GeForce GTX 1650 vs GTX 680

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 680 and GeForce GTX 1650, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GTX 680
2012
2048 MB GDDR5, 195 Watt
14.50

GTX 1650 outperforms GTX 680 by a considerable 41% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking360271
Place by popularitynot in top-1003
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.0638.38
Power efficiency5.1318.84
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameGK104TU117
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date22 March 2012 (12 years ago)23 April 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$499 $149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 1650 has 1154% better value for money than GTX 680.

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 cores1536896
Core clock speed1006 MHz1485 MHz
Boost clock speed1058 MHz1665 MHz
Number of transistors3,540 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)195 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate135.493.24
Floating-point processing power3.25 TFLOPS2.984 TFLOPS
ROPs3232
TMUs12856

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 supportPCI Express 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length254 mm229 mm
Height4.376" (11.1 cm)no data
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors2x 6-pinNone
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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2048 MB4 GB
Memory bus width256-bit GDDR5128 Bit
Memory clock speed1502 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth192.2 GB/s128.0 GB/s
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 ConnectorsOne Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI, One DisplayPort1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
Multi monitor support4 displaysno data
HDMI++
HDCP+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIInternalno data

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.5
OpenGL4.24.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.1.1261.2.131
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 680 14.50
GTX 1650 20.48
+41.2%

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 680 5574
GTX 1650 7874
+41.3%

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

GTX 680 10217
GTX 1650 13645
+33.6%

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

GTX 680 29702
GTX 1650 44694
+50.5%

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.

GTX 680 7587
GTX 1650 9203
+21.3%

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

GTX 680 47130
GTX 1650 50549
+7.3%

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

GTX 680 18376
GTX 1650 39154
+113%

3DMark Ice Storm GPU

Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.

GTX 680 247306
GTX 1650 373333
+51%

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.

GTX 680 17522
GTX 1650 35853
+105%

GeekBench 5 CUDA

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses CUDA API by NVIDIA.

GTX 680 13248
GTX 1650 39941
+201%

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:

900p45
−33.3%
60−65
+33.3%
Full HD75
+8.7%
69
−8.7%
1440p27−30
−48.1%
40
+48.1%
4K26
+13%
23
−13%

Cost per frame, $

1080p6.65
−208%
2.16
+208%
1440p18.48
−396%
3.73
+396%
4K19.19
−196%
6.48
+196%
  • GTX 1650 has 208% lower cost per frame in 1080p
  • GTX 1650 has 396% lower cost per frame in 1440p
  • GTX 1650 has 196% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 24−27
−42.3%
35−40
+42.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
−46.4%
40−45
+46.4%
Elden Ring 40−45
−47.7%
65−70
+47.7%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
−40.4%
66
+40.4%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
−42.3%
35−40
+42.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+64.7%
17
−64.7%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
−59.3%
94
+59.3%
Metro Exodus 40−45
−65%
66
+65%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
−114%
77
+114%
Valorant 55−60
−46.6%
85
+46.6%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
−59.6%
75
+59.6%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
−42.3%
35−40
+42.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+100%
14
−100%
Dota 2 37
−122%
82
+122%
Elden Ring 40−45
−47.7%
65−70
+47.7%
Far Cry 5 50−55
−66.7%
90
+66.7%
Fortnite 80−85
−1.2%
82
+1.2%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
−25.4%
74
+25.4%
Grand Theft Auto V 56
−33.9%
75
+33.9%
Metro Exodus 40−45
−10%
44
+10%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 100−110
−30.5%
130−140
+30.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+28.6%
28
−28.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 47
−36.2%
60−65
+36.2%
Valorant 55−60
+26.1%
46
−26.1%
World of Tanks 224
−4.9%
230−240
+4.9%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
−17%
55
+17%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
−42.3%
35−40
+42.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+133%
12
−133%
Dota 2 50−55
−76.9%
92
+76.9%
Far Cry 5 50−55
−25.9%
65−70
+25.9%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
−5.1%
62
+5.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 100−110
+72.1%
61
−72.1%
Valorant 55−60
−20.7%
70
+20.7%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 21−24
−52.4%
30−35
+52.4%
Elden Ring 21−24
−54.5%
30−35
+54.5%
Grand Theft Auto V 21−24
−57.1%
30−35
+57.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 120−130
−37.6%
170−180
+37.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
−30.8%
17
+30.8%
World of Tanks 100−110
−36.3%
130−140
+36.3%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
−31%
38
+31%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
−30.8%
16−18
+30.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+57.1%
7
−57.1%
Far Cry 5 35−40
−60%
55−60
+60%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
−28.6%
45
+28.6%
Metro Exodus 30−35
−32.3%
41
+32.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
−55.6%
27−30
+55.6%
Valorant 35−40
−11.1%
40
+11.1%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−11
−70%
16−18
+70%
Dota 2 21
−38.1%
29
+38.1%
Elden Ring 10−11
−50%
14−16
+50%
Grand Theft Auto V 21
−38.1%
29
+38.1%
Metro Exodus 10−11
−20%
12
+20%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
−44.2%
60−65
+44.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
−44.4%
12−14
+44.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21
−38.1%
29
+38.1%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
−38.5%
18
+38.5%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
−70%
16−18
+70%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+33.3%
3
−33.3%
Dota 2 24−27
−136%
59
+136%
Far Cry 5 18−20
−44.4%
24−27
+44.4%
Fortnite 16−18
−56.3%
24−27
+56.3%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
−30%
26
+30%
Valorant 16−18
−31.3%
21
+31.3%

This is how GTX 680 and GTX 1650 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1650 is 33% faster in 900p
  • GTX 680 is 9% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1650 is 48% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 680 is 13% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 680 is 133% faster.
  • in Dota 2, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 1650 is 136% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GTX 680 is ahead in 8 tests (13%)
  • GTX 1650 is ahead in 55 tests (87%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 14.50 20.48
Recency 22 March 2012 23 April 2019
Maximum RAM amount 2048 MB 4 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 195 Watt 75 Watt

GTX 1650 has a 41.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 160% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1650 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 680 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 GTX 680
GeForce GTX 680
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.


3.8 591 vote

Rate GeForce GTX 680 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 24282 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.