
GeForce GTX 1650
Popular choices:

RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation
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 1650
2019Why buy it
- ✅Costs $1,850 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $1,999 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 410.8% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 10.3 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $1,999 MSRP).
- ✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs 2 GB).
- ✅Measures 229mm instead of 267mm, a 38mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (7,869 vs 20,669).
- ❌No equivalent frame-generation stack like DLSS 3.5 + Frame Generation (2023).
- ❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.
RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation
2023Why buy it
- ✅+162.7% higher PassMark G3D performance.
- ✅Access to a newer frame-generation stack with DLSS 3.5 + Frame Generation (2023).
- ✅More future proof: Ada Lovelace on 5nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
Trade-offs
- ❌Less VRAM, with 2 GB vs 4 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
- ❌1241.6% HIGHER MSRP$1,999 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 10.3 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($1,999 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
- ❌16.6% longer card at 267mm vs 229mm.
GeForce GTX 1650
2019RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation
2023Why buy it
- ✅Costs $1,850 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $1,999 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 410.8% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 10.3 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $1,999 MSRP).
- ✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs 2 GB).
- ✅Measures 229mm instead of 267mm, a 38mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.
Why buy it
- ✅+162.7% higher PassMark G3D performance.
- ✅Access to a newer frame-generation stack with DLSS 3.5 + Frame Generation (2023).
- ✅More future proof: Ada Lovelace on 5nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (7,869 vs 20,669).
- ❌No equivalent frame-generation stack like DLSS 3.5 + Frame Generation (2023).
- ❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.
Trade-offs
- ❌Less VRAM, with 2 GB vs 4 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
- ❌1241.6% HIGHER MSRP$1,999 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 10.3 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($1,999 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
- ❌16.6% longer card at 267mm vs 229mm.
Quick Answers
So, is RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation 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 | GeForce GTX 1650 | RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 94 FPS | 102 FPS |
| medium | 83 FPS | 87 FPS |
| high | 70 FPS | 70 FPS |
| ultra | 58 FPS | 48 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 87 FPS | 81 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 68 FPS |
| high | 60 FPS | 49 FPS |
| ultra | 50 FPS | 33 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 41 FPS | 33 FPS |
| medium | 39 FPS | 30 FPS |
| high | 27 FPS | 22 FPS |
| ultra | 24 FPS | 20 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 136 FPS | 279 FPS |
| medium | 113 FPS | 221 FPS |
| high | 94 FPS | 177 FPS |
| ultra | 71 FPS | 155 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 79 FPS | 203 FPS |
| medium | 62 FPS | 154 FPS |
| high | 44 FPS | 126 FPS |
| ultra | 35 FPS | 103 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 36 FPS | 93 FPS |
| medium | 27 FPS | 72 FPS |
| high | 21 FPS | 62 FPS |
| ultra | 15 FPS | 48 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 323 FPS | 465 FPS |
| medium | 283 FPS | 404 FPS |
| high | 205 FPS | 341 FPS |
| ultra | 169 FPS | 288 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 225 FPS | 339 FPS |
| medium | 202 FPS | 295 FPS |
| high | 151 FPS | 256 FPS |
| ultra | 117 FPS | 208 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 130 FPS | 229 FPS |
| medium | 117 FPS | 192 FPS |
| high | 79 FPS | 150 FPS |
| ultra | 50 FPS | 113 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 261 FPS | 208 FPS |
| medium | 211 FPS | 171 FPS |
| high | 191 FPS | 151 FPS |
| ultra | 166 FPS | 119 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 201 FPS | 146 FPS |
| medium | 158 FPS | 124 FPS |
| high | 135 FPS | 111 FPS |
| ultra | 113 FPS | 86 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 99 FPS | 87 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 72 FPS |
| high | 65 FPS | 58 FPS |
| ultra | 51 FPS | 43 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation

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.

RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation
RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation
The RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in March 21 2023. It features the Ada Lovelace architecture. The core clock ranges from 720 MHz to 1560 MHz. It has 6144 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 70W. Manufactured using 5 nm process technology. It features 48 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 20,669 points.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation's 20,669 — the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation leads by 162.7%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation uses Ada Lovelace, both on 12 nm vs 5 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 6,144 (RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 19.17 TFLOPS (RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1560 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869 | 20,669+163% |
| Architecture | Turing | Ada Lovelace |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 5 nm |
| Shading Units | 896 | 6144+586% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS | 19.17 TFLOPS+542% |
| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz+7% | 1560 MHz |
| ROPs | 32 | 64+100% |
| TMUs | 56 | 192+243% |
| L1 Cache | 0.88 MB | 6 MB+582% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 48 MB+4700% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
A critical advantage for the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation is support for DLSS 3.5 + Frame Generation. This allows it to generate entire frames using AI/Algorithms, essentially doubling the frame rate in CPU-bound scenarios or heavy ray-tracing titles. The GeForce GTX 1650 lacks specific hardware/driver support for this native frame generation tier.The RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation supports the newer DLSS 3.5 Super Resolution, whereas the GeForce GTX 1650 is capped at Upscaling support.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | Upscaling support | DLSS 3.5 Super Resolution |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | DLSS 3.5 + Frame Generation |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | Yes (DLSS 3.5) |
| Low Latency | NVIDIA Reflex | NVIDIA Reflex |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The GeForce GTX 1650 comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation has 2 GB. The GeForce GTX 1650 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 280 GB/s (RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation) — a 118.8% advantage for the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation. Bus width: 128-bit vs 160-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 48 MB (RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation) — the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB+100% | 2 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 ECC |
| Memory Bandwidth | 128 GB/s | 280 GB/s+119% |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 160-bit+25% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 48 MB+4700% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12.2 (RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12.2+2% |
| Vulkan | 1.4+8% | 1.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 4+33% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 8th Gen NVENC (2x) (RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs 5th Gen NVDEC. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 (RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) | 8th Gen NVENC (2x) |
| Decoder | NVDEC 4th gen | 5th Gen NVDEC |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation's 70W — a 6.9% difference. The RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 750W (RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation). Power connectors: None vs 1x 8-pin. Card length: 229mm vs 267mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 80°C.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W | 70W-7% |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-60% | 750W |
| Power Connector | None | 1x 8-pin |
| Length | 229mm | 267mm |
| Height | 111mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 2 | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C-13% | 80°C |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9 | 295.3+182% |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP, while the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation launched at $1999. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 92.5% less ($1850 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 10.3 (RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 412.6% better value. The RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation is the newer GPU (2023 vs 2019).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149-93% | $1999 |
| Performance per Dollar | 52.8+413% | 10.3 |
| Codename | TU117 | AD104 |
| Release | April 23 2019 | March 21 2023 |
| Ranking | #323 | #71 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.













