NVS 310 vs GeForce GTX 1650

NVS 310

2015Core: 902 MHzBoost: 1033 MHz

GeForce GTX 1650

2019Core: 1485 MHzBoost: 1665 MHz

Performance Spectrum - GPU

NVS 310

275

0.0%

GeForce RTX 2060 with Max-Q Design

GeForce GTX 1070 Ti

GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU

GeForce GTX 1650

7,869

+2761.5%

GeForce GTX 880M SLI

GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448

GeForce GTX 960

GeForce GTX 1650 (móvel)

GeForce RTX 3050 OEM

GeForce GTX 1080

GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER

GeForce RTX 3070 Ti

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. The NVS 310 is positioned at rank #305 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Lower cost-benefit for your build. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.•
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar NVS 310

#116

Radeon Pro SSG

MSRP: $6999|Avg: $1500

91%

#290

Tesla K20m

MSRP: $3199|Avg: $55

8539%

#305

NVS 310

MSRP: $159|Avg: $10

100%

#306

GRID M60-2Q

MSRP: $3000|Avg: $150

100%

#308

FirePro 3D V3750

MSRP: $199|Avg: $25

99%

#309

NVS 810

MSRP: $700|Avg: $80

98%

#310

GRID P40-2Q

MSRP: $5699|Avg: $340

97%

#311

Quadro 2000D

MSRP: $599|Avg: $40

95%

#312

FirePro 3D V8800

MSRP: $1499|Avg: $30

94%

#313

Quadro K5000

MSRP: $2499|Avg: $60

92%

#314

Quadro 2000

MSRP: $599|Avg: $25

91%

#315

FirePro S7150

MSRP: $2399|Avg: $459

91%

#317

FirePro W9000

MSRP: $3999|Avg: $150

89%

#318

GRID M60-4Q

MSRP: $2500|Avg: $120

88%

#319

FirePro V8800

MSRP: $1499|Avg: $100

88%

#320

Quadro K6000

MSRP: $5265|Avg: $300

88%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Per Dollar

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

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 NVS 310 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 2761.5% higher G3D Mark score and 700% more VRAM (4 GB vs 512 MB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the NVS 310.

Insight	NVS 310	GeForce GTX 1650
Performance	❌Lower raw frame rates (-2761.5%)	✅Leading raw performance (+2761.5%)
Longevity	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell (2014−2017))	Turing (2018−2022) (12nm)
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	❌ Less VRAM capacity	✅ More VRAM (+700%)
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. Although it costs $75 (vs $10), its significant performance lead justifies the premium, offering 281.5% better value per dollar than the NVS 310.

Insight	NVS 310	GeForce GTX 1650
Cost Efficiency	❌Lower cost efficiency	✅Better overall value (+281.5%)
Upfront Cost	✅More affordable ($10)	⚠️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.

NVS 310 Benchmark Check

GeForce GTX 1650 Benchmark Check

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of NVS 310 and GeForce GTX 1650

NVS 310

The NVS 310 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in November 4 2015. It features the Maxwell architecture. The core clock ranges from 902 MHz to 1033 MHz. It has 512 ×2 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 68W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 275 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 NVS 310 scores 275 versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 7,869 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 2761.5%. The NVS 310 is built on Maxwell while the GeForce GTX 1650 uses Turing, both on 28 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 512 (NVS 310) vs 896 (GeForce GTX 1650). Raw compute: 1.058 TFLOPS ×2 (NVS 310) vs 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650). Boost clocks: 1033 MHz vs 1665 MHz.

Feature	NVS 310	GeForce GTX 1650
G3D Mark Score	275	7,869+2761%
Architecture	Maxwell	Turing
Process Node	28 nm	12 nm
Shading Units	512 ×2	896+75%
Compute (TFLOPS)	1.058 TFLOPS ×2	2.984 TFLOPS+182%
Boost Clock	1033 MHz	1665 MHz+61%
ROPs	16 ×2	32+100%
TMUs	32 ×2	56+75%
L1 Cache	256 KB	896 KB+250%
L2 Cache	1 MB	1 MB

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	NVS 310	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 NVS 310 comes with 512 MB of VRAM, while the GeForce GTX 1650 has 4 GB. The GeForce GTX 1650 offers 700% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 128-bit.

Feature	NVS 310	GeForce GTX 1650
VRAM Capacity	0.5 GB	4 GB+700%
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Bus Width	64-bit	128-bit+100%
L2 Cache	1 MB	1 MB

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (11_0) (NVS 310) vs 12 (GeForce GTX 1650). OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 3.

Feature	NVS 310	GeForce GTX 1650
DirectX	12 (11_0)	12
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
Max Displays	2	3+50%

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: Fermi NVENC (NVS 310) vs NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650). Decoder: VP4 vs NVDEC 4th gen. Supported codecs: H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1 (NVS 310) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650).

Feature	NVS 310	GeForce GTX 1650
Encoder	Fermi NVENC	NVENC 5th gen (Volta)
Decoder	VP4	NVDEC 4th gen
Codecs	H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1	H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The NVS 310 draws 68W versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 75W — a 9.8% difference. The NVS 310 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (NVS 310) vs 300W (GeForce GTX 1650). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs None. Card length: 145mm vs 229mm, occupying 1 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 75°C vs 70°C.

Feature	NVS 310	GeForce GTX 1650
TDP	68W-9%	75W
Recommended PSU	350W	300W-14%
Power Connector	PCIe-powered	None
Length	145mm	229mm
Height	69mm	111mm
Slots	1-50%	2
Temp (Load)	75°C	70°C-7%
Perf/Watt	4.0	104.9+2523%

💰

Value Analysis

The NVS 310 launched at $159 MSRP and currently averages $10, while the GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 and now averages $75. The NVS 310 costs 86.7% less ($65 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 27.5 (NVS 310) vs 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 281.5% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2015).