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 970XM FORCE

2014

Why buy it

✅Competitive enough if your priority is price, power, or specific feature preference.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (6,707 vs 7,869).
❌Poor future-proofing: 2014-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 52.8 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
❌16.6% longer card at 267mm vs 229mm.

GeForce GTX 1650

2019

Why buy it

✅+17.3% higher PassMark G3D performance.
✅Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 0 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).
✅Less risky long-term buy than GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE: it remains the more sensible modern option while GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE is already legacy-tier future-proofing.
✅Measures 229mm instead of 267mm, a 38mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.

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 970XM FORCE

2014

GeForce GTX 1650

2019

Why buy it

✅Competitive enough if your priority is price, power, or specific feature preference.

Why buy it

✅+17.3% higher PassMark G3D performance.
✅Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 0 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).
✅Less risky long-term buy than GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE: it remains the more sensible modern option while GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE is already legacy-tier future-proofing.
✅Measures 229mm instead of 267mm, a 38mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (6,707 vs 7,869).
❌Poor future-proofing: 2014-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 52.8 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
❌16.6% longer card at 267mm vs 229mm.

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 970XM FORCE?

Yes, but this is not really about a huge raw performance gap. The broader synthetic picture is also very close at 6,707 vs 7,869 in G3D Mark. The bigger reason to prefer GeForce GTX 1650 is the overall package: you are getting a newer generation, no meaningful modern upscaling stack.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

GeForce GTX 1650 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer 2019 generation instead of 2014, 17.3% more raw performance headroom, and a 12nm process instead of 28nm. That extra performance headroom should help it hold higher settings and newer game demands for longer.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper card?

GeForce GTX 1650 is the smarter buy today, but it is not as lopsided as a simple winner label makes it sound. GeForce GTX 1650 is priced in an unclear MSRP range at $149 MSRP versus an unclear MSRP, and you are getting 17.3% higher G3D Mark. It also leads G3D-per-dollar by 100+%. That is why the better overall card still comes out as the smarter buy today, not just the faster one.

Is GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE still worth buying for gaming in 2026?

Yes. GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE is still a strong modern gaming GPU: it is still comfortable for 1080p and decent for 1440p, though 4K is more situational. It remains a good buy when you can get it meaningfully cheaper than the alternative around an unclear MSRP, even if GeForce GTX 1650 is still the cleaner recommendation on overall value today.

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.

GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE Benchmark Check

GeForce GTX 1650 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE	GeForce GTX 1650
1080p
low	100 FPS	94 FPS
medium	85 FPS	83 FPS
high	68 FPS	70 FPS
ultra	41 FPS	58 FPS
1440p
low	87 FPS	87 FPS
medium	75 FPS	74 FPS
high	54 FPS	60 FPS
ultra	31 FPS	50 FPS
4K
low	28 FPS	41 FPS
medium	26 FPS	39 FPS
high	17 FPS	27 FPS
ultra	15 FPS	24 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE Open GeForce GTX 1650

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE	GeForce GTX 1650
1080p
low	166 FPS	136 FPS
medium	135 FPS	113 FPS
high	108 FPS	94 FPS
ultra	74 FPS	71 FPS
1440p
low	113 FPS	79 FPS
medium	86 FPS	62 FPS
high	68 FPS	44 FPS
ultra	46 FPS	35 FPS
4K
low	48 FPS	36 FPS
medium	39 FPS	27 FPS
high	35 FPS	21 FPS
ultra	26 FPS	15 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE Open GeForce GTX 1650

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE	GeForce GTX 1650
1080p
low	302 FPS	323 FPS
medium	241 FPS	283 FPS
high	201 FPS	205 FPS
ultra	151 FPS	169 FPS
1440p
low	226 FPS	225 FPS
medium	181 FPS	202 FPS
high	151 FPS	151 FPS
ultra	113 FPS	117 FPS
4K
low	151 FPS	130 FPS
medium	121 FPS	117 FPS
high	101 FPS	79 FPS
ultra	75 FPS	50 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE Open GeForce GTX 1650

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE	GeForce GTX 1650
1080p
low	167 FPS	261 FPS
medium	137 FPS	211 FPS
high	123 FPS	191 FPS
ultra	96 FPS	166 FPS
1440p
low	117 FPS	201 FPS
medium	98 FPS	158 FPS
high	88 FPS	135 FPS
ultra	67 FPS	113 FPS
4K
low	69 FPS	99 FPS
medium	54 FPS	74 FPS
high	44 FPS	65 FPS
ultra	31 FPS	51 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE Open GeForce GTX 1650

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE and GeForce GTX 1650

GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE

The GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in October 7 2014. It features the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 924 MHz to 1038 MHz. It has 1280 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 81W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 6,707 points. Launch price was $2,560.89.

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 970XM FORCE scores 6,707 versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 7,869 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 17.3%. The GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE is built on Maxwell 2.0 while the GeForce GTX 1650 uses Turing, both on 28 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 1,280 (GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE) vs 896 (GeForce GTX 1650). Raw compute: 2.657 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE) vs 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650). Boost clocks: 1038 MHz vs 1665 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE	GeForce GTX 1650
G3D Mark Score	6,707	7,869+17%
Architecture	Maxwell 2.0	Turing
Process Node	28 nm	12 nm
Shading Units	1280+43%	896
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.657 TFLOPS	2.984 TFLOPS+12%
Boost Clock	1038 MHz	1665 MHz+60%
ROPs	48+50%	32
TMUs	80+43%	56
L1 Cache	480 KB	896 KB+87%
L2 Cache	1.5 MB+50%	1 MB

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE	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: 120 GB/s (GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE) vs 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) — a 6.7% advantage for the GeForce GTX 1650. Bus width: 192-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 1.5 MB (GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE) vs 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE	GeForce GTX 1650
VRAM Capacity	4 GB	4 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Memory Bandwidth	120 GB/s	128 GB/s+7%
Bus Width	192-bit+50%	128-bit
L2 Cache	1.5 MB+50%	1 MB

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (12_1) (GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE) vs 12 (GeForce GTX 1650). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 3.

Feature	GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE	GeForce GTX 1650
DirectX	12 (12_1)	12
Vulkan	1.4	1.4
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
Max Displays	4+33%	3

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: 5th Gen NVENC (Maxwell) (GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE) vs NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650). Decoder: 1st Gen NVDEC vs NVDEC 4th gen. Supported codecs: H.264,HEVC,VC-1,MPEG-2 (GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650).

Feature	GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE	GeForce GTX 1650
Encoder	5th Gen NVENC (Maxwell)	NVENC 5th gen (Volta)
Decoder	1st Gen NVDEC	NVDEC 4th gen
Codecs	H.264,HEVC,VC-1,MPEG-2	H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE draws 81W versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 75W — a 7.7% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE) vs 300W (GeForce GTX 1650). Power connectors: 1x 6-pin vs None. Card length: 267mm vs 229mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 75°C vs 70°C.

Feature	GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE	GeForce GTX 1650
TDP	81W	75W-7%
Recommended PSU	350W	300W-14%
Power Connector	1x 6-pin	None
Length	267mm	229mm
Height	111mm	111mm
Slots	2	2
Temp (Load)	75°C	70°C-7%
Perf/Watt	82.8	104.9+27%