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 970

2014

Why buy it

✅4.7% more average FPS across 49 tracked games in our benchmark data.

Trade-offs

❌Poor future-proofing: 2014-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.
❌
120.8% HIGHER MSRP
$329 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 29.3 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($329 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
❌100% higher power demand at 150W vs 75W.
❌16.6% longer card at 267mm vs 229mm.

GeForce GTX 1650

2019

Why buy it

✅Costs $180 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $329 MSRP).
✅Delivers 80.2% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 29.3 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $329 MSRP).
✅Less risky long-term buy than GeForce GTX 970: it remains the more sensible modern option while GeForce GTX 970 is already legacy-tier future-proofing.
✅Draws 75W instead of 150W, a 75W reduction.
✅Measures 229mm instead of 267mm, a 38mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.

Trade-offs

❌Lower average FPS than GeForce GTX 970 across 49 tracked games in our benchmark data.
❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.

GeForce GTX 970

2014

GeForce GTX 1650

2019

Why buy it

✅4.7% more average FPS across 49 tracked games in our benchmark data.

Why buy it

✅Costs $180 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $329 MSRP).
✅Delivers 80.2% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 29.3 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $329 MSRP).
✅Less risky long-term buy than GeForce GTX 970: it remains the more sensible modern option while GeForce GTX 970 is already legacy-tier future-proofing.
✅Draws 75W instead of 150W, a 75W reduction.
✅Measures 229mm instead of 267mm, a 38mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.

Trade-offs

❌Poor future-proofing: 2014-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.
❌
120.8% HIGHER MSRP
$329 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 29.3 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($329 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
❌100% higher power demand at 150W vs 75W.
❌16.6% longer card at 267mm vs 229mm.

Trade-offs

❌Lower average FPS than GeForce GTX 970 across 49 tracked games in our benchmark data.
❌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 970 better than GeForce GTX 1650?

Yes. GeForce GTX 970 is the better GPU overall here. You are getting 4.7% more average FPS across 49 tracked games in our benchmark data and 22.5% higher PassMark G3D performance. It also comes from 2014 instead of 2019, which helps its case as the more complete modern gaming card.

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 and a 12nm process instead of 28nm. That makes it the safer long-run choice for modern games.

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

GeForce GTX 970 is the smarter buy by a wide margin. GeForce GTX 970 is about 120.8% more expensive on MSRP at $329 MSRP versus $149 MSRP, and you are getting 4.7% more estimated average FPS across 49 tracked games in our benchmark data and 22.5% higher G3D Mark. GeForce GTX 1650 really only makes sense now as a very cheap stopgap or a used-market placeholder.

When does GeForce GTX 1650 make more sense than GeForce GTX 970?

Yes. GeForce GTX 1650 is still an excellent gaming GPU in 2026: it is still comfortable for 1080p and decent for 1440p, though 4K is more situational. It makes more sense if your priority is newer architecture, lower power draw (75W vs 150W), future-proofing, and staying closer to $149 MSRP more than squeezing out the extra headroom of GeForce GTX 970. The trade-off is that GeForce GTX 970 currently gives you 22.5% higher G3D Mark and 4.7% more estimated average FPS across 49 tracked games in our benchmark data. GeForce GTX 1650 still holds the G3D-per-dollar lead, so the performance win comes with a real value premium.

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 970 Benchmark Check

GeForce GTX 1650 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 970	GeForce GTX 1650
1080p
low	81 FPS	94 FPS
medium	69 FPS	83 FPS
high	58 FPS	70 FPS
ultra	38 FPS	58 FPS
1440p
low	70 FPS	87 FPS
medium	62 FPS	74 FPS
high	46 FPS	60 FPS
ultra	29 FPS	50 FPS
4K
low	26 FPS	41 FPS
medium	24 FPS	39 FPS
high	17 FPS	27 FPS
ultra	14 FPS	24 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 970 Open GeForce GTX 1650

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 970	GeForce GTX 1650
1080p
low	185 FPS	136 FPS
medium	152 FPS	113 FPS
high	122 FPS	94 FPS
ultra	92 FPS	71 FPS
1440p
low	132 FPS	79 FPS
medium	102 FPS	62 FPS
high	81 FPS	44 FPS
ultra	60 FPS	35 FPS
4K
low	63 FPS	36 FPS
medium	50 FPS	27 FPS
high	46 FPS	21 FPS
ultra	37 FPS	15 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 970 Open GeForce GTX 1650

