OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v3.0

GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 1650 Gaming OC review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£180VRAM:4 GBMemory bus width:128 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):105 W

GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 1650 Gaming OC Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 11 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 1650 Gaming OC
5.3/10

Overall score

Score
5.3/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
Score components

40%

4.5

Technical score

25%

4.5

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

4.5

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 95% 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 86% of models
Score components

70%

5.3

Overall score

30%

9.6

Price

â–¼Worse than 86%
4.5

Technical score

Technical score
4.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 90% of models
Score components

44%

2.8

Performance

24%

2.5

Memory

12%

8.9

Power

11%

7.9

Features

5%

9.0

Design

4%

7.3

Connectivity

â–¼Worse than 90%
4.5

Reviews score

Reviews score
4.5/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 92% of models

4.5

Mark 7.1 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

6.7

Average grade

20%

8.6

Popularity

Grades by review (11)
9 reviews: 5 with a printed score, 4 estimated from the review. 2 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–¼Worse than 92%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • gigabyte-geforce-gtx-1650-gaming-oc
gigabyte-geforce-gtx-1650-gaming-oc
Where to buy
*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.

What reviewers say about the GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 1650 Gaming OC

Based on 9 · 2

Reviewers like its overclocking and cool running, but most agree gaming performance is weak and opinions on noise are split.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 1650 Gaming OC

Based on 173 owners sharing their experience in online comments

75%positive5%mixed20%negative

Owners praise smooth gaming at practical settings, while limited speed in demanding games means lower settings and modest frame rates.

What owners dislike

  • Struggles with demanding and newer games, often dropping to 30 to 40 fps at higher settings.27
  • Falls well behind newer and higher-tier cards, often delivering about half the frame rate of cards like the GTX 1080 Ti or RTX 3060 Ti.7
  • Some owners report sudden fps drops, stuttering, crashes and glitches, especially in demanding games or after overclocking.5

Points mentioned by at least 3 owners, most mentioned first.

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 1650 Gaming OC

Technical score
Technical score
4.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 90% of models
Score components:

44%

2.8

Performance

24%

2.5

Memory

12%

8.9

Power

11%

7.9

Features

5%

9.0

Design

4%

7.3

Connectivity

4.5
Reviews score
4.5
List score
?
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 86% of models
Score components:

70%

5.3

Overall score

30%

9.6

Price

6.5
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
3,531 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 3,531 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 91.8% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
3,000 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 3,000 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 78.1% of graphics cards and equal to 0.2% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
5,825 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 5,825 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 92.7% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
7,610 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 7,610 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 72.6% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
2.98 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 2.98 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 91.3% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.4% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
VRAM
4 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 4 GB of VRAM, which is less than 87.7% of graphics cards and equal to 6% of graphics cards.
Memory type
GDDR6
This graphics card uses GDDR6 memory, which is newer than on 16.4% of graphics cards and equal to 40.3% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
128 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 128 bit memory bus, which is narrower than that of 68.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 26.7% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
128 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 128 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 92.3% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.8% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
8,002 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 8,002 MHz, which is slower than that of 85.8% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.3% of graphics cards.
Show more
PCI Express (PCIe) version
3
This graphics card supports PCIe 3, which is older than on 77.6% of graphics cards and equal to 20.1% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x16
This graphics card uses x16 PCIe lanes, which is more than 24.1% of graphics cards and equal to 75.9% 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 17% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.4
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.4, which is more advanced than on 20.8% of graphics cards and equal to 79.2% of graphics cards.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 2% of graphics cards and equal to 98% of graphics cards.
Show more
Max displays supported
4
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 4 displays, which is more than 9% of graphics cards and equal to 88.2% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
7680x4320
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320, which is higher than that of 9.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 90.9% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
1
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 1 DisplayPort outputs, which is fewer than 88.1% of graphics cards and equal to 8.7% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
1.4
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.4, which is older than on 80.8% of graphics cards and equal to 13.1% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
32.4 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 32.4 Gbps, which is faster than on 56.6% of graphics cards and equal to 20.9% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
105 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 105 W, which is lower than that of 88.6% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
81 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 81 W under peak load, which is lower than 91.5% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
300 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 300 W PSU, which is lower than that of 94% of graphics cards and equal to that of 5% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
75 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 75 W, which is lower than that of 91.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.2% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
75 W
Show more
What reviewers say
Size
265x 118x 40 mm
Length
265 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 265 mm long, which is shorter than 63.6% of graphics cards and equal in length to 0.1% of graphics cards.
Height
118 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 118 mm tall, which is shorter than 66.1% of graphics cards and equal in height to 1.8% 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 52.4% of graphics cards and equal in width to 43.4% of graphics cards.
Weight
742 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 742 g, which is lighter than 75.5% of Graphics cards and equal to 0.2% of Graphics cards.
Show more

GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 1650 Gaming OC vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 53.8% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (300 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    300 W vs 650 W
  • 51.2% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (105 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    105 W vs 215 W
  • 4.57x faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (8,002 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    8,002 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 65.9% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (75 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    75 W vs 220 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
  • 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
  • 2.89x cheaper
    GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 1650 Gaming OC is cheaper than the average graphics card (£180 vs £520).
    £180 vs £520
  • 7 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (118 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    118 mm vs 125 mm
  • 2.89x cheaper
    GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 1650 Gaming OC is cheaper than the average graphics card (£180 vs £520).
    £180 vs £520
  • 4.57x faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (8,002 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    8,002 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 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
  • 53.8% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (300 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    300 W vs 650 W
  • 51.2% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (105 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    105 W vs 215 W
  • 65.9% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (75 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    75 W vs 220 W
  • 63.2% lower peak power draw
    This graphics card has a lower peak power draw than the average graphics card (81 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a peak power draw of 220 W.
    81 W vs 220 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
  • 7 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (118 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    118 mm vs 125 mm
  • 17.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (265 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    265 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 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
  • 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
  • 37.5% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.5/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 92% of models

    4.5

    Mark 7.1 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    6.7

    Average grade

    20%

    8.6

    Popularity

    Grades by review (11)
    9 reviews: 5 with a printed score, 4 estimated from the review. 2 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    4.5 vs 7.2
  • 26 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (14 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    14 vs 40
  • 27.5% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,815 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,815 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • 128 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (56 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    56 vs 184
  • 75.3% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (93.2 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    93.24 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 37.5% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.5/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 92% of models

    4.5

    Mark 7.1 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    6.7

    Average grade

    20%

    8.6

    Popularity

    Grades by review (11)
    9 reviews: 5 with a printed score, 4 estimated from the review. 2 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    4.5 vs 7.2
  • 42.3% lower sentiment score
    4.5 vs 7.8
  • 13.2% worse value for money
    GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 1650 Gaming OC has worse value for money than the average graphics card (6.55 vs 7.4).
    6.55 vs 7.41
  • 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
  • 26 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (14 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    14 vs 40
  • 27.5% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,815 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,815 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 128 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (56 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    56 vs 184
  • 75.3% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (93.2 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    93.24 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/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
  • 64% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (58.1 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    58.08 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 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
  • 86.8% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (3 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    2.98 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 22.7% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,485 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,485 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 74.3% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (5,825 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    5,825 points vs 22,638 points
  • 76.1% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (3,531 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    3,531 points vs 14,779 points
  • 4 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2019 vs 2023).
    April 2019
    2019 vs 2023
  • 67.2% lower ray tracing score
    This graphics card has a lower ray tracing score than the average graphics card (3,000 points vs 9,148 points). The average graphics card has a ray tracing score of 9,148 points.
    3,000 points vs 9,148 points
  • 81.3% 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.
    0.09 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS
  • 78% lower FP16 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP16 performance than the average graphics card (6.5 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP16 performance of 29.5 TFLOPS.
    6.5 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS
  • 3,456 fewer FP32 units
    This graphics card has fewer FP32 units than the average graphics card (896 vs 4,352). The average graphics card has 4,352 FP32 units.
    896 vs 4,352
  • 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
  • 71.4% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (128 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    128 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 57.9% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (8,002 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    8,002 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 64 bit narrower memory bus
    This graphics card has a narrower memory bus than the average graphics card (128 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    128 bit vs 192 bit
  • 50% smaller L1 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L1 cache than the average graphics card (64 KB vs 128 KB). The average graphics card has 128 KB L1 cache.
    64 KB vs 128 KB
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • 2.4x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (12 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    12 nm vs 5 nm
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No ray tracing
    This graphics card does not support ray tracing, the average graphics card does.
  • Older PCIe version
    This graphics card supports an older PCIe version than the average graphics card (3 vs 4).
    3 vs 4
  • No Resizable BAR
    This graphics card does not support Resizable BAR, while the average graphics card does. 76.4% of Graphics cards support it.
  • Older DirectX version
    This graphics card supports an older DirectX version than the average graphics card (12 vs 12 Ultimate).
    12 vs 12 Ultimate
  • 79.5% fewer transistors
    This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (4,700 million vs 22,900 million). The average graphics card has 22,900 million transistors.
    4,700 million vs 22,900 million
  • Older FSR version
    This graphics card supports an older FSR version than the average graphics card (3 vs 3.1).
    3 vs 3.1
  • 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.
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (2.0b vs 2.1a).
    2.0b vs 2.1a
  • No AV1 decoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 decoding, the average graphics card does.
  • More basic codec support
    This graphics card encodes more basic formats than the average graphics card (H.264/H.265 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9).
    H.264/H.265 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9
  • 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
  • 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
  • 2 fewer monitors per output type
    This graphics card supports fewer monitors per output type than the average graphics card (1 vs 3). The average graphics card supports 3 monitors per output type.
    1 vs 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.

