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

MSI GeForce GTX 1650 Super Gaming X review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£190VRAM:4 GBMemory bus width:128 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):100 W

MSI GeForce GTX 1650 Super Gaming X Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 6 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

MSI GeForce GTX 1650 Super Gaming X
6.7/10

Overall score

Score
6.7/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 77% of models
Score components

40%

4.5

Technical score

25%

8.4

Reviews score

25%

?

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

10%

8.9

Sentiment score

▼Worse than 77% of graphics cards
7.5

Value for money

Value for money
7.5/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 54% of models
Score components

70%

6.7

Overall score

30%

9.5

Price

▲Better than 54%
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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 89% of models
Score components

44%

3.0

Performance

24%

2.3

Memory

12%

8.9

Power

11%

7.6

Features

5%

8.2

Design

4%

8.8

Connectivity

▼Worse than 89%
8.4

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.4/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 85% of models

80%

8.5

Average grade

20%

8.3

Popularity

Grades by review (6)
3 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 3 estimated from the review. 3 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.
▲Better than 85%
?

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
  • msi-geforce-gtx-1650-super-gaming-x
  • msi-geforce-gtx-1650-super-gaming-x
  • msi-geforce-gtx-1650-super-gaming-x
  • msi-geforce-gtx-1650-super-gaming-x
  • msi-geforce-gtx-1650-super-gaming-x
  • msi-geforce-gtx-1650-super-gaming-x
  • msi-geforce-gtx-1650-super-gaming-x
msi-geforce-gtx-1650-super-gaming-x
msi-geforce-gtx-1650-super-gaming-x
msi-geforce-gtx-1650-super-gaming-x
msi-geforce-gtx-1650-super-gaming-x
msi-geforce-gtx-1650-super-gaming-x
msi-geforce-gtx-1650-super-gaming-x
msi-geforce-gtx-1650-super-gaming-x
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 MSI GeForce GTX 1650 Super Gaming X

Based on 3 · 3

Reviewers praise its strong performance, cool running and overclocking headroom, but the limited video memory is the common complaint.
Praised
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the MSI GeForce GTX 1650 Super Gaming X

Based on 199 owners sharing their experience in online comments

76%positive15%mixed9%negative

Owners praise its capable 1080p gaming, while demanding newer games expose its limited video memory.

What owners dislike

  • Demanding and newer games often drop below 60fps, especially at high settings, and some owners report poor frame rates in Cyberpunk, Warzone and Elden Ring.27
  • The 4GB of video memory fills up in newer games, forcing you to lower texture and shadow settings, and causing muddy textures or failed loading.18
  • When video memory fills up, games stutter and frame rates swing sharply, and some owners see GPU use drop suddenly during gameplay.12

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

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card MSI GeForce GTX 1650 Super Gaming X

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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 89% of models
Score components:

44%

3.0

Performance

24%

2.3

Memory

12%

8.9

Power

11%

7.6

Features

5%

8.2

Design

4%

8.8

Connectivity

4.5
Reviews score
8.4
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.5/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 54% of models
Score components:

70%

6.7

Overall score

30%

9.5

Price

7.5
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
4,500 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 4,500 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 87.2% of graphics cards and equal to 0.5% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
0 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 0 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 83.1% of graphics cards and equal to 16.9% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
8,051 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 8,051 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 88.5% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
4,469 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 4,469 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 84.5% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
4.49 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 4.49 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 88.4% 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
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 87.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.5% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
12,000 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 12,000 MHz, which is slower than that of 80.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.5% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
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
3
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 3 DisplayPort outputs, which is more than 21.7% of graphics cards and equal to 76% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
1.4a
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.4a, which is more advanced than on 19.3% of graphics cards and equal to 46.3% 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 49.7% of graphics cards and equal to 2% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
100 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 100 W, which is lower than that of 88.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.6% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
130 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 130 W under peak load, which is lower than 81% of graphics cards and equal to 3.3% 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 92.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.3% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
125 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 125 W, which is lower than that of 85.3% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.4% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
100 W
Show more
What reviewers say
Size
248x 127x 44 mm
Length
248 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 248 mm long, which is shorter than 69.8% of graphics cards and equal in length to 0.3% of graphics cards.
Height
127 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 127 mm tall, which is taller than 54.2% of graphics cards and equal in height to 1.2% 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

MSI GeForce GTX 1650 Super Gaming X vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 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
  • 16.7% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.4/ 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
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▲ Better than 85% of models

    80%

    8.5

    Average grade

    20%

    8.3

    Popularity

    Grades by review (6)
    3 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 3 estimated from the review. 3 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.
    8.4 vs 7.2
  • 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
  • 43.2% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (125 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    125 W vs 220 W
  • 34.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (248 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    248 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 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
  • 2.74x cheaper
    MSI GeForce GTX 1650 Super Gaming X is cheaper than the average graphics card (£190 vs £520).
    £190 vs £520
  • 16.7% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.4/ 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
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▲ Better than 85% of models