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	GeForce GTX 970	GeForce GTX 1650
1080p
low	405 FPS	323 FPS
medium	347 FPS	283 FPS
high	289 FPS	205 FPS
ultra	217 FPS	169 FPS
1440p
low	325 FPS	225 FPS
medium	260 FPS	202 FPS
high	217 FPS	151 FPS
ultra	163 FPS	117 FPS
4K
low	210 FPS	130 FPS
medium	174 FPS	117 FPS
high	129 FPS	79 FPS
ultra	95 FPS	50 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 970 Open GeForce GTX 1650

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	GeForce GTX 970	GeForce GTX 1650
1080p
low	179 FPS	261 FPS
medium	138 FPS	211 FPS
high	120 FPS	191 FPS
ultra	103 FPS	166 FPS
1440p
low	138 FPS	201 FPS
medium	107 FPS	158 FPS
high	94 FPS	135 FPS
ultra	80 FPS	113 FPS
4K
low	80 FPS	99 FPS
medium	59 FPS	74 FPS
high	46 FPS	65 FPS
ultra	36 FPS	51 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 970 Open GeForce GTX 1650

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

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

GeForce GTX 970

The GeForce GTX 970 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in September 19 2014. It features the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1050 MHz to 1178 MHz. It has 1664 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 150W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 9,640 points. Launch price was $329.

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 970 scores 9,640 versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 7,869 — the GeForce GTX 970 leads by 22.5%. The GeForce GTX 970 is built on Maxwell 2.0 while the GeForce GTX 1650 uses Turing, both on 28 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 1,664 (GeForce GTX 970) vs 896 (GeForce GTX 1650). Raw compute: 3.92 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 970) vs 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650). Boost clocks: 1178 MHz vs 1665 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 970	GeForce GTX 1650
G3D Mark Score	9,640+23%	7,869
Architecture	Maxwell 2.0	Turing
Process Node	28 nm	12 nm
Shading Units	1664+86%	896
Compute (TFLOPS)	3.92 TFLOPS+31%	2.984 TFLOPS
Boost Clock	1178 MHz	1665 MHz+41%
ROPs	56+75%	32
TMUs	104+86%	56
L1 Cache	624 KB	896 KB+44%
L2 Cache	2 MB+100%	1 MB

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	GeForce GTX 970	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: 224 GB/s (GeForce GTX 970) vs 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) — a 75% advantage for the GeForce GTX 970. Bus width: 256-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 2 MB (GeForce GTX 970) vs 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 970 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 970	GeForce GTX 1650
VRAM Capacity	4 GB	4 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Memory Bandwidth	224 GB/s+75%	128 GB/s
Bus Width	256-bit+100%	128-bit
L2 Cache	2 MB+100%	1 MB

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (FL 12_1) (GeForce GTX 970) vs 12 (GeForce GTX 1650). Vulkan: 1.3 vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 3.

Feature	GeForce GTX 970	GeForce GTX 1650
DirectX	12 (FL 12_1)	12
Vulkan	1.3	1.4+8%
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
Max Displays	4+33%	3

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC 2nd gen (GeForce GTX 970) vs NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650). Decoder: PureVideo VP6 vs NVDEC 4th gen. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC (GeForce GTX 970) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650).

Feature	GeForce GTX 970	GeForce GTX 1650
Encoder	NVENC 2nd gen	NVENC 5th gen (Volta)
Decoder	PureVideo VP6	NVDEC 4th gen
Codecs	H.264,H.265/HEVC	H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 970 draws 150W versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 75W — a 66.7% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 500W (GeForce GTX 970) vs 300W (GeForce GTX 1650). Power connectors: 2x 6-pin vs None. Card length: 267mm vs 229mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 80°C vs 70°C.

Feature	GeForce GTX 970	GeForce GTX 1650
TDP	150W	75W-50%
Recommended PSU	500W	300W-40%
Power Connector	2x 6-pin	None
Length	267mm	229mm
Height	111mm	111mm
Slots	2	2
Temp (Load)	80°C	70°C-13%
Perf/Watt	64.3	104.9+63%

💰

Value Analysis

The GeForce GTX 970 launched at $329 MSRP, while the GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 54.7% less ($180 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 29.3 (GeForce GTX 970) vs 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 80.2% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2014).