GB)
Efficiency	⚡ Higher Power Consumption	💡 Excellent Perf/Watt
Case Fit	📏 Compact / SFF Friendly	📏 Compact / SFF Friendly

💎 Value Proposition

The GeForce GTX 1650 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $75 versus $320 for the RTX A2000, it costs 77% less. While it maintains lower overall performance, this results in a 149.4% higher cost efficiency score.

Insight	GeForce GTX 1650	RTX A2000
Cost Efficiency	✅Better overall value (+149.4%)	❌Lower cost efficiency
Upfront Cost	✅More affordable ($75)	⚠️Higher upfront cost ($320)

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

RTX A2000 Benchmark Check

Loading...

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and RTX A2000

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 A2000

The RTX A2000 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in August 10 2021. It features the Ampere architecture. The core clock ranges from 562 MHz to 1200 MHz. It has 3328 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 70W. Manufactured using 8 nm process technology. It features 26 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 13,464 points. Launch price was $449.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the RTX A2000's 13,464 — the RTX A2000 leads by 71.1%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the RTX A2000 uses Ampere, both on 12 nm vs 8 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 3,328 (RTX A2000). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 7.987 TFLOPS (RTX A2000). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1200 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	RTX A2000
G3D Mark Score	7,869	13,464+71%
Architecture	Turing	Ampere
Process Node	12 nm	8 nm
Shading Units	896	3328+271%
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.984 TFLOPS	7.987 TFLOPS+168%
Boost Clock	1665 MHz+39%	1200 MHz
ROPs	32	48+50%
TMUs	56	104+86%
L1 Cache	0.88 MB	3.3 MB+275%
L2 Cache	1 MB	3 MB+200%

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	RTX A2000
Upscaling Tech	FSR 2.1 (Compatible)	FSR 1.0 (Software)
Frame Generation	FSR 3 (Compatible)	Not Supported
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	Standard	NVIDIA Reflex

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

The GeForce GTX 1650 comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the RTX A2000 has 8 GB. The RTX A2000 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 3 MB (RTX A2000) — the RTX A2000 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	RTX A2000
VRAM Capacity	4 GB	8 GB+100%
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR6
Bus Width	128-bit	128-bit
L2 Cache	1 MB	3 MB+200%

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12.2 (RTX A2000). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 6.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	RTX A2000
DirectX	12	12.2+2%
Vulkan	1.4+8%	1.3
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
Max Displays	3	6+100%

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 7th Gen NVENC (RTX A2000). 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 (Decode) (RTX A2000).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	RTX A2000
Encoder	NVENC 5th gen (Volta)	7th Gen NVENC
Decoder	NVDEC 4th gen	5th Gen NVDEC
Codecs	H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9	MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 (Decode)

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the RTX A2000's 70W — a 6.9% difference. The RTX A2000 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 500W (RTX A2000). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 229mm vs 167mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 75°C.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	RTX A2000
TDP	75W	70W-7%
Recommended PSU	300W-40%	500W
Power Connector	None	PCIe-powered
Length	229mm	167mm
Height	111mm	68mm
Slots	2	2
Temp (Load)	70°C-7%	75°C
Perf/Watt	104.9	192.3+83%

💰

Value Analysis

The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP and currently averages $75, while the RTX A2000 launched at $450 and now averages $320. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 76.6% less ($245 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 42.1 (RTX A2000) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 149.2% better value. The RTX A2000 is the newer GPU (2021 vs 2019).