GeForce GTX 1650 vs 7300 GT

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce 7300 GT and GeForce GTX 1650, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

7300 GT
2006
128 MB DDR2, 24 Watt
0.36

GTX 1650 outperforms 7300 GT by a whopping 5592% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking1285273
Place by popularitynot in top-1003
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.0138.22
Power efficiency1.0318.84
ArchitectureCurie (2003−2013)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameG73TU117
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date15 May 2006 (18 years ago)23 April 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$149.99 $149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 1650 has 382100% better value for money than 7300 GT.

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 coresno data896
Core clock speed350 MHz1485 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1665 MHz
Number of transistors177 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology90 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)24 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate2.80093.24
Floating-point processing powerno data2.984 TFLOPS
ROPs832
TMUs856

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).

InterfacePCIe 1.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Lengthno data229 mm
Width1-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeDDR2GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount128 MB4 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed325 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth10.4 GB/s128.0 GB/s
Shared memoryno data-

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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
HDMI-+

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX9.0c (9_3)12 (12_1)
Shader Model3.06.5
OpenGL2.14.6
OpenCLN/A1.2
VulkanN/A1.2.131
CUDA-7.5

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

7300 GT 0.36
GTX 1650 20.49
+5592%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

7300 GT 138
GTX 1650 7876
+5607%

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 HD1−2
−6800%
69
+6800%
1440p0−140
4K-0−123

Cost per frame, $

1080p149.99
−6846%
2.16
+6846%
1440pno data3.73
4Kno data6.48
  • GTX 1650 has 6846% lower cost per frame in 1080p

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 66
+0%
66
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 17
+0%
17
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 94
+0%
94
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 60
+0%
60
+0%
Metro Exodus 66
+0%
66
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 77
+0%
77
+0%
Valorant 85
+0%
85
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 75
+0%
75
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14
+0%
14
+0%
Dota 2 82
+0%
82
+0%
Far Cry 5 90
+0%
90
+0%
Fortnite 82
+0%
82
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 74
+0%
74
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 75
+0%
75
+0%
Metro Exodus 44
+0%
44
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 28
+0%
28
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Valorant 46
+0%
46
+0%
World of Tanks 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 55
+0%
55
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12
+0%
12
+0%
Dota 2 92
+0%
92
+0%
Far Cry 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 62
+0%
62
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 41
+0%
41
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 61
+0%
61
+0%
Valorant 70
+0%
70
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 17
+0%
17
+0%
World of Tanks 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 38
+0%
38
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7
+0%
7
+0%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 45
+0%
45
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Metro Exodus 41
+0%
41
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Valorant 40
+0%
40
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Dota 2 29
+0%
29
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 29
+0%
29
+0%
Metro Exodus 12
+0%
12
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 29
+0%
29
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 18
+0%
18
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3
+0%
3
+0%
Dota 2 59
+0%
59
+0%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Fortnite 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 26
+0%
26
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Valorant 21
+0%
21
+0%

This is how 7300 GT and GTX 1650 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1650 is 6800% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.36 20.49
Recency 15 May 2006 23 April 2019
Maximum RAM amount 128 MB 4 GB
Chip lithography 90 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 24 Watt 75 Watt

7300 GT has 212.5% lower power consumption.

GTX 1650, on the other hand, has a 5591.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 650% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce GTX 1650 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 7300 GT in performance tests.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT
GeForce 7300 GT
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
GeForce GTX 1650

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.2 181 vote

Rate GeForce 7300 GT on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 24411 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 1650 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.