Iris Plus Graphics G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU) vs GeForce GTX 1650
Iris Plus Graphics G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU)
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
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GTX 1650 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 293.4% 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 G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU).
| Insight | Iris Plus Graphics G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU) | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-293.4%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+293.4%) |
| Longevity | Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022) (10nm) | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+100+%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | — | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The Iris Plus Graphics G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU) offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $15 versus $75 for the GeForce GTX 1650, it costs 80% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 27.1% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Iris Plus Graphics G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU) | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+27.1%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| 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 G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU) and GeForce GTX 1650
Iris Plus Graphics G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU)
The Iris Plus Graphics G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU) is manufactured by Intel. It was released in May 28 2019. It features the Gen. 11 Ice Lake architecture. The core clock ranges from 300 MHz to 1100 MHz. It has 64 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 12W. Manufactured using 10 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,000 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 G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU) scores 2,000 versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 7,869 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 293.4%. The Iris Plus Graphics G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU) is built on Gen. 11 Ice Lake while the GeForce GTX 1650 uses Turing, both on 10 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 64 (Iris Plus Graphics G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU)) vs 896 (GeForce GTX 1650). Boost clocks: 1100 MHz vs 1665 MHz.
| Feature | Iris Plus Graphics G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU) | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 2,000 | 7,869+293% |
| Architecture | Gen. 11 Ice Lake | Turing |
| Process Node | 10 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 64 | 896+1300% |
| Boost Clock | 1100 MHz | 1665 MHz+51% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Iris Plus Graphics G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU) | 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 G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU) 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 G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU) | 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 G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU)) 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 G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU) | 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 G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU)) vs NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650). Decoder: QuickSync vs NVDEC 4th gen. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265,VP9 (Iris Plus Graphics G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU)) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650).
| Feature | Iris Plus Graphics G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU) | 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 G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU) draws 12W versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 75W — a 144.8% difference. The Iris Plus Graphics G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU) is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 1W (Iris Plus Graphics G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU)) 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 G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU) | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 12W-84% | 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 | 166.7+59% | 104.9 |
Value Analysis
The Iris Plus Graphics G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU) launched at $0 MSRP and currently averages $15, while the GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 and now averages $75. The Iris Plus Graphics G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU) costs 80% less ($60 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 133.3 (Iris Plus Graphics G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU)) vs 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) — the Iris Plus Graphics G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU) offers 27.1% better value.
| Feature | Iris Plus Graphics G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU) | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $0-100% | $149 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $15-80% | $75 |
| Performance per Dollar | 133.3+27% | 104.9 |
| Codename | Ice Lake G7 Gen. 11 | TU117 |
| Release | May 28 2019 | April 23 2019 |
| Ranking | #672 | #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 G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU) and GeForce GTX 1650
