RTX A2000 vs GeForce GTX 1650

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.

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

Performance Per Dollar RTX A2000

#9

Intel Arc Pro B50

MSRP: $349|Avg: $349

117%

#11

Quadro RTX 4000 (móvel)

MSRP: $900|Avg: $300

111%

#16

Radeon PRO W7500

MSRP: $429|Avg: $401

104%

#18

Radeon Pro V520 MxGPU

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $340

102%

#19

RTX A2000 12GB

MSRP: $449|Avg: $380

102%

#20

Radeon Pro Vega 56

MSRP: $399|Avg: $60

101%

#21

RTX A2000

MSRP: $450|Avg: $320

100%

#23

Intel Arc Pro B60

MSRP: $500|Avg: $450

92%

#24

Radeon PRO W7600

MSRP: $599|Avg: $599

92%

#25

RTX 2000 Ada Generation

MSRP: $625|Avg: $750

92%

#26

Radeon Pro Vega 48

MSRP: $450|Avg: $450

84%

#27

Radeon Pro 5700 XT

MSRP: $500|Avg: $280

83%

#28

Quadro P5200

MSRP: $500|Avg: $240

78%

#29

Radeon PRO W7700

MSRP: $999|Avg: $999

77%

#30

Radeon PRO W6600

MSRP: $649|Avg: $649

77%

#32

Radeon AI PRO R9700

MSRP: $1299|Avg: $1450

74%

#33

Radeon Pro Vega 64

MSRP: $599|Avg: $114

72%

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

🚀 Performance Leadership

The RTX A2000 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 71.1% 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	RTX A2000	GeForce GTX 1650
Performance	✅Leading raw performance (+71.1%)	❌Lower raw frame rates (-71.1%)
Longevity	🔮Strong Longevity (Ampere (2020−2025) / 8nm)	Turing (2018−2022) (12nm)
Ecosystem	✨ DLSS 2 Upscaling	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	🎮 High Capacity (8 GB)	❌ Less VRAM capacity
Efficiency	💡 Excellent Perf/Watt	⚡ Higher Power Consumption
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 $320 for the RTX A2000, it costs 77% less. While it maintains lower overall performance, this results in a 149.4% higher cost efficiency score.

Insight	RTX A2000	GeForce GTX 1650
Cost Efficiency	❌Lower cost efficiency	✅Better overall value (+149.4%)
Upfront Cost	⚠️Higher upfront cost ($320)	✅More affordable ($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.

RTX A2000 Benchmark Check

GeForce GTX 1650 Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of RTX A2000 and GeForce GTX 1650

RTX A2000

The RTX A2000 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in August 10 2021. It features the Ampere architecture. The core clock ranges from 562 MHz to 1200 MHz. It has 3328 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 70W. Manufactured using 8 nm process technology. It features 26 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 13,464 points. Launch price was $449.

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 RTX A2000 scores 13,464 versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 7,869 — the RTX A2000 leads by 71.1%. The RTX A2000 is built on Ampere while the GeForce GTX 1650 uses Turing, both on 8 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 3,328 (RTX A2000) vs 896 (GeForce GTX 1650). Raw compute: 7.987 TFLOPS (RTX A2000) vs 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650). Boost clocks: 1200 MHz vs 1665 MHz.

Feature	RTX A2000	GeForce GTX 1650
G3D Mark Score	13,464+71%	7,869
Architecture	Ampere	Turing
Process Node	8 nm	12 nm
Shading Units	3328+271%	896
Compute (TFLOPS)	7.987 TFLOPS+168%	2.984 TFLOPS
Boost Clock	1200 MHz	1665 MHz+39%
ROPs	48+50%	32
TMUs	104+86%	56
L1 Cache	3.3 MB+275%	0.88 MB
L2 Cache	3 MB+200%	1 MB

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	RTX A2000	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	NVIDIA Reflex	Standard

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

The RTX A2000 comes with 8 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce GTX 1650 has 4 GB. The RTX A2000 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 3 MB (RTX A2000) vs 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) — the RTX A2000 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	RTX A2000	GeForce GTX 1650
VRAM Capacity	8 GB+100%	4 GB
Memory Type	GDDR6	GDDR5
Bus Width	128-bit	128-bit
L2 Cache	3 MB+200%	1 MB

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12.2 (RTX A2000) vs 12 (GeForce GTX 1650). Vulkan: 1.3 vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 6 vs 3.

Feature	RTX A2000	GeForce GTX 1650
DirectX	12.2+2%	12
Vulkan	1.3	1.4+8%
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
Max Displays	6+100%	3

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: 7th Gen NVENC (RTX A2000) vs NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650). Decoder: 5th Gen NVDEC vs NVDEC 4th gen. Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 (Decode) (RTX A2000) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650).

Feature	RTX A2000	GeForce GTX 1650
Encoder	7th Gen NVENC	NVENC 5th gen (Volta)
Decoder	5th Gen NVDEC	NVDEC 4th gen
Codecs	MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 (Decode)	H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The RTX A2000 draws 70W versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 75W — a 6.9% difference. The RTX A2000 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 500W (RTX A2000) vs 300W (GeForce GTX 1650). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs None. Card length: 167mm vs 229mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 75°C vs 70°C.

Feature	RTX A2000	GeForce GTX 1650
TDP	70W-7%	75W
Recommended PSU	500W	300W-40%
Power Connector	PCIe-powered	None
Length	167mm	229mm
Height	68mm	111mm
Slots	2	2
Temp (Load)	75°C	70°C-7%
Perf/Watt	192.3+83%	104.9

💰

Value Analysis

The RTX A2000 launched at $450 MSRP and currently averages $320, while the GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 and now averages $75. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 76.6% less ($245 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 42.1 (RTX A2000) vs 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 149.2% better value. The RTX A2000 is the newer GPU (2021 vs 2019).