
CMP 40HX
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.
CMP 40HX
2021Why buy it
- ✅+11.2% higher PassMark G3D performance.
- ✅More future proof: Turing (2018−2022) on 12nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
- ✅More future proof: Turing (2018−2022) on 12nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
Trade-offs
- ❌369.1% HIGHER MSRP$699 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 12.5 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($699 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
- ❌146.7% higher power demand at 185W vs 75W.
GeForce GTX 1650
2019Why buy it
- ✅Costs $550 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $699 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 321.9% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 12.5 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $699 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 75W instead of 185W, a 110W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (7,869 vs 8,749).
- ❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.
CMP 40HX
2021GeForce GTX 1650
2019Why buy it
- ✅+11.2% higher PassMark G3D performance.
- ✅More future proof: Turing (2018−2022) on 12nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
- ✅More future proof: Turing (2018−2022) on 12nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
Why buy it
- ✅Costs $550 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $699 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 321.9% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 12.5 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $699 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 75W instead of 185W, a 110W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌369.1% HIGHER MSRP$699 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 12.5 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($699 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
- ❌146.7% higher power demand at 185W vs 75W.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (7,869 vs 8,749).
- ❌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 CMP 40HX better than GeForce GTX 1650?
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 1650 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 | CMP 40HX | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 146 FPS | 94 FPS |
| medium | 135 FPS | 83 FPS |
| high | 114 FPS | 70 FPS |
| ultra | 86 FPS | 58 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 129 FPS | 87 FPS |
| medium | 111 FPS | 74 FPS |
| high | 92 FPS | 60 FPS |
| ultra | 72 FPS | 50 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 58 FPS | 41 FPS |
| medium | 51 FPS | 39 FPS |
| high | 41 FPS | 27 FPS |
| ultra | 37 FPS | 24 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | CMP 40HX | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 313 FPS | 136 FPS |
| medium | 255 FPS | 113 FPS |
| high | 208 FPS | 94 FPS |
| ultra | 176 FPS | 71 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 212 FPS | 79 FPS |
| medium | 170 FPS | 62 FPS |
| high | 141 FPS | 44 FPS |
| ultra | 115 FPS | 35 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 116 FPS | 36 FPS |
| medium | 95 FPS | 27 FPS |
| high | 78 FPS | 21 FPS |
| ultra | 59 FPS | 15 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | CMP 40HX | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 394 FPS | 323 FPS |
| medium | 315 FPS | 283 FPS |
| high | 262 FPS | 205 FPS |
| ultra | 197 FPS | 169 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 295 FPS | 225 FPS |
| medium | 236 FPS | 202 FPS |
| high | 197 FPS | 151 FPS |
| ultra | 148 FPS | 117 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 197 FPS | 130 FPS |
| medium | 157 FPS | 117 FPS |
| high | 131 FPS | 79 FPS |
| ultra | 98 FPS | 50 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | CMP 40HX | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 341 FPS | 261 FPS |
| medium | 273 FPS | 211 FPS |
| high | 241 FPS | 191 FPS |
| ultra | 197 FPS | 166 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 263 FPS | 201 FPS |
| medium | 213 FPS | 158 FPS |
| high | 183 FPS | 135 FPS |
| ultra | 148 FPS | 113 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 139 FPS | 99 FPS |
| medium | 111 FPS | 74 FPS |
| high | 102 FPS | 65 FPS |
| ultra | 81 FPS | 51 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of CMP 40HX and GeForce GTX 1650

CMP 40HX
CMP 40HX
The CMP 40HX is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in February 25 2021. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 1470 MHz to 1650 MHz. It has 2304 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 185W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. It features 36 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 8,749 points. Launch price was $699.

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 CMP 40HX scores 8,749 versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 7,869 — the CMP 40HX leads by 11.2%. The CMP 40HX is built on Turing while the GeForce GTX 1650 uses Turing, both on a 12 nm process. Shader units: 2,304 (CMP 40HX) vs 896 (GeForce GTX 1650). Raw compute: 7.603 TFLOPS (CMP 40HX) vs 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650). Boost clocks: 1650 MHz vs 1665 MHz.
| Feature | CMP 40HX | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 8,749+11% | 7,869 |
| Architecture | Turing | Turing |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 2304+157% | 896 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 7.603 TFLOPS+155% | 2.984 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1650 MHz | 1665 MHz |
| ROPs | 64+100% | 32 |
| TMUs | 144+157% | 56 |
| L1 Cache | 2.3 MB+161% | 0.88 MB |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB+300% | 1 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
The GeForce GTX 1650 gives access to NVIDIA DLSS (Deep Learning Super Sampling), widely regarding as the superior upscaling method for image quality. The CMP 40HX relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.
| Feature | CMP 40HX | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | Upscaling support | Upscaling support |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | NVIDIA Reflex |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 4 GB of video memory. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 4 MB (CMP 40HX) vs 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) — the CMP 40HX has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | CMP 40HX | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB+300% | 1 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 Ultimate (CMP 40HX) vs 12 (GeForce GTX 1650). Vulkan: 1.2 vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 0 vs 3.
| Feature | CMP 40HX | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate | 12 |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | 1.4+17% |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 0 | 3 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: No (CMP 40HX) vs NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650). Decoder: No vs NVDEC 4th gen.
| Feature | CMP 40HX | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | No | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) |
| Decoder | No | NVDEC 4th gen |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The CMP 40HX draws 185W versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 75W — a 84.6% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 500W (CMP 40HX) vs 300W (GeForce GTX 1650). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs None. Card length: 229mm vs 229mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 80°C vs 70°C.
| Feature | CMP 40HX | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 185W | 75W-59% |
| Recommended PSU | 500W | 300W-40% |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | None |
| Length | 229mm | 229mm |
| Height | 111mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 2 | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 80°C | 70°C-13% |
| Perf/Watt | 47.3 | 104.9+122% |
Value Analysis
The CMP 40HX launched at $699 MSRP, while the GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 78.7% less ($550 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 12.5 (CMP 40HX) vs 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 322.4% better value. The CMP 40HX is the newer GPU (2021 vs 2019).
| Feature | CMP 40HX | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $699 | $149-79% |
| Performance per Dollar | 12.5 | 52.8+322% |
| Codename | TU106 | TU117 |
| Release | February 25 2021 | April 23 2019 |
| Ranking | #302 | #323 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.













