
GeForce GTX 760
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.
Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook
This comparison brings together gaming FPS, raw graphics performance, VRAM, feature set, power efficiency, pricing context, and long-term value so you can see which GPU actually makes more sense.
GeForce GTX 760
2013Why buy it
- ✅Competitive enough if your priority is price, power, or specific feature preference.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower average FPS than GeForce GTX 1650 across 49 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ❌Very weak future-proofing: 2013-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
- ❌67.1% HIGHER MSRP$249 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 19.3 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($249 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
- ❌126.7% higher power demand at 170W vs 75W.
GeForce GTX 1650
2019Why buy it
- ✅49.5% more average FPS across 49 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ✅Costs $100 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $249 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 173.2% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 19.3 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $249 MSRP).
- ✅Less risky long-term buy than GeForce GTX 760: it remains the more sensible modern option while GeForce GTX 760 is already obsolete for modern gaming.
- ✅Draws 75W instead of 170W, a 95W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.
GeForce GTX 760
2013GeForce GTX 1650
2019Why buy it
- ✅Competitive enough if your priority is price, power, or specific feature preference.
Why buy it
- ✅49.5% more average FPS across 49 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ✅Costs $100 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $249 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 173.2% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 19.3 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $249 MSRP).
- ✅Less risky long-term buy than GeForce GTX 760: it remains the more sensible modern option while GeForce GTX 760 is already obsolete for modern gaming.
- ✅Draws 75W instead of 170W, a 95W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower average FPS than GeForce GTX 1650 across 49 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ❌Very weak future-proofing: 2013-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
- ❌67.1% HIGHER MSRP$249 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 19.3 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($249 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
- ❌126.7% higher power demand at 170W vs 75W.
Trade-offs
- ❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.
Quick Answers
So, is GeForce GTX 1650 better than GeForce GTX 760?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper card?
Is GeForce GTX 760 still worth buying for gaming in 2026?
Games Benchmarks
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 9800X3D 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.

Path of Exile 2
| Preset | GeForce GTX 760 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 78 FPS | 94 FPS |
| medium | 66 FPS | 83 FPS |
| high | 53 FPS | 70 FPS |
| ultra | 35 FPS | 58 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 68 FPS | 87 FPS |
| medium | 60 FPS | 74 FPS |
| high | 42 FPS | 60 FPS |
| ultra | 27 FPS | 50 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 25 FPS | 41 FPS |
| medium | 23 FPS | 39 FPS |
| high | 15 FPS | 27 FPS |
| ultra | 13 FPS | 24 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | GeForce GTX 760 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 124 FPS | 136 FPS |
| medium | 89 FPS | 113 FPS |
| high | 66 FPS | 94 FPS |
| ultra | 41 FPS | 71 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 68 FPS | 79 FPS |
| medium | 45 FPS | 62 FPS |
| high | 32 FPS | 44 FPS |
| ultra | 22 FPS | 35 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 26 FPS | 36 FPS |
| medium | 17 FPS | 27 FPS |
| high | 13 FPS | 21 FPS |
| ultra | 9 FPS | 15 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | GeForce GTX 760 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 217 FPS | 323 FPS |
| medium | 173 FPS | 283 FPS |
| high | 144 FPS | 205 FPS |
| ultra | 108 FPS | 169 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 162 FPS | 225 FPS |
| medium | 130 FPS | 202 FPS |
| high | 108 FPS | 151 FPS |
| ultra | 81 FPS | 117 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 108 FPS | 130 FPS |
| medium | 87 FPS | 117 FPS |
| high | 72 FPS | 79 FPS |
| ultra | 54 FPS | 50 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | GeForce GTX 760 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 150 FPS | 261 FPS |
| medium | 110 FPS | 211 FPS |
| high | 94 FPS | 191 FPS |
| ultra | 77 FPS | 166 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 117 FPS | 201 FPS |
| medium | 88 FPS | 158 FPS |
| high | 75 FPS | 135 FPS |
| ultra | 57 FPS | 113 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 68 FPS | 99 FPS |
| medium | 48 FPS | 74 FPS |
| high | 38 FPS | 65 FPS |
| ultra | 26 FPS | 51 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 760 and GeForce GTX 1650

GeForce GTX 760
GeForce GTX 760
The GeForce GTX 760 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in June 25 2013. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock ranges from 980 MHz to 1033 MHz. It has 1152 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 170W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 4,813 points. Launch price was $249.

GeForce GTX 1650
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 GeForce GTX 760 scores 4,813 versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 7,869 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 63.5%. The GeForce GTX 760 is built on Kepler while the GeForce GTX 1650 uses Turing, both on 28 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 1,152 (GeForce GTX 760) vs 896 (GeForce GTX 1650). Raw compute: 2.378 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 760) vs 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650). Boost clocks: 1033 MHz vs 1665 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 760 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 4,813 | 7,869+63% |
| Architecture | Kepler | Turing |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 1152+29% | 896 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.378 TFLOPS | 2.984 TFLOPS+25% |
| Boost Clock | 1033 MHz | 1665 MHz+61% |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 96+71% | 56 |
| L1 Cache | 96 KB | 896 KB+833% |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 1 MB+100% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce GTX 760 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | Upscaling support | Upscaling support |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | NVIDIA Reflex | NVIDIA Reflex |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 4 GB of GDDR5. Memory bandwidth: 192 GB/s (GeForce GTX 760) vs 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) — a 50% advantage for the GeForce GTX 760. Bus width: 256-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 0.5 MB (GeForce GTX 760) vs 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 760 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 192 GB/s+50% | 128 GB/s |
| Bus Width | 256-bit+100% | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 1 MB+100% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (11_0) (GeForce GTX 760) vs 12 (GeForce GTX 1650). Vulkan: 1.2 vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.3 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 3.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 760 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | 1.4+17% |
| OpenGL | 4.3 | 4.6+7% |
| Max Displays | 4+33% | 3 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 1st gen (GeForce GTX 760) vs NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650). Decoder: NVDEC 1st gen vs NVDEC 4th gen. Supported codecs: H.264 (GeForce GTX 760) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 760 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 1st gen | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) |
| Decoder | NVDEC 1st gen | NVDEC 4th gen |
| Codecs | H.264 | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 760 draws 170W versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 75W — a 77.6% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 500W (GeForce GTX 760) vs 300W (GeForce GTX 1650). Power connectors: 2x 6-pin vs None. Card length: 241mm vs 229mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 80°C vs 70°C.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 760 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 170W | 75W-56% |
| Recommended PSU | 500W | 300W-40% |
| Power Connector | 2x 6-pin | None |
| Length | 241mm | 229mm |
| Height | 111mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 2 | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 80°C | 70°C-13% |
| Perf/Watt | 28.3 | 104.9+271% |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 760 launched at $249 MSRP, while the GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 40.2% less ($100 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 19.3 (GeForce GTX 760) vs 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 173.6% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2013).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 760 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $249 | $149-40% |
| Performance per Dollar | 19.3 | 52.8+174% |
| Codename | GK104 | TU117 |
| Release | June 25 2013 | April 23 2019 |
| Ranking | #450 | #323 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.












