GeForce GTX 1650 vs Tesla T4
GeForce GTX 1650
Popular choices:
Tesla T4
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 T4
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Tesla T4 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 29% 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 | Tesla T4 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-29%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+29%) |
| Longevity | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2018 / Turing (2018−2022)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) |
| 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 $1,000 for the Tesla T4, it costs 93% less. While it maintains lower overall performance, this results in a 933.4% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1650 | Tesla T4 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+933.4%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($75) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($1,000) |
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 T4
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 T4
The Tesla T4 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in September 13 2018. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 585 MHz to 1590 MHz. It has 2560 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 70W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. It features 40 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 10,153 points.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Tesla T4's 10,153 — the Tesla T4 leads by 29%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Tesla T4 uses Turing, both on a 12 nm process. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2,560 (Tesla T4). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 8.141 TFLOPS (Tesla T4). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1590 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Tesla T4 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869 | 10,153+29% |
| Architecture | Turing | Turing |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 896 | 2560+186% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS | 8.141 TFLOPS+173% |
| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz+5% | 1590 MHz |
| ROPs | 32 | 64+100% |
| TMUs | 56 | 160+186% |
| L1 Cache | 0.88 MB | 2.5 MB+184% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 4 MB+300% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Tesla T4 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 T4 has 8 GB. The Tesla T4 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 256-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 4 MB (Tesla T4) — the Tesla T4 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Tesla T4 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 8 GB+100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 256-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 4 MB+300% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12 Ultimate (Tesla T4). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 0.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Tesla T4 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12 Ultimate |
| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 0 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs NVENC (Turing) (Tesla T4). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs NVDEC (Turing). Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC,MPEG-2,VC-1,VP8,VP9 (Tesla T4).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Tesla T4 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) | NVENC (Turing) |
| Decoder | NVDEC 4th gen | NVDEC (Turing) |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 | H.264,H.265/HEVC,MPEG-2,VC-1,VP8,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Tesla T4's 70W — a 6.9% difference. The Tesla T4 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 500W (Tesla T4). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 229mm vs 168mm, occupying 2 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 76°C.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Tesla T4 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W | 70W-7% |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-40% | 500W |
| Power Connector | None | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 229mm | 168mm |
| Height | 111mm | 69mm |
| Slots | 2 | 1-50% |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C-8% | 76°C |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9 | 145.0+38% |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP and currently averages $75, while the Tesla T4 launched at $1880 and now averages $1000. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 92.5% less ($925 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 10.2 (Tesla T4) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 928.4% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2018).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Tesla T4 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149-92% | $1880 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $75-93% | $1000 |
| Performance per Dollar | 104.9+928% | 10.2 |
| Codename | TU117 | TU104 |
| Release | April 23 2019 | September 13 2018 |
| Ranking | #323 | #260 |
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 T4
