GeForce GTX 1650 vs 560 Ti 448

Place in performance ranking	481	253
Place by popularity	not in top-100	2
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.41	18.89
Architecture	Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)	Turing (2018−2021)
GPU code name	GF110	TU117
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Release date	29 November 2011 (12 years ago)	23 April 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$289	$149
Current price	$624 (2.2x MSRP)	$185 (1.2x MSRP)

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 1650 has 4507% better value for money than GTX 560 Ti 448.

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	448	896
Core clock speed	732 MHz	1485 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1665 MHz
Number of transistors	3,000 million	4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	210 Watt	75 Watt
Texture fill rate	40.99	93.24
Floating-point performance	1,311.7 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).

Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	267 mm	229 mm
Width	2-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	2x 6-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	1280 MB	4 GB
Memory bus width	320 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	3800 MHz	8000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	152.0 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	2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
HDMI	+	+

API compatibility

List of supported graphics 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	1.1	1.2
Vulkan	N/A	1.2.131
CUDA	2.0	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 560 Ti 448 8.18

GTX 1650 20.40
+149%

1650 outperforms 560 Ti 448 by 149% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

GTX 560 Ti 448 4210

GTX 1650 9203
+119%

1650 outperforms 560 Ti 448 by 119% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.

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	27−30 −156%	69 +156%
1440p	14−16 −164%	37 +164%
4K	8−9 −175%	22 +175%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

12−14

−167%

30−35
+167%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	21−24 −152%	53 +152%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	18−20 −161%	47 +161%
Battlefield 5	30−33 −163%	79 +163%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	18−20 −189%	52 +189%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 −167%	30−35 +167%
Far Cry 5	24−27 −167%	64 +167%
Far Cry New Dawn	30−33 −167%	80 +167%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 −157%	90 +157%
Hitman 3	18−20 −172%	49 +172%
Horizon Zero Dawn	45−50 −156%	115 +156%
Metro Exodus	40−45 −153%	101 +153%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−33 −157%	77 +157%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	35−40 −169%	94 +169%
Watch Dogs: Legion	21−24 −167%	56 +167%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	18−20 −161%	47 +161%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	14−16 −150%	35 +150%
Battlefield 5	27−30 −167%	72 +167%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	18−20 −156%	46 +156%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 −167%	30−35 +167%
Far Cry 5	18−20 −189%	52 +189%
Far Cry New Dawn	21−24 −167%	56 +167%
Forza Horizon 4	80−85 −151%	201 +151%
Hitman 3	14−16 −171%	38 +171%
Horizon Zero Dawn	100−105 −160%	260 +160%
Metro Exodus	24−27 −171%	65 +171%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27 −163%	63 +163%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	27−30 −174%	74 +174%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 −174%	74 +174%
Watch Dogs: Legion	80−85 −158%	206 +158%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 −150%	25 +150%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 −160%	13 +160%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −167%	8 +167%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 −167%	30−35 +167%
Far Cry 5	14−16 −179%	39 +179%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 −171%	65 +171%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27 −150%	60 +150%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	24−27 −158%	62 +158%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 −163%	42 +163%
Watch Dogs: Legion	8−9 −163%	21 +163%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

21−24

−157%

54
+157%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 −163%	42 +163%
Far Cry New Dawn	18−20 −178%	50 +178%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8 −157%	18 +157%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 −160%	13 +160%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14 −167%	32 +167%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −200%	12−14 +200%
Far Cry 5	14−16 −179%	39 +179%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 −156%	46 +156%
Hitman 3	10−11 −170%	27 +170%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 −169%	43 +169%
Metro Exodus	16−18 −156%	41 +156%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	18−20 −150%	45 +150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9−10 −167%	24−27 +167%
Watch Dogs: Legion	5−6 −180%	14 +180%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

14−16

−150%

35
+150%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	8−9 −150%	20 +150%
Far Cry New Dawn	6−7 −183%	17 +183%
Hitman 3	5−6 −160%	13 +160%
Horizon Zero Dawn	9−10 −156%	21−24 +156%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	5−6 −160%	13 +160%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 −160%	26 +160%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 −160%	13 +160%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3 −150%	5 +150%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −175%	10−12 +175%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −300%	4−5 +300%
Far Cry 5	4−5 −200%	12 +200%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 −150%	30 +150%
Horizon Zero Dawn	9−10 −156%	23 +156%
Metro Exodus	8−9 −163%	21 +163%
Watch Dogs: Legion	3−4 −167%	8 +167%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7
−183%

+183%

This is how GTX 560 Ti 448 and GTX 1650 compete in popular games:

GTX 1650 is 156% faster in 1080p
GTX 1650 is 164% faster in 1440p
GTX 1650 is 175% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	8.18	20.40
Recency	29 November 2011	23 April 2019
Cost	$289	$149
Maximum RAM amount	1280 MB	4 GB
Chip lithography	40 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	210 Watt	75 Watt