CPU
GPU
T400
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. The T400 is positioned at rank #80 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Balanced cost-benefit for your build. 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 T400
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 118% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the T400.
| Insight | T400 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-118%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+118%) |
| Longevity | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | 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 $179 for the T400, it costs 58% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 420.4% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | T400 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+420.4%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($179) | ✅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.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of T400 and GeForce GTX 1650
T400
The T400 is manufactured by an unknown manufacturer. It was released in May 6 2021. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 420 MHz to 1425 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 30W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3,609 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 T400 scores 3,609 versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 7,869 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 118%. The T400 is built on Turing while the GeForce GTX 1650 uses Turing, both on a 12 nm process. Shader units: 384 (T400) vs 896 (GeForce GTX 1650). Raw compute: 1.094 TFLOPS (T400) vs 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650). Boost clocks: 1425 MHz vs 1665 MHz.
| Feature | T400 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 3,609 | 7,869+118% |
| Architecture | Turing | Turing |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 384 | 896+133% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.094 TFLOPS | 2.984 TFLOPS+173% |
| Boost Clock | 1425 MHz | 1665 MHz+17% |
| ROPs | 16 | 32+100% |
| TMUs | 24 | 56+133% |
| L1 Cache | 384 KB | 896 KB+133% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | T400 | 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)
Both cards feature 4 GB of GDDR5. Bus width: 64-bit vs 128-bit.
| Feature | T400 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 128-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1 MB |
Power & Dimensions
The T400 draws 30W versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 75W — a 85.7% difference. The T400 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (T400) vs 300W (GeForce GTX 1650). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs None.
| Feature | T400 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 30W-60% | 75W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 300W-14% |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | None |
| Length | — | 229mm |
| Height | — | 111mm |
| Slots | — | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | — | 70°C |
| Perf/Watt | 120.3+15% | 104.9 |
Value Analysis
The T400 launched at $180 MSRP and currently averages $179, while the GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 and now averages $75. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 58.1% less ($104 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 20.2 (T400) vs 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 419.3% better value. The T400 is the newer GPU (2021 vs 2019).
| Feature | T400 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $180 | $149-17% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $179 | $75-58% |
| Performance per Dollar | 20.2 | 104.9+419% |
| Codename | TU117 | TU117 |
| Release | May 6 2021 | April 23 2019 |
| Ranking | #532 | #323 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on T400 and GeForce GTX 1650
