GeForce GTX 1650 vs GTX 680

Place in the ranking	363	274
Place by popularity	not in top-100	3
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	3.06	38.19
Power efficiency	5.13	18.81
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	GK104	TU117
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Release date	22 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 1148% 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 cores	1536	896
Core clock speed	1006 MHz	1485 MHz
Boost clock speed	1058 MHz	1665 MHz
Number of transistors	3,540 million	4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	195 Watt	75 Watt
Texture fill rate	135.4	93.24
Floating-point processing power	3.25 TFLOPS	2.984 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	32
TMUs	128	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).

Bus support	PCI Express 3.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	254 mm	229 mm
Height	4.376" (11.1 cm)	no data
Width	2-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	2x 6-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	GDDR5	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	2048 MB	4 GB
Memory bus width	256-bit GDDR5	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1502 MHz	2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	192.2 GB/s	128.0 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 Connectors	One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI, One DisplayPort	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
Multi monitor support	4 displays	no data
HDMI	+	+
HDCP	+	-
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data
Audio input for HDMI	Internal	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_0)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	5.1	6.5
OpenGL	4.2	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.2
Vulkan	1.1.126	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 680 14.52

GTX 1650 20.49
+41.1%

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 5581

GTX 1650 7876
+41.1%

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 18388

GTX 1650 39125
+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

GTX 680 17522

GTX 1650 35853
+105%

GeekBench 5 CUDA

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:

900p	45 −33.3%	60−65 +33.3%
Full HD	75 +8.7%	69 −8.7%
1440p	27−30 −48.1%	40 +48.1%
4K	26 +13%	23 −13%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	6.65 −208%	2.16 +208%
1440p	18.48 −396%	3.73 +396%
4K	19.19 −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 −41.4%	40−45 +41.4%

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 +70.6%	17 −70.6%
Forza Horizon 4	55−60 −59.3%	94 +59.3%
Forza Horizon 5	35−40 −57.9%	60 +57.9%
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 +107%	14 −107%
Dota 2	37 −122%	82 +122%
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%
Forza Horizon 5	35−40 −44.7%	55−60 +44.7%
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 −38.3%	65−70 +38.3%
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 +142%	12 −142%
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%
Forza Horizon 5	35−40 −7.9%	41 +7.9%
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 −57.1%	30−35 +57.1%
Grand Theft Auto V	21−24 −50%	30−35 +50%
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 −50%	18−20 +50%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12 +57.1%	7 −57.1%
Far Cry 5	35−40 −60%	55−60 +60%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 −25%	45 +25%
Forza Horizon 5	21−24 −39.1%	30−35 +39.1%
Metro Exodus	30−35 −32.3%	41 +32.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 −52.6%	27−30 +52.6%
Valorant	35−40 −11.1%	40 +11.1%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	16−18 −12.5%	18−20 +12.5%
Dota 2	21 −38.1%	29 +38.1%
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	14−16 −28.6%	18 +28.6%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 −12.5%	18−20 +12.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +33.3%	3 −33.3%
Dota 2	24−27 −127%	59 +127%
Far Cry 5	18−20 −50%	27−30 +50%
Fortnite	16−18 −56.3%	24−27 +56.3%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 −23.8%	26 +23.8%
Forza Horizon 5	10−12 −54.5%	16−18 +54.5%
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 142% faster.
in Dota 2, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 1650 is 127% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GTX 680 is ahead in 8 tests (13%)
GTX 1650 is ahead in 56 tests (88%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	14.52	20.49
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 41.1% 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.