GeForce GTX 1650 vs TITAN RTX
GeForce GTX 1650
Popular choices:
TITAN RTX
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
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The TITAN RTX is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 155.4% higher G3D Mark score and 500% more VRAM (24 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 | TITAN RTX |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-155.4%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+155.4%) |
| Longevity | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2018 / Turing (2018−2022)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | ✨ DLSS 2 Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+500%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| 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 $1,203.96 for the TITAN RTX, it costs 94% less. While it maintains significantly lower raw performance, this results in a 528.6% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1650 | TITAN RTX |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+528.6%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($75) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($1,203.96) |
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 TITAN RTX
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.
TITAN RTX
The TITAN RTX is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in December 18 2018. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 1350 MHz to 1770 MHz. It has 4608 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 280W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. It features 72 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 20,095 points. Launch price was $2,499.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the TITAN RTX's 20,095 — the TITAN RTX leads by 155.4%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the TITAN RTX uses Turing, both on a 12 nm process. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 4,608 (TITAN RTX). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 16.31 TFLOPS (TITAN RTX). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1770 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | TITAN RTX |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869 | 20,095+155% |
| Architecture | Turing | Turing |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 896 | 4608+414% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS | 16.31 TFLOPS+447% |
| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz | 1770 MHz+6% |
| ROPs | 32 | 96+200% |
| TMUs | 56 | 288+414% |
| L1 Cache | 0.88 MB | 4.5 MB+411% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 6 MB+500% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | TITAN RTX |
|---|---|---|
| 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 TITAN RTX has 24 GB. The TITAN RTX offers 500% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 672 GB/s (TITAN RTX) — a 425% advantage for the TITAN RTX. Bus width: 128-bit vs 384-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 6 MB (TITAN RTX) — the TITAN RTX has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | TITAN RTX |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 24 GB+500% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 128 GB/s | 672 GB/s+425% |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 384-bit+200% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 6 MB+500% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12 Ultimate (TITAN RTX). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | TITAN RTX |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12 Ultimate |
| 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 NVENC (7th Gen) (TITAN RTX). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs NVDEC (4th Gen). Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs H.264,H.265,VP9,AV1 (TITAN RTX).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | TITAN RTX |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) | NVENC (7th Gen) |
| Decoder | NVDEC 4th gen | NVDEC (4th Gen) |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 | H.264,H.265,VP9,AV1 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the TITAN RTX's 280W — a 115.5% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 650W (TITAN RTX). Power connectors: None vs 2x 8-pin. Card length: 229mm vs 267mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 80.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | TITAN RTX |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W-73% | 280W |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-54% | 650W |
| Power Connector | None | 2x 8-pin |
| Length | 229mm | 267mm |
| Height | 111mm | 116mm |
| Slots | 2 | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C-13% | 80 |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9+46% | 71.8 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP and currently averages $75, while the TITAN RTX launched at $2499 and now averages $1203.96. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 93.8% less ($1129 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 16.7 (TITAN RTX) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 528.1% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2018).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | TITAN RTX |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149-94% | $2499 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $75-94% | $1203.96 |
| Performance per Dollar | 104.9+528% | 16.7 |
| Codename | TU117 | TU102 |
| Release | April 23 2019 | December 18 2018 |
| Ranking | #323 | #91 |
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 TITAN RTX
