GeForce GTX 1650 vs Tesla K40m
GeForce GTX 1650
Popular choices:
Tesla K40m
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 Tesla K40m
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce GTX 1650 is significantly newer (2019 vs 2013). 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 Tesla K40m 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 150.4% higher G3D Mark score and 100% more VRAM (4 GB vs 2 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Tesla K40m.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1650 | Tesla K40m |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+150.4%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-150.4%) |
| Longevity | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / Kepler (2012−2018)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | — |
💎 Value Proposition
While current pricing data is unavailable, the GeForce GTX 1650 remains the clear technical winner. Check real-time availability to determine if the performance gap justifies the market price.
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 Tesla K40m
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.
Tesla K40m
The Tesla K40m is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in November 22 2013. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock ranges from 745 MHz to 876 MHz. It has 2880 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 245W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3,143 points. Launch price was $7,699.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Tesla K40m's 3,143 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 150.4%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Tesla K40m uses Kepler, both on 12 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2,880 (Tesla K40m). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 5.046 TFLOPS (Tesla K40m). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 876 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Tesla K40m |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869+150% | 3,143 |
| Architecture | Turing | Kepler |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 896 | 2880+221% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS | 5.046 TFLOPS+69% |
| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz+90% | 876 MHz |
| ROPs | 32 | 48+50% |
| TMUs | 56 | 240+329% |
| L1 Cache | 896 KB+273% | 240 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1.5 MB+50% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Tesla K40m |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | FSR 3 (Compatible) | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The GeForce GTX 1650 comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the Tesla K40m has 2 GB. The GeForce GTX 1650 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 1.5 MB (Tesla K40m) — the Tesla K40m has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Tesla K40m |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB+100% | 2 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+100% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1.5 MB+50% |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Tesla K40m's 245W — a 106.3% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (Tesla K40m). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Tesla K40m |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W-69% | 245W |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-14% | 350W |
| Power Connector | None | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 229mm | — |
| Height | 111mm | — |
| Slots | 2 | — |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9+720% | 12.8 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2013).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Tesla K40m |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149 | — |
| Avg Price (30d) | $75 | — |
| Codename | TU117 | GK110B |
| Release | April 23 2019 | November 22 2013 |
| Ranking | #323 | #573 |
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 Tesla K40m
