GeForce GTX 1650 vs GRID K340
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GRID K340 with GeForce GTX 1650, including specs and performance data.
GTX 1650 outperforms GRID K340 by a whopping 562% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 773 | 279 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 3 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.05 | 37.77 |
| Power efficiency | 0.94 | 18.73 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | GK107 | TU117 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 23 July 2013 (11 years ago) | 23 April 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $3,299 | $149 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
GTX 1650 has 75440% better value for money than GRID K340.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 384 ×4 | 896 |
| Core clock speed | 950 MHz | 1485 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1665 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,270 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 30.40 ×4 | 93.24 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.7296 TFLOPS ×4 | 2.984 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 ×4 | 32 |
| TMUs | 32 ×4 | 56 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 229 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | None |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB ×4 | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit ×4 | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 28.8 GB/s ×4 | 128.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 3.0 | 7.5 |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 10−12
−590%
| 69
+590%
|
| 1440p | 6−7
−583%
| 41
+583%
|
| 4K | 3−4
−733%
| 25
+733%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 329.90
−15177%
| 2.16
+15177%
|
| 1440p | 549.83
−15030%
| 3.63
+15030%
|
| 4K | 1099.67
−18351%
| 5.96
+18351%
|
- GTX 1650 has 15177% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GTX 1650 has 15030% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- GTX 1650 has 18351% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 61
+0%
|
61
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 69
+0%
|
69
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 211
+0%
|
211
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90
+0%
|
90
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 60
+0%
|
60
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90
+0%
|
90
+0%
|
| Valorant | 292
+0%
|
292
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 53
+0%
|
53
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 230−240
+0%
|
230−240
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 97
+0%
|
97
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 63
+0%
|
63
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 85
+0%
|
85
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 83
+0%
|
83
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 81
+0%
|
81
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35
+0%
|
35
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 86
+0%
|
86
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 71
+0%
|
71
+0%
|
| Valorant | 260
+0%
|
260
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 51
+0%
|
51
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 92
+0%
|
92
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 59
+0%
|
59
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65
+0%
|
65
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 41
+0%
|
41
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 66
+0%
|
66
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 41
+0%
|
41
+0%
|
| Valorant | 70
+0%
|
70
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 61
+0%
|
61
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40
+0%
|
40
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 177
+0%
|
177
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40
+0%
|
40
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 46
+0%
|
46
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 31
+0%
|
31
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 42
+0%
|
42
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
| Valorant | 83
+0%
|
83
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21
+0%
|
21
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 59
+0%
|
59
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 19
+0%
|
19
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30
+0%
|
30
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 11
+0%
|
11
+0%
|
This is how GRID K340 and GTX 1650 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1650 is 590% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1650 is 583% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1650 is 733% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 67 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.09 | 20.45 |
| Recency | 23 July 2013 | 23 April 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 75 Watt |
GTX 1650 has a 561.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 200% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 1650 is our recommended choice as it beats the GRID K340 in performance tests.
Be aware that GRID K340 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce GTX 1650 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
