Iris Plus Graphics 650 vs GeForce GTX 1650
Iris Plus Graphics 650
Popular choices:
GeForce GTX 1650
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
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce GTX 1650 uses modern memory architecture. 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 Iris Plus Graphics 650 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 424.6% higher G3D Mark score and 100+% more VRAM (4 GB vs 0 MB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Iris Plus Graphics 650.
| Insight | Iris Plus Graphics 650 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-424.6%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+424.6%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2017 / Generation 9.5 (2016−2020)) | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+100+%) |
| Efficiency | Normal Efficiency | Normal Efficiency |
| Case Fit | — | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GTX 1650 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Although it costs $75 (vs $15), its significant performance lead justifies the premium, offering 4.9% better value per dollar than the Iris Plus Graphics 650.
| Insight | Iris Plus Graphics 650 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+4.9%) |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($15) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($75) |
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 Iris Plus Graphics 650 and GeForce GTX 1650
Iris Plus Graphics 650
The Iris Plus Graphics 650 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in January 3 2017. It features the Generation 9.5 architecture. The core clock ranges from 300 MHz to 1150 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 15W. Manufactured using 14 nm++ process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,500 points.
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.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the Iris Plus Graphics 650 scores 1,500 versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 7,869 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 424.6%. The Iris Plus Graphics 650 is built on Generation 9.5 while the GeForce GTX 1650 uses Turing, both on 14 nm++ vs 12 nm. Shader units: 384 (Iris Plus Graphics 650) vs 896 (GeForce GTX 1650). Raw compute: 0.8832 TFLOPS (Iris Plus Graphics 650) vs 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650). Boost clocks: 1150 MHz vs 1665 MHz.
| Feature | Iris Plus Graphics 650 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 1,500 | 7,869+425% |
| Architecture | Generation 9.5 | Turing |
| Process Node | 14 nm++ | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 384 | 896+133% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.8832 TFLOPS | 2.984 TFLOPS+238% |
| Boost Clock | 1150 MHz | 1665 MHz+45% |
| ROPs | 6 | 32+433% |
| TMUs | 48 | 56+17% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Iris Plus Graphics 650 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | FSR 3 (Compatible) |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The Iris Plus Graphics 650 comes with 0 MB of VRAM, while the GeForce GTX 1650 has 4 GB. The GeForce GTX 1650 offers 100+% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: System vs 128-bit.
| Feature | Iris Plus Graphics 650 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | Shared System RAM | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | Shared | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | System | 128 GB/s |
| Bus Width | System | 128-bit |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (12_1) (Iris Plus Graphics 650) vs 12 (GeForce GTX 1650). Vulkan: 1.3 vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 3.
| Feature | Iris Plus Graphics 650 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.4+8% |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 3 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: QuickSync (Iris Plus Graphics 650) vs NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650). Decoder: QuickSync vs NVDEC 4th gen. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265,VP9 (Iris Plus Graphics 650) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650).
| Feature | Iris Plus Graphics 650 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | QuickSync | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) |
| Decoder | QuickSync | NVDEC 4th gen |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265,VP9 | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The Iris Plus Graphics 650 draws 15W versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 75W — a 133.3% difference. The Iris Plus Graphics 650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 1W (Iris Plus Graphics 650) vs 300W (GeForce GTX 1650). Power connectors: Integrated vs None. Card length: 0mm vs 229mm, occupying 0 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 85 vs 70°C.
| Feature | Iris Plus Graphics 650 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 15W-80% | 75W |
| Recommended PSU | 1W-100% | 300W |
| Power Connector | Integrated | None |
| Length | 0mm | 229mm |
| Height | 0mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 0-100% | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 85 | 70°C-18% |
| Perf/Watt | 100.0 | 104.9+5% |
Value Analysis
The Iris Plus Graphics 650 launched at $0 MSRP and currently averages $15, while the GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 and now averages $75. The Iris Plus Graphics 650 costs 80% less ($60 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 100.0 (Iris Plus Graphics 650) vs 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 4.9% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2017).
| Feature | Iris Plus Graphics 650 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $0-100% | $149 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $15-80% | $75 |
| Performance per Dollar | 100.0 | 104.9+5% |
| Codename | Kaby Lake GT3e | TU117 |
| Release | January 3 2017 | April 23 2019 |
| Ranking | #718 | #323 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Iris Plus Graphics 650 and GeForce GTX 1650
