GeForce GTX 1650 vs Riva 128

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the rankingnot rated269
Place by popularitynot in top-1003
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data38.86
Power efficiencyno data18.67
Architectureno dataTuring (2018−2022)
GPU code nameNV3TU117
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date1 April 1997 (27 years ago)23 April 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 coresno data896
Core clock speed100 MHz1485 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1665 MHz
Number of transistors4 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology350 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)4 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate0.193.24
Floating-point processing powerno data2.984 TFLOPS
ROPs132
TMUs156

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).

InterfaceAGP 2xPCIe 3.0 x16
Lengthno data229 mm
Width1-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeSDRGDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 MB4 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed100 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth1.6 GB/s128.0 GB/s
Shared memoryno 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 Connectors1x VGA, 1x DB13W31x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
HDMI-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX5.012 (12_1)
Shader Modelno data6.5
OpenGL1.04.6
OpenCLN/A1.2
VulkanN/A1.2.131
CUDA-7.5

Pros & cons summary


Recency 1 April 1997 23 April 2019
Maximum RAM amount 4 MB 4 GB
Chip lithography 350 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 4 Watt 75 Watt

Riva 128 has 1775% lower power consumption.

GTX 1650, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 22 years, a 102300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 2816.7% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Riva 128 and GeForce GTX 1650. We've got no test results to judge.


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 Riva 128
Riva 128
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
GeForce GTX 1650

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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 40 votes

Rate Riva 128 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 23762 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.