OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v1.0
Graphics cards Methodology v1.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v1.0: technical specifications plus authentic consumer ratings, with 0% commercial bias.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v1.0

ASUS TUF GeForce GTX 1650 Super Gaming Review | 118 Data compared

Avg. price:~£130VRAM:4 GBMemory bus width:128 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):100 W

ASUS TUF GeForce GTX 1650 Super Gaming Review: Compare 118 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

ASUS TUF GeForce GTX 1650 Super Gaming
5.1/10

Overall score

Score
5.1/ 10
✕
What it is
An overall evaluation of the graphics card's quality, based on technical analyses and user reviews.
When it matters
When you need a quick reference to identify the best graphics cards on the market.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 86% of models
Score components

90%

4.6

Technical score

10%

9.4

User score

â–¼Worse than 86% of graphics cards
6.5

Value for money

Value for money
6.5/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 80% of models
Score components

70%

5.1

Overall score

30%

9.8

Price

â–¼Worse than 80%
4.6

Technical score

Technical score
4.6/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of technical performance for products in the Graphics cards category across these key areas: Performance, Memory, Platform & Features, Connectivity & Media, Power & Cooling, Design.
When it matters
When you want to compare graphics cards based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 89% of models
Score components

44%

3.0

Performance

24%

2.3

Memory

12%

8.6

Power & Cooling

11%

8.8

Platform & Features

5%

9.6

Design

4%

5.8

Connectivity & Media

â–¼Worse than 89%
9.4

User score

User score
9.4/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the graphics card.
When it matters
When you want to understand how a graphics card performs in real use and how reliable it is in terms of performance, temperatures, noise, stability, and long-term ownership.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 93% of models
Score components

70%

9.2

User ratings

30%

9.7

Number of reviews

Based on ratings from across the web.
★Better than 93%
  • asus-tuf-geforce-gtx-1650-super-gaming
  • asus-tuf-geforce-gtx-1650-super-gaming
  • asus-tuf-geforce-gtx-1650-super-gaming
  • asus-tuf-geforce-gtx-1650-super-gaming
  • asus-tuf-geforce-gtx-1650-super-gaming
asus-tuf-geforce-gtx-1650-super-gaming
asus-tuf-geforce-gtx-1650-super-gaming
asus-tuf-geforce-gtx-1650-super-gaming
asus-tuf-geforce-gtx-1650-super-gaming
asus-tuf-geforce-gtx-1650-super-gaming
Best prices
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card ASUS TUF GeForce GTX 1650 Super Gaming

Technical score
Technical score
4.6/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of technical performance for products in the Graphics cards category across these key areas: Performance, Memory, Platform & Features, Connectivity & Media, Power & Cooling, Design.
When it matters
When you want to compare graphics cards based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 89% of models
Score components:

44%

3.0

Performance

24%

2.3

Memory

12%

8.6

Power & Cooling

11%

8.8

Platform & Features

5%

9.6

Design

4%

5.8

Connectivity & Media

4.6
User score
User score
9.4/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the graphics card.
When it matters
When you want to understand how a graphics card performs in real use and how reliable it is in terms of performance, temperatures, noise, stability, and long-term ownership.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 93% of models
Score components

70%

9.2

User ratings

30%

9.7

Number of reviews

Based on ratings from across the web.
9.4
Popularity
Popularity
9.7/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator based on the number of reviews received by the graphics card.
When it matters
When you prefer a graphics card that has already been chosen and reviewed by many other users.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 90% of models
Popularity:
ASUS TUF GeForce GTX 1650 Super Gaming has a popularity score of 9.7 points, which is higher than that of 89.7% of products in this category.
9.7
Value for money
Value for money
6.5/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 80% of models
Score components:

70%

5.1

Overall score

30%

9.8

Price

6.5
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
4,523 points
Market range: <4k points – >34k points
This graphics card scores 4,523 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 87% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
3,100 points
Market range: <0 points – >25k points
This graphics card scores 3,100 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 78.1% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
10,187 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 10,187 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 84% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
4,460 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 4,460 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 84.7% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
Floating-point performance
4.42 TFLOPS
Market range: <4.38 TFLOPS – >57.42 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 4.42 TFLOPS floating-point performance, which is lower than that of 89.8% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.1% of graphics cards.
Show more
VRAM
4 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >24 GB
This graphics card has 4 GB of VRAM, which is less than 88% of graphics cards and equal to 6% of graphics cards.
Memory type
GDDR6
GDDR version
GDDR6
This graphics card uses GDDR6 memory, which is newer than on 15.9% of graphics cards and equal to 40.3% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
128 bit
Market range: <64 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 128 bit memory bus, which is narrower than that of 69.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 26% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
192 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 192 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 87.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.6% of graphics cards.
Show more
PCI Express (PCIe) version
3
This graphics card supports PCIe 3, which is older than on 77.7% of graphics cards and equal to 20.3% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x16
This graphics card uses x16 PCIe lanes, which is more than 23.4% of graphics cards and equal to 76.6% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
12
This graphics card supports DirectX 12, which is older than on 81.8% of graphics cards and equal to 16.9% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.4
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.4, which is more advanced than on 20.7% of graphics cards and equal to 79.3% of graphics cards.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 1.9% of graphics cards and equal to 98.1% of graphics cards.
Show more
Max displays supported
3
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 3 displays, which is fewer than 91.8% of graphics cards and equal to 5.9% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
7680x4320
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320, which is higher than that of 9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 91% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
1
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 1 DisplayPort outputs, which is fewer than 88.7% of graphics cards and equal to 8.6% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
1.4
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.4, which is older than on 80.6% of graphics cards and equal to 13.3% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
21.6 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 21.6 Gbps, which is faster than on 50.5% of graphics cards and equal to 2% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
100 W
Market range: <60 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 100 W, which is lower than that of 89% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.6% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
100 W
Market range: <100 W – >400 W
This graphics card draws 100 W under peak load, which is lower than 90.1% of graphics cards and equal to 0.4% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
350 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 350 W PSU, which is lower than that of 93.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.2% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
100 W
Market range: <100 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 100 W, which is lower than that of 90.3% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.5% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
100 W
Show more
Size
206x 124x 46 mm
Length
206 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >350 mm
This graphics card is 206 mm long, which is shorter than 88.1% of graphics cards and equal in length to 0.1% of graphics cards.
Height
46 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 46 mm tall, which is shorter than 97.8% of graphics cards.
Slot width
2 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 2 slot/s, which is slimmer than 53.4% of graphics cards and equal in width to 42.5% of graphics cards.
Weight
522 g
Market range: <500 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 522 g, which is lighter than 90.7% of graphics cards and equal in weight to 0.1% of graphics cards.
Show more