Video reviews

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

4.0
KitGuruTech
≈ estimated
25/04/2019
Hands-on review · benchmarks, temperatures, noise and overclocking
Verdict
GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 1650 Gaming OC is a cool custom card, but it costs more than the RX 570 and runs slower, so it is hard to recommend.
Not graded
Hands-on video, no verdict

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

6.0
kitguru.net
✓ explicit
25/04/2019
Hands-on test · 1080p gaming
Verdict
The Gigabyte GTX 1650 Gaming OC is efficient, but it struggles to hold 60 fps at 1080p with high settings.
6.0
thetechrevolutionist.com
≈ estimated
26/06/2019
Hands-on test · Performance and overclock
Verdict
The Gigabyte GTX 1650 Gaming OC suits 1080p at medium settings, but for high settings the GTX 1660 is the safer choice.
8.0
modders-inc.com
✓ explicit
31/03/2023
Benchmark review · 1080p gaming
Verdict
The Gigabyte GTX 1650 Gaming OC is a solid 1080p card that runs most games on medium to high, but 1440p needs lower settings.
6.0
kitguru.net
✓ explicit
25/04/2019
Launch review · Budget 1080p card
Verdict
The Gigabyte GTX 1650 Gaming OC is a 1080p card with a factory boost clock above reference, but it has no RTX features.
5.0
computerbase.de
≈ estimated
02/05/2019
Lab test · Power efficiency
Verdict
The Gigabyte GTX 1650 Gaming OC draws little power but can't keep up with the Radeon RX 570, so it suits Full HD gamers who prioritize efficiency.
7.0
geeknetic.es
✓ explicit
24/04/2019
Hands-on test · Cooling and overclocking
Verdict
The Gigabyte GTX 1650 Gaming OC runs cool and quiet with good overclocking room, but it is built for 1080p at 60 fps and no higher.
7.2
profesionalreview.com
✓ explicit
24/04/2019
Hands-on test · Design and cooling
Verdict
The Gigabyte GTX 1650 Gaming OC is up to 70% faster than the GTX 1050 at 1080p, with a sturdy build, but it lacks SLI and USB-C.
7.0
pc-gaming.it
≈ estimated
18/03/2024
Hands-on test · Power and cooling
Verdict
The Gigabyte GTX 1650 Gaming OC is very power efficient and handles 1080p with some compromises, but it is slower than the Radeon RX 570.
5.0
tomshw.it
≈ estimated
06/05/2019
Hands-on test · Gaming and noise
Verdict
The Gigabyte GTX 1650 Gaming OC handles Full HD at medium detail, but it is louder under load and slower than the Radeon RX 570.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 1650 Gaming OC

  • Efficient power consumption with low draw under load
  • Excellent cooling performance, remaining cool and quiet during use
  • High factory overclock speeds provide a performance boost out of the box
  • Compact, colour-neutral design that fits easily in most builds
  • Easy installation process and reliable for budget-friendly gaming or HTPC setups

What customers don't like about GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 1650 Gaming OC

  • Inferior value for money compared to similarly priced or cheaper competitors like the RX 570
  • Limited 4GB VRAM can be a bottleneck for modern AAA titles
  • Requires a supplemental 6-pin power connector, unlike some other 1650 models
  • Lacks hardware features for RTX and DLSS
  • Struggles to maintain 60 FPS at high settings in newer, more demanding games

Verdict

The Gigabyte GeForce GTX 1650 Gaming OC is a factory-overclocked entry-level graphics card based on the Turing architecture, featuring 896 CUDA cores and a boosted core clock of 1815 MHz. It is equipped with 4GB of GDDR5 VRAM on a 128-bit memory bus, providing a bandwidth of 128 GB/s, and requires a single 6-pin PCIe power connector due to its higher 105W TDP. Main characteristics include the Windforce 2X cooling system with two 100mm alternate spinning fans, a protective backplate, and customizable RGB Fusion 2.0 lighting. Key pros include its exceptionally cool and quiet operation, efficient 1080p performance for eSports titles, and a high out-of-the-box overclock compared to reference models. However, notable cons include its 4GB VRAM limitation for modern AAA titles, the requirement for external power unlike standard 1650 models, and lower value compared to competitors like the RX 570 in terms of raw frames-per-second.

Compare GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 1650 Gaming OC 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 GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 1650 Gaming OC and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found