GeForce GTX 1650 vs 275

Place in performance ranking	677	253
Place by popularity	not in top-100	2
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.35	18.88
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	Turing (2018−2021)
GPU code name	GT200B	TU117
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Release date	15 January 2009 (15 years ago)	23 April 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$249	$149
Current price	$82 (0.3x MSRP)	$185 (1.2x MSRP)

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 1650 has 5294% better value for money than GTX 275.

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	240	896
CUDA cores	240	no data
Core clock speed	633 MHz	1485 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1665 MHz
Number of transistors	1,400 million	4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	55 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	219 Watt	75 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	105 °C	no data
Texture fill rate	50.6 billion/sec	93.24
Floating-point performance	673.9 gflops	no data

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).

Bus support	PCI-E 2.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	10.5" (267 mm) (26.7 cm)	229 mm
Height	4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)	no data
Width	2-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	2x 6-pin	None
SLI options	+	no data

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	GDDR3	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	896 MB	4 GB
Memory bus width	448 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1134 MHz	8000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	127.0 GB/s	128.0 GB/s
Shared memory	no 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 Connectors	Two Dual Link DVI	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
Multi monitor support	+	no data
HDMI	no data	+
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data
Audio input for HDMI	S/PDIF	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_0)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	4.0	6.5
OpenGL	3.0	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	1.2
Vulkan	N/A	1.2.131
CUDA	+	7.5

Synthetic benchmark performance

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

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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.

GTX 275 3.67

GTX 1650 20.40
+456%

1650 outperforms 275 by 456% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

GTX 275 1416

GTX 1650 7878
+456%

1650 outperforms 275 by 456% in Passmark.

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	12−14 −475%	69 +475%
1440p	6−7 −517%	37 +517%
4K	3−4 −633%	22 +633%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

30−35
−431%

170−180

+431%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	53 −447%	290−300 +447%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	47 −453%	260−270 +453%
Battlefield 5	79 −406%	400−450 +406%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	52 −438%	280−290 +438%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 −431%	170−180 +431%
Far Cry 5	64 −447%	350−400 +447%
Far Cry New Dawn	80 −400%	400−450 +400%
Forza Horizon 4	90 −456%	500−550 +456%
Hitman 3	49 −451%	270−280 +451%
Horizon Zero Dawn	115 −422%	600−650 +422%
Metro Exodus	101 −445%	550−600 +445%
Red Dead Redemption 2	77 −419%	400−450 +419%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	94 −432%	500−550 +432%
Watch Dogs: Legion	56 −436%	300−310 +436%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	47 −453%	260−270 +453%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	35 −443%	190−200 +443%
Battlefield 5	72 −456%	400−450 +456%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	46 −443%	250−260 +443%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 −431%	170−180 +431%
Far Cry 5	52 −438%	280−290 +438%
Far Cry New Dawn	56 −436%	300−310 +436%
Forza Horizon 4	201 −447%	1100−1150 +447%
Hitman 3	38 −453%	210−220 +453%
Horizon Zero Dawn	260 −438%	1400−1450 +438%
Metro Exodus	65 −438%	350−400 +438%
Red Dead Redemption 2	63 −456%	350−400 +456%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	74 −441%	400−450 +441%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	74 −441%	400−450 +441%
Watch Dogs: Legion	206 −434%	1100−1150 +434%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	25 −420%	130−140 +420%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	13 −438%	70−75 +438%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8 −400%	40−45 +400%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 −431%	170−180 +431%
Far Cry 5	39 −438%	210−220 +438%
Forza Horizon 4	65 −438%	350−400 +438%
Horizon Zero Dawn	60 −400%	300−310 +400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	62 −384%	300−310 +384%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	42 −448%	230−240 +448%
Watch Dogs: Legion	21 −424%	110−120 +424%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

54
−456%

300−310

+456%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	42 −448%	230−240 +448%
Far Cry New Dawn	50 −440%	270−280 +440%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	18 −456%	100−105 +456%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	13 −438%	70−75 +438%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	32 −431%	170−180 +431%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 −442%	65−70 +442%
Far Cry 5	39 −438%	210−220 +438%
Forza Horizon 4	46 −443%	250−260 +443%
Hitman 3	27 −456%	150−160 +456%
Horizon Zero Dawn	43 −435%	230−240 +435%
Metro Exodus	41 −437%	220−230 +437%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	45 −456%	250−260 +456%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 −442%	130−140 +442%
Watch Dogs: Legion	14 −436%	75−80 +436%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

35
−443%

190−200

+443%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	20 −450%	110−120 +450%
Far Cry New Dawn	17 −429%	90−95 +429%
Hitman 3	13 −438%	70−75 +438%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 −422%	120−130 +422%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	13 −438%	70−75 +438%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	26 −438%	140−150 +438%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	13 −438%	70−75 +438%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5 −440%	27−30 +440%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−12 −445%	60−65 +445%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −425%	21−24 +425%
Far Cry 5	12 −442%	65−70 +442%
Forza Horizon 4	30 −433%	160−170 +433%
Horizon Zero Dawn	23 −422%	120−130 +422%
Metro Exodus	21 −424%	110−120 +424%
Watch Dogs: Legion	8 −400%	40−45 +400%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

−429%

90−95
+429%

This is how GTX 275 and GTX 1650 compete in popular games:

GTX 1650 is 475% faster in 1080p
GTX 1650 is 517% faster in 1440p
GTX 1650 is 633% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	3.67	20.40
Recency	15 January 2009	23 April 2019
Cost	$249	$149
Maximum RAM amount	896 MB	4 GB
Chip lithography	55 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	219 Watt	75 Watt