TITAN RTX vs GeForce GTX 1650
TITAN RTX
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 TITAN RTX is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 155.4% higher G3D Mark score and 500% more VRAM (24 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 | TITAN RTX | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+155.4%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-155.4%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2018 / Turing (2018−2022)) | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) |
| Ecosystem | ✨ DLSS 2 Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+500%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | Standard Size (267mm) | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GTX 1650 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $75 versus $1,203.96 for the TITAN RTX, it costs 94% less. While it maintains significantly lower raw performance, this results in a 528.6% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | TITAN RTX | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+528.6%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($1,203.96) | ✅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 TITAN RTX and GeForce GTX 1650
TITAN RTX
The TITAN RTX is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in December 18 2018. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 1350 MHz to 1770 MHz. It has 4608 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 280W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. It features 72 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 20,095 points. Launch price was $2,499.
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 TITAN RTX scores 20,095 versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 7,869 — the TITAN RTX leads by 155.4%. The TITAN RTX is built on Turing while the GeForce GTX 1650 uses Turing, both on a 12 nm process. Shader units: 4,608 (TITAN RTX) vs 896 (GeForce GTX 1650). Raw compute: 16.31 TFLOPS (TITAN RTX) vs 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650). Boost clocks: 1770 MHz vs 1665 MHz.
| Feature | TITAN RTX | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 20,095+155% | 7,869 |
| Architecture | Turing | Turing |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 4608+414% | 896 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 16.31 TFLOPS+447% | 2.984 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1770 MHz+6% | 1665 MHz |
| ROPs | 96+200% | 32 |
| TMUs | 288+414% | 56 |
| L1 Cache | 4.5 MB+411% | 0.88 MB |
| L2 Cache | 6 MB+500% | 1 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | TITAN RTX | 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 TITAN RTX comes with 24 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce GTX 1650 has 4 GB. The TITAN RTX offers 500% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 672 GB/s (TITAN RTX) vs 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) — a 425% advantage for the TITAN RTX. Bus width: 384-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 6 MB (TITAN RTX) vs 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) — the TITAN RTX has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | TITAN RTX | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 24 GB+500% | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 672 GB/s+425% | 128 GB/s |
| Bus Width | 384-bit+200% | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 6 MB+500% | 1 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 Ultimate (TITAN RTX) vs 12 (GeForce GTX 1650). Vulkan: 1.3 vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 3.
| Feature | TITAN RTX | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate | 12 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.4+8% |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 4+33% | 3 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC (7th Gen) (TITAN RTX) vs NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650). Decoder: NVDEC (4th Gen) vs NVDEC 4th gen. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265,VP9,AV1 (TITAN RTX) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650).
| Feature | TITAN RTX | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC (7th Gen) | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) |
| Decoder | NVDEC (4th Gen) | NVDEC 4th gen |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265,VP9,AV1 | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The TITAN RTX draws 280W versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 75W — a 115.5% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 650W (TITAN RTX) vs 300W (GeForce GTX 1650). Power connectors: 2x 8-pin vs None. Card length: 267mm vs 229mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 80 vs 70°C.
| Feature | TITAN RTX | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 280W | 75W-73% |
| Recommended PSU | 650W | 300W-54% |
| Power Connector | 2x 8-pin | None |
| Length | 267mm | 229mm |
| Height | 116mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 2 | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 80 | 70°C-13% |
| Perf/Watt | 71.8 | 104.9+46% |
Value Analysis
The TITAN RTX launched at $2499 MSRP and currently averages $1203.96, while the GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 and now averages $75. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 93.8% less ($1129 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 16.7 (TITAN RTX) vs 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 528.1% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2018).
| Feature | TITAN RTX | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $2499 | $149-94% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $1203.96 | $75-94% |
| Performance per Dollar | 16.7 | 104.9+528% |
| Codename | TU102 | TU117 |
| Release | December 18 2018 | April 23 2019 |
| Ranking | #91 | #323 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on TITAN RTX and GeForce GTX 1650