    80%

    8.5

    Average grade

    20%

    8.3

    Popularity

    Grades by review (6)
    3 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 3 estimated from the review. 3 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.
    8.4 vs 7.2
  • 2.74x cheaper
    MSI GeForce GTX 1650 Super Gaming X is cheaper than the average graphics card (£190 vs £520).
    £190 vs £520
  • 14.1% higher sentiment score
    8.9 vs 7.8
  • 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
  • 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
  • 43.2% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (125 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    125 W vs 220 W
  • 8.4 dB quieter under load
    This graphics card has a lower load noise level than the average graphics card (27 dB vs 35.4 dB). The average graphics card has a load noise level of 35.4 dB.
    27 dB vs 35.4 dB
  • 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
  • 34.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (248 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    248 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
  • 29.9% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,755 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,755 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
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • 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
  • 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
  • 1 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • 29.9% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,755 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,755 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
  • 63.5% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (138 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    138 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 65.2% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (56.2 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    56.16 GPixel/s vs 161.3 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
  • 80.1% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (4.5 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    4.49 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 20.3% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,530 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,530 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 64.4% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (8,051 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    8,051 points vs 22,638 points
  • 4 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2019 vs 2023).
    November 2019
    2019 vs 2023
  • 69.6% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (4,500 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    4,500 points vs 14,779 points
  • 70.1% lower FP16 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP16 performance than the average graphics card (8.8 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP16 performance of 29.5 TFLOPS.
    8.83 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS
  • 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
  • 63% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (4,469 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    4,469 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 98.2% lower INT8 performance
    This graphics card has a lower INT8 performance than the average graphics card (4.4 TOPS vs 242 TOPS). The average graphics card has INT8 performance of 242 TOPS.
    4.42 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 36.8% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (12,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 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 (1,500 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 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 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 AI upscalers
    This graphics card does not support AI upscalers, the average graphics card does.
  • No DirectStorage support
    This graphics card does not support DirectStorage, the average graphics card does.
  • No Resizable BAR
    This graphics card does not support Resizable BAR, while the average graphics card does. 76.4% of Graphics cards support it.
  • 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
  • No sampler feedback
    This graphics card does not support sampler feedback, the average graphics card does.
  • 71.2% fewer transistors
    This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (6,600 million vs 22,900 million). The average graphics card has 22,900 million transistors.
    6,600 million vs 22,900 million
  • Older FSR version
    This graphics card supports an older FSR version than the average graphics card (1 vs 3.1).
    1 vs 3.1
  • 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 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
  • 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.
  • 14 °C higher idle temperature
    This graphics card has a higher idle temperature than the average graphics card (51 °C vs 37 °C). The average graphics card has an idle temperature of 37 °C.
    51 °C vs 37 °C
  • No backplate
    This graphics card does not include a backplate, the average graphics card does.

Video reviews

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

9.0
Tech With Sean
≈ estimated
15/08/2020
Hands-on review · benchmarks and gameplay tests
Verdict
MSI GeForce GTX 1650 Super Gaming X is an impressive entry-level card, though its 4GB of memory limits ultra and high-resolution gaming.
9.0
Matt's Paddock
≈ estimated
25/11/2019
Hands-on review · benchmarks, overclocking and noise tests
Verdict
MSI GeForce GTX 1650 Super Gaming X is a strong budget pick for 1080p gaming, though its memory limits it at 1440p.
Not graded
Hands-on video, no verdict
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

8.0
guru3d.com
≈ estimated
22/11/2019
Hands-on test · Cooling and fans
Verdict
The MSI GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER Gaming X is a quiet, well-cooled 1080p card with fast GDDR6 memory, though its 4GB capacity is small.
9.0
tektick.com
≈ estimated
27/11/2019
Hands-on test · Overclocking and noise
Verdict
The MSI GTX 1650 SUPER Gaming X is a strong, quiet 1080p card that overclocks well, though its 4GB of memory makes 1440p tricky.
9.0
eteknix.com
≈ estimated
02/12/2019
Gaming test · Cooler design
Verdict
The MSI GTX 1650 SUPER Gaming X suits 1080p gamers at high settings, with a quiet, well-made cooler, but offers little over older mid-range cards.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about MSI GeForce GTX 1650 Super Gaming X

  • Excellent thermal performance, typically maintaining temperatures under 65°C.
  • Extremely quiet operation, often described as 'virtually silent' even under load.
  • Includes 'Zero Frozr' technology where fans stop completely during idle or light use.
  • High build quality with a premium aesthetic and subtle LED lighting.
  • Significant performance leap (approx. 40%) over the original non-Super GTX 1650.
  • Strong 1080p gaming performance for budget-oriented builds.
  • Includes the modern Turing NVENC encoder, making it great for entry-level streaming.

What customers don't like about MSI GeForce GTX 1650 Super Gaming X

  • Limited to 4GB of VRAM, which can struggle with ultra settings or higher resolutions like 1440p.
  • Carries a price premium ($20 MSRP increase) over basic 1650 Super models.
  • Lacks a backplate, which some users feel should be included at this premium price point.
  • Requires a 6-pin power connector, unlike some low-power non-Super 1650 variants.
  • Occasional reports of coil whine under high frame rates or heavy load.

Verdict

The MSI GeForce GTX 1650 Super Gaming X is a budget-tier graphics card powered by the NVIDIA Turing TU116 architecture, featuring 1,280 CUDA cores and a factory-overclocked boost clock of 1,755 MHz. It is equipped with 4GB of high-speed GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 192 GB/s of bandwidth and requiring a single 6-pin power connector for its 100W TDP. Main characteristics include the premium Twin Frozr 7 thermal design with dual Torx 3.0 fans and Mystic Light RGB effects. Its primary pros are exceptional 1080p gaming performance for its class, ultra-quiet operation with Zero Frozr technology, and efficient power consumption. However, its main cons include the limited 4GB VRAM capacity, which can bottleneck performance at higher resolutions or in VRAM-intensive modern titles, and the lack of hardware-accelerated ray tracing (RT) and DLSS support found in higher-end RTX cards.

Compare MSI GeForce GTX 1650 Super Gaming X 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 MSI GeForce GTX 1650 Super Gaming X and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found