RTX A400 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. The RTX A400 is positioned at rank #26 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Great 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 RTX A400

#9

Intel Arc Pro B50

MSRP: $349|Avg: $349

79%

#11

Tesla K20m

MSRP: $3199|Avg: $55

333%

#11

Quadro RTX 4000 (móvel)

MSRP: $900|Avg: $300

75%

#16

Radeon PRO W7500

MSRP: $429|Avg: $401

70%

#18

Radeon Pro V520 MxGPU

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $340

69%

#19

RTX A2000 12GB

MSRP: $449|Avg: $380

69%

#20

Radeon Pro Vega 56

MSRP: $399|Avg: $60

68%

#26

RTX A400

MSRP: $135|Avg: $135

100%

#29

Radeon Pro 5500 XT

MSRP: $199|Avg: $100

90%

#33

Radeon PRO W6400

MSRP: $229|Avg: $200

83%

#36

T600

MSRP: $200|Avg: $180

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 GeForce GTX 1650 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 31.5% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the RTX A400.

Insight	RTX A400	GeForce GTX 1650
Performance	❌Lower raw frame rates (-31.5%)	✅Leading raw performance (+31.5%)
Longevity	🏆Elite Architecture (Ampere (2020−2025) / 8nm)	Turing (2018−2022) (12nm)
Ecosystem	✨ DLSS 3/4 + Frame Gen Support	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	❌ Less VRAM capacity	✅ More VRAM (+0%)
Efficiency	Normal Efficiency	Normal Efficiency
Case Fit	—	📏 Compact / SFF Friendly

💎 Value Proposition

The GeForce GTX 1650 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $75 versus $135 for the RTX A400, it costs 44% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 136.7% higher cost efficiency score.

Insight	RTX A400	GeForce GTX 1650
Cost Efficiency	❌Lower cost efficiency	✅Better overall value (+136.7%)
Upfront Cost	⚠️Higher upfront cost ($135)	✅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 A400 Benchmark Check

GeForce GTX 1650 Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of RTX A400 and GeForce GTX 1650

RTX A400

The RTX A400 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in April 16 2024. It features the Ampere architecture. The core clock ranges from 727 MHz to 1762 MHz. It has 768 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 8 nm process technology. It features 6 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 5,983 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 RTX A400 scores 5,983 versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 7,869 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 31.5%. The RTX A400 is built on Ampere while the GeForce GTX 1650 uses Turing, both on 8 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 768 (RTX A400) vs 896 (GeForce GTX 1650). Raw compute: 2.706 TFLOPS (RTX A400) vs 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650). Boost clocks: 1762 MHz vs 1665 MHz.

Feature	RTX A400	GeForce GTX 1650
G3D Mark Score	5,983	7,869+32%
Architecture	Ampere	Turing
Process Node	8 nm	12 nm
Shading Units	768	896+17%
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.706 TFLOPS	2.984 TFLOPS+10%
Boost Clock	1762 MHz+6%	1665 MHz
ROPs	16	32+100%
TMUs	24	56+133%

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	RTX A400	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)

Both cards feature 4 GB of video memory. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit.

Feature	RTX A400	GeForce GTX 1650
VRAM Capacity	4 GB	4 GB
Memory Type	GDDR6	GDDR5
Bus Width	128-bit	128-bit

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The RTX A400 draws 50W versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 75W — a 40% difference. The RTX A400 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (RTX A400) vs 300W (GeForce GTX 1650). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs None.

Feature	RTX A400	GeForce GTX 1650
TDP	50W-33%	75W
Recommended PSU	350W	300W-14%
Power Connector	PCIe-powered	None
Length	—	229mm
Height	—	111mm
Slots	—	2
Temp (Load)	—	70°C
Perf/Watt	119.7+14%	104.9

💰

Value Analysis

The RTX A400 launched at $135 MSRP and currently averages $135, while the GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 and now averages $75. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 44.4% less ($60 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 44.3 (RTX A400) vs 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 136.8% better value. The RTX A400 is the newer GPU (2024 vs 2019).