GeForce GTX 1650 vs GTX 295

Place in the ranking	758	273
Place by popularity	not in top-100	3
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.14	38.24
Power efficiency	0.75	18.84
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	GT200B	TU117
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Release date	8 January 2009 (16 years ago)	23 April 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$500	$149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 1650 has 27214% better value for money than GTX 295.

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	480	896
CUDA cores per GPU	240	no data
Core clock speed	576 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)	289 Watt	75 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	105 °C	no data
Texture fill rate	46.08	93.24
Floating-point processing power	0.5962 TFLOPS	2.984 TFLOPS
ROPs	28	32
TMUs	80	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 2.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	267 mm	229 mm
Height	4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)	no data
Width	2-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin	None
SLI options	+	-

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	1792 MB	4 GB
Standard memory config per GPU	896 MB	no data
Memory bus width	896 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	999 MHz	2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	223.8 GB/s	128.0 GB/s
Memory interface width per GPU	448 Bit	no data
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	Two Dual Link DVIHDMI	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
Multi monitor support	+	no data
HDMI	+	+
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data
Audio input for HDMI	S/PDIF	no data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

High Dynamic-Range Lighting (HDRR)

128bit

no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_0)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	4.0	6.5
OpenGL	2.1	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	1.2
Vulkan	N/A	1.2.131
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.

GTX 295 3.14

GTX 1650 20.49
+553%

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.

GTX 295 1206

GTX 1650 7876
+553%

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 −567%	40 +567%
4K	3−4 −667%	23 +667%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	50.00 −2215%	2.16 +2215%
1440p	83.33 −2137%	3.73 +2137%
4K	166.67 −2473%	6.48 +2473%

GTX 1650 has 2215% lower cost per frame in 1080p
GTX 1650 has 2137% lower cost per frame in 1440p
GTX 1650 has 2473% lower cost per frame in 4K

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 GTX 295 and GTX 1650 compete in popular games:

GTX 1650 is 590% faster in 1080p
GTX 1650 is 567% faster in 1440p
GTX 1650 is 667% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	3.14	20.49
Recency	8 January 2009	23 April 2019
Maximum RAM amount	1792 MB	4 GB
Chip lithography	55 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	289 Watt	75 Watt

GTX 1650 has a 552.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 128.6% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 358.3% more advanced lithography process, and 285.3% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1650 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 295 in performance tests.

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