GeForce GTX 1650 vs GTX 295
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 295 and GeForce GTX 1650, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTX 1650 outperforms GTX 295 by a whopping 552% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 756 | 271 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 3 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.14 | 38.38 |
| 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 27314% 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.
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.
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%
|
| Elden Ring | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+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%
|
| 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%
|
| Elden Ring | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 90
+0%
|
90
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 82
+0%
|
82
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 74
+0%
|
74
+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 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+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%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 61
+0%
|
61
+0%
|
| Valorant | 70
+0%
|
70
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 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 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7
+0%
|
7
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45
+0%
|
45
+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%
|
| Elden Ring | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+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 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 26
+0%
|
26
+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 63 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.14 | 20.48 |
| 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 552.2% 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.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
