GeForce GTX 1650 vs RTX A400

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 A400

#9

Intel Arc Pro B50

MSRP: $349|Avg: $349

79%

#11

Tesla K20m

MSRP: $3199|Avg: $55

333%

#11

Quadro RTX 4000 (móvel)

MSRP: $900|Avg: $300

75%

#16

Radeon PRO W7500

MSRP: $429|Avg: $401

70%

#18

Radeon Pro V520 MxGPU

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $340

69%

#19

RTX A2000 12GB

MSRP: $449|Avg: $380

69%

#20

Radeon Pro Vega 56

MSRP: $399|Avg: $60

68%

#26

RTX A400

MSRP: $135|Avg: $135

100%

#29

Radeon Pro 5500 XT

MSRP: $199|Avg: $100

90%

#33

Radeon PRO W6400

MSRP: $229|Avg: $200

83%

#36

T600

MSRP: $200|Avg: $180

72%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

The GeForce GTX 1650 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 31.5% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the RTX A400.

Insight	GeForce GTX 1650	RTX A400
Performance	✅Leading raw performance (+31.5%)	❌Lower raw frame rates (-31.5%)
Longevity	Turing (2018−2022) (12nm)	🏆Elite Architecture (Ampere (2020−2025) / 8nm)
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	✨ DLSS 3/4 + Frame Gen Support
VRAM	❌ Less VRAM capacity	✅ More VRAM (+0%)
Efficiency	Normal Efficiency	Normal Efficiency
Case Fit	📏 Compact / SFF Friendly	—

💎 Value Proposition

The GeForce GTX 1650 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $75 versus $135 for the RTX A400, it costs 44% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 136.7% higher cost efficiency score.

Insight	GeForce GTX 1650	RTX A400
Cost Efficiency	✅Better overall value (+136.7%)	❌Lower cost efficiency
Upfront Cost	✅More affordable ($75)	⚠️Higher upfront cost ($135)

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 A400 Benchmark Check

Loading...

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and RTX A400

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 A400

The RTX A400 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in April 16 2024. It features the Ampere architecture. The core clock ranges from 727 MHz to 1762 MHz. It has 768 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 8 nm process technology. It features 6 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 5,983 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the RTX A400's 5,983 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 31.5%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the RTX A400 uses Ampere, both on 12 nm vs 8 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 768 (RTX A400). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2.706 TFLOPS (RTX A400). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1762 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	RTX A400
G3D Mark Score	7,869+32%	5,983
Architecture	Turing	Ampere
Process Node	12 nm	8 nm
Shading Units	896+17%	768
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.984 TFLOPS+10%	2.706 TFLOPS
Boost Clock	1665 MHz	1762 MHz+6%
ROPs	32+100%	16
TMUs	56+133%	24

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	RTX A400
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)

Both cards feature 4 GB of video memory. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	RTX A400
VRAM Capacity	4 GB	4 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR6
Bus Width	128-bit	128-bit

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the RTX A400's 50W — a 40% difference. The RTX A400 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (RTX A400). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	RTX A400
TDP	75W	50W-33%
Recommended PSU	300W-14%	350W
Power Connector	None	PCIe-powered
Length	229mm	—
Height	111mm	—
Slots	2	—
Temp (Load)	70°C	—
Perf/Watt	104.9	119.7+14%

💰

Value Analysis

The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP and currently averages $75, while the RTX A400 launched at $135 and now averages $135. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 44.4% less ($60 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 44.3 (RTX A400) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 136.8% better value. The RTX A400 is the newer GPU (2024 vs 2019).