
GeForce GTX 950
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 950
2015Why buy it
- ✅Measures 202mm instead of 229mm, a 27mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower average FPS than GeForce GTX 1650 across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ❌Less VRAM, with 2 GB vs 4 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
- ❌Very weak future-proofing: 2015-era hardware with 2 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
- ❌6.7% HIGHER MSRP$159 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 33.7 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($159 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
GeForce GTX 1650
2019Why buy it
- ✅63.6% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ✅Costs $10 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $159 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 56.8% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 33.7 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $159 MSRP).
- ✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs 2 GB).
- ✅Less risky long-term buy than GeForce GTX 950: it remains the more sensible modern option while GeForce GTX 950 is already obsolete for modern gaming.
Trade-offs
- ❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.
- ❌13.4% longer card at 229mm vs 202mm.
GeForce GTX 950
2015GeForce GTX 1650
2019Why buy it
- ✅Measures 202mm instead of 229mm, a 27mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.
Why buy it
- ✅63.6% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ✅Costs $10 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $159 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 56.8% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 33.7 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $159 MSRP).
- ✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs 2 GB).
- ✅Less risky long-term buy than GeForce GTX 950: it remains the more sensible modern option while GeForce GTX 950 is already obsolete for modern gaming.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower average FPS than GeForce GTX 1650 across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ❌Less VRAM, with 2 GB vs 4 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
- ❌Very weak future-proofing: 2015-era hardware with 2 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
- ❌6.7% HIGHER MSRP$159 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 33.7 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($159 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
Trade-offs
- ❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.
- ❌13.4% longer card at 229mm vs 202mm.
Quick Answers
So, is GeForce GTX 1650 better than GeForce GTX 950?
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 950 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 950 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 79 FPS | 94 FPS |
| medium | 64 FPS | 83 FPS |
| high | 52 FPS | 70 FPS |
| ultra | 34 FPS | 58 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 66 FPS | 87 FPS |
| medium | 54 FPS | 74 FPS |
| high | 39 FPS | 60 FPS |
| ultra | 25 FPS | 50 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 23 FPS | 41 FPS |
| medium | 22 FPS | 39 FPS |
| high | 14 FPS | 27 FPS |
| ultra | 12 FPS | 24 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | GeForce GTX 950 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 107 FPS | 136 FPS |
| medium | 79 FPS | 113 FPS |
| high | 61 FPS | 94 FPS |
| ultra | 38 FPS | 71 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 54 FPS | 79 FPS |
| medium | 39 FPS | 62 FPS |
| high | 26 FPS | 44 FPS |
| ultra | 17 FPS | 35 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 21 FPS | 36 FPS |
| medium | 14 FPS | 27 FPS |
| high | 11 FPS | 21 FPS |
| ultra | 7 FPS | 15 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | GeForce GTX 950 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 241 FPS | 323 FPS |
| medium | 193 FPS | 283 FPS |
| high | 161 FPS | 205 FPS |
| ultra | 121 FPS | 169 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 181 FPS | 225 FPS |
| medium | 145 FPS | 202 FPS |
| high | 121 FPS | 151 FPS |
| ultra | 90 FPS | 117 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 121 FPS | 130 FPS |
| medium | 96 FPS | 117 FPS |
| high | 77 FPS | 79 FPS |
| ultra | 48 FPS | 50 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | GeForce GTX 950 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 140 FPS | 261 FPS |
| medium | 113 FPS | 211 FPS |
| high | 97 FPS | 191 FPS |
| ultra | 83 FPS | 166 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 102 FPS | 201 FPS |
| medium | 84 FPS | 158 FPS |
| high | 73 FPS | 135 FPS |
| ultra | 60 FPS | 113 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 58 FPS | 99 FPS |
| medium | 46 FPS | 74 FPS |
| high | 35 FPS | 65 FPS |
| ultra | 27 FPS | 51 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 950 and GeForce GTX 1650

GeForce GTX 950
GeForce GTX 950
The GeForce GTX 950 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in August 20 2015. It features the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1024 MHz to 1188 MHz. It has 768 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 90W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 5,357 points. Launch price was $159.

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 950 scores 5,357 versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 7,869 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 46.9%. The GeForce GTX 950 is built on Maxwell 2.0 while the GeForce GTX 1650 uses Turing, both on 28 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 768 (GeForce GTX 950) vs 896 (GeForce GTX 1650). Raw compute: 1.825 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 950) vs 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650). Boost clocks: 1188 MHz vs 1665 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 950 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 5,357 | 7,869+47% |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Turing |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 768 | 896+17% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.825 TFLOPS | 2.984 TFLOPS+64% |
| Boost Clock | 1188 MHz | 1665 MHz+40% |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 48 | 56+17% |
| L1 Cache | 288 KB | 896 KB+211% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce GTX 950 | 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)
The GeForce GTX 950 comes with 2 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce GTX 1650 has 4 GB. The GeForce GTX 1650 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 106 GB/s (GeForce GTX 950) vs 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) — a 20.8% advantage for the GeForce GTX 1650. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 950 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 2 GB | 4 GB+100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 106 GB/s | 128 GB/s+21% |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12_1 (GeForce GTX 950) vs 12 (GeForce GTX 1650). Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 3.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 950 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12_1 | 12 |
| Max Displays | 4+33% | 3 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 2nd Gen (GeForce GTX 950) vs NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650). Decoder: NVDEC 2nd Gen vs NVDEC 4th gen. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265 (GeForce GTX 950) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 950 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 2nd Gen | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) |
| Decoder | NVDEC 2nd Gen | NVDEC 4th gen |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265 | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 950 draws 90W versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 75W — a 18.2% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce GTX 950) vs 300W (GeForce GTX 1650). Power connectors: 1x 6-pin vs None. Card length: 202mm vs 229mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 950 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 90W | 75W-17% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 300W-14% |
| Power Connector | 1x 6-pin | None |
| Length | 202mm | 229mm |
| Height | — | 111mm |
| Slots | 2 | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | — | 70°C |
| Perf/Watt | 59.5 | 104.9+76% |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 950 launched at $159 MSRP, while the GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 6.3% less ($10 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 33.7 (GeForce GTX 950) vs 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 56.7% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2015).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 950 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $159 | $149-6% |
| Performance per Dollar | 33.7 | 52.8+57% |
| Codename | GM206 | TU117 |
| Release | August 20 2015 | April 23 2019 |
| Ranking | #425 | #323 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.