ASUS TUF GeForce GTX 1650 Super Gaming vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryPlatform & FeaturesConnectivity & MediaPower & CoolingDesign
  • 53.5% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (100 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    100 W vs 215 W
  • 46.2% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (350 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    350 W vs 650 W
  • 79 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (206 mm vs 285 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 285 mm.
    206 mm vs 285 mm
  • 79 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (46 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    46 mm vs 125 mm
  • 55.6% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (100 W vs 225 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 225 W.
    100 W vs 225 W
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 17.3% higher user score
    User score
    9.4/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the graphics card.
    When it matters
    When you want to understand how a graphics card performs in real use and how reliable it is in terms of performance, temperatures, noise, stability, and long-term ownership.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ASUS TUF GeForce GTX 1650 Super Gaming
    the average graphics card
    ASUS TUF GeForce GTX 1650 Super Gaming has a higher user score than the average graphics card (9.38 vs 8.000).
    9.38 vs 8
  • 1 more DVI outputs
    This graphics card has more DVI outputs than the average graphics card (1 vs 0). The average graphics card has 0 DVI outputs.
    1 vs 0
  • 17.3% higher user score
    User score
    9.4/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the graphics card.
    When it matters
    When you want to understand how a graphics card performs in real use and how reliable it is in terms of performance, temperatures, noise, stability, and long-term ownership.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ASUS TUF GeForce GTX 1650 Super Gaming
    the average graphics card
    ASUS TUF GeForce GTX 1650 Super Gaming has a higher user score than the average graphics card (9.38 vs 8.000).
    9.38 vs 8
  • 4.08x cheaper
    ASUS TUF GeForce GTX 1650 Super Gaming is cheaper than the average graphics card (£130 vs £530).
    £130 vs £530
  • 2.31x more popular
    ASUS TUF GeForce GTX 1650 Super Gaming is more popular than the average graphics card (9.74 vs 4.2).
    9.74 vs 4.22
  • 1 more DVI outputs
    This graphics card has more DVI outputs than the average graphics card (1 vs 0). The average graphics card has 0 DVI outputs.
    1 vs 0
  • 53.5% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (100 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    100 W vs 215 W
  • 46.2% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (350 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    350 W vs 650 W
  • 55.6% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (100 W vs 225 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 225 W.
    100 W vs 225 W
  • 58.3% lower idle power draw
    This graphics card has a lower idle power draw than the average graphics card (5 W vs 12 W). The average graphics card has an idle power draw of 12 W.
    5 W vs 12 W
  • 54.5% lower peak power draw
    This graphics card has a lower peak power draw than the average graphics card (100 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a peak power draw of 220 W.
    100 W vs 220 W
  • 79 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (206 mm vs 285 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 285 mm.
    206 mm vs 285 mm
  • 79 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (46 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    46 mm vs 125 mm
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 48.9% lighter card weight
    This graphics card is lighter than the average graphics card (522 g vs 1021 g). The average graphics card weighs 1021 g.
    522 g vs 1,021 g
  • 128 bit narrower memory bus
    This graphics card has a narrower memory bus than the average graphics card (128 bit vs 256 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 256 bit.
    128 bit vs 256 bit
  • 8 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (4 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    4 GB vs 12 GB
  • 29.3% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1770 MHz vs 2505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2505 MHz.
    1,770 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 20 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (20 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    20 vs 40
  • 2.4x larger process node
    This graphics card has a higher process node than the average graphics card (12 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a process node of 5 nm.
    12 nm vs 5 nm
  • 104 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (80 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    80 vs 184
  • 1 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • 10.7% worse value for money
    ASUS TUF GeForce GTX 1650 Super Gaming has worse value for money than the average graphics card (6.5 vs 7.2).
    6.5 vs 7.2
  • 29.3% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1770 MHz vs 2505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2505 MHz.
    1,770 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 20 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (20 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    20 vs 40
  • 104 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (80 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    80 vs 184
  • 62.9% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (141.6 GTexel/s vs 381.2 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 381.2 GTexel/s.
    141.6 GTexel/s vs 381.2 GTexel/s
  • 66.2% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (55.2 GPixel/s vs 163.2 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 163.2 GPixel/s.
    55.2 GPixel/s vs 163.2 GPixel/s
  • 144 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    0 vs 144
  • 32 fewer ROPs
    This graphics card has fewer ROPs than the average graphics card (32 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    32 vs 64
  • 80.4% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (4.4 TFLOPS vs 22.57 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.57 TFLOPS.
    4.42 TFLOPS vs 22.57 TFLOPS
  • 20.3% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1530 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,530 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 55% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (10187 points vs 22653 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22653 points.
    10,187 points vs 22,653 points
  • 69.2% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (4523 points vs 14678.5 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14678.5 points.
    4,523 points vs 14,678.5 points
  • 66.2% lower ray tracing score
    This graphics card has a lower ray tracing score than the average graphics card (3100 points vs 9166 points). The average graphics card has a ray tracing score of 9166 points.
    3,100 points vs 9,166 points
  • 70.3% lower FP16 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP16 performance than the average graphics card (8.8 TFLOPS vs 29.7 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP16 performance of 29.725 TFLOPS.
    8.83 TFLOPS vs 29.725 TFLOPS
  • 80.8% lower compute throughput
    This graphics card has a lower compute throughput than the average graphics card (4.4 TFLOPS vs 22.98 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has compute throughput of 22.98 TFLOPS.
    4.42 TFLOPS vs 22.98 TFLOPS
  • 63.1% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (4460 points vs 12074 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12074 points.
    4,460 points vs 12,074 points
  • 70.8% lower FP64 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP64 performance than the average graphics card (0.1 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP64 performance of 0.48 TFLOPS.
    0.14 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS
  • 96.4% lower INT8 performance
    This graphics card has a lower INT8 performance than the average graphics card (8.8 TOPS vs 242 TOPS). The average graphics card has INT8 performance of 242 TOPS.
    8.8 TOPS vs 242 TOPS
  • 3,072 fewer FP32 units
    This graphics card has fewer FP32 units than the average graphics card (1,280 vs 4,352). The average graphics card has 4,352 FP32 units.
    1,280 vs 4,352
  • 128 bit narrower memory bus
    This graphics card has a narrower memory bus than the average graphics card (128 bit vs 256 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 256 bit.
    128 bit vs 256 bit
  • 8 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (4 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    4 GB vs 12 GB
  • 57.1% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (192 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    192 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 36.8% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (12000 MHz vs 19000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19000 MHz.
    12,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 95.8% smaller L2 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L2 cache than the average graphics card (1 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    1 MB vs 24 MB
  • 14.3% slower VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a lower VRAM clock than the average graphics card (1500 MHz vs 1750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1750 MHz.
    1,500 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 50% smaller L1 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L1 cache than the average graphics card (64 vs 128). The average graphics card has 128 L1 cache.
    64 vs 128
  • 2.4x larger process node
    This graphics card has a higher process node than the average graphics card (12 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a process node of 5 nm.
    12 nm vs 5 nm
  • Older PCIe version
    This graphics card supports an older PCIe version than the average graphics card (3 vs 4).
    3.0 vs 4.0
  • 4 older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2019 vs 2023).
    November 2019
    2,019 vs 2,023
  • Worse SAM support
    This graphics card offers worse SAM support than the average graphics card (no vs yes).
  • Lower VRS tier
    This graphics card supports a lower VRS tier than the average graphics card (Tier 1 vs Tier 2).
    Tier 1 vs Tier 2
  • Older DirectX version
    This graphics card supports an older DirectX version than the average graphics card (12 vs 12 Ultimate).
    12 vs 12 Ultimate
  • Older encoder generation
    This graphics card uses an older encoder generation than the average graphics card (7 vs 8). The average graphics card uses encoder generation 8.
    7 vs 8
  • 71.2% fewer transistors
    This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (6600 million vs 22900 million). The average graphics card has 22900 million transistors.
    6,600 million vs 22,900 million
  • 2 fewer DisplayPort outputs
    This graphics card has fewer DisplayPort outputs than the average graphics card (1 vs 3). The average graphics card has 3 DisplayPort outputs.
    1 vs 3
  • No AV1 encoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
    No vs yes
  • 1 fewer displays supported
    This graphics card supports fewer displays than the average graphics card (3 vs 4). The average graphics card supports 4 displays.
    3 vs 4
  • No AV1 decoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 decoding, the average graphics card does.
  • Older DisplayPort version
    This graphics card supports an older DisplayPort version than the average graphics card (1.4 vs 1.4a).
    1.4 vs 1.4a
  • Narrower decode codec support
    This graphics card supports narrower hardware decode codec support than the average graphics card (H.264/H.265/VP9/MPEG-2/VC-1 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9/MPEG-2/VC-1).
    H.264/H.265/VP9/MPEG-2/VC-1 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9/MPEG-2/VC-1
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (2.0b vs 2.1).
    2.0b vs 2.1
  • Narrower encode codec support
    This graphics card supports narrower hardware encode codec support than the average graphics card (H.264/H.265/VP9 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9).
    H.264/H.265/VP9 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9
  • Older HDCP version
    This graphics card supports an older HDCP version than the average graphics card (2.2 vs 2.3).
    2.2 vs 2.3
  • Older NVDEC generation
    This graphics card has a lower NVDEC generation than the average graphics card (4 vs 6). The average graphics card offers NVDEC generation 6.
    4 vs 6
  • 1 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • No dual BIOS
    This graphics card does not include dual BIOS, the average graphics card does.
  • No fan stop
    This graphics card does not support fan stop, the average graphics card does.
    No vs yes
  • 27 dB noisier at idle
    This graphics card has a higher idle noise level than the average graphics card (27 dB vs 0 dB). The average graphics card has an idle noise level of 0 dB.
    27 dB vs 0 dB
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.
    No vs yes

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

H
hi-tech.ua
31/01/2020
Summary of the review
Review of the ASUS TUF Gaming GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER OC video card: we’re trying to find fault
H
hardwareluxx.de
30/04/2019
Summary of the review
Einsteiger-Turing: GeForce GTX 1650 von ASUS im Test
(Translated)Show original
H
hardwareluxx.de
21/01/2020
Summary of the review
Lautstärke, Temperatur und Leistungsaufnahme - Seite 7. Additional, specific independent reviews for this exact custom TUF model are limited within th...
(Translated)Show original
C
comptoir-hardware.com
24/12/2019
Summary of the review
Test • GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER vs Radeon RX 5500 XT
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

Based on ratings from across the web.
Reviews last updated: June 2026 · How we calculate this

What we like about ASUS TUF GeForce GTX 1650 Super Gaming

  • Excellent 1080p gaming performance for a budget-tier card
  • Strong power efficiency with low TDP (100W), requiring only a single 6-pin connector
  • Durable build quality characteristic of the TUF line with IP5X dust-resistant fans
  • Generally quiet operation under typical gaming loads
  • Compact design that fits well in smaller cases and motherboard builds
  • Includes the modern Turing NVENC encoder, making it effective for entry-level streaming

What we don't like about ASUS TUF GeForce GTX 1650 Super Gaming

  • 4GB of VRAM is increasingly insufficient for demanding modern titles or higher resolutions
  • Fans do not have a 0dB 'stop mode' and run at a minimum RPM even at idle
  • Brief period of loud fan noise during initial system startup
  • Cooling solution is basic compared to premium ROG Strix models, lacking a backplate on some variants
  • Lacks advanced features like Ray Tracing or DLSS support found in RTX series cards
  • No integrated RGB lighting, which may disappoint users seeking specific aesthetics

Verdict

The ASUS TUF Gaming GeForce GTX 1650 Super is a compact, dual-slot graphics card built on NVIDIA's 12nm Turing architecture, featuring 1280 CUDA cores and 4GB of high-speed GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with a 192 GB/s bandwidth. This OC Edition model offers a base clock of 1530 MHz and a boost clock of up to 1800 MHz in OC mode, supported by a 100W TDP that requires a single 6-pin power connector. Main pros include its durable TUF construction with IP5X dust resistance, space-grade fan lubricant for quiet operation, and a protective backplate, alongside a DirectCU II cooling system that keeps the GPU around 69°C under load. However, main cons include a limited 4GB VRAM capacity which can bottleneck modern AAA titles at higher settings, the lack of dedicated hardware for Ray Tracing and DLSS, and its higher launch price compared to some more powerful 16-series alternatives.

Compare ASUS TUF GeForce GTX 1650 Super Gaming with other products in the Graphics cards category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of ASUS TUF GeForce GTX 1650 Super Gaming and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found