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

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£180VRAM:4 GBMemory bus width:128 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):75 W

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 35 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
5.0/10

Overall score

Score
5.0/ 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 96% of models
Score components

40%

4.2

Technical score

25%

4.2

Reviews score

25%

?

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

10%

4.2

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 96% of graphics cards
6.4

Value for money

Value for money
6.4/ 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 88% of models
Score components

70%

5.0

Overall score

30%

9.6

Price

â–¼Worse than 88%
4.2

Technical score

Technical score
4.2/ 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 92% of models
Score components

44%

2.6

Performance

24%

2.1

Memory

12%

7.7

Power

11%

7.7

Features

5%

8.8

Design

4%

7.3

Connectivity

â–¼Worse than 92%
4.2

Reviews score

Reviews score
4.2/ 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 94% of models

4.2

Mark 7.4 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

6.9

Average grade

20%

9.3

Popularity

Grades by review (35)
15 reviews: 8 with a printed score, 7 estimated from the review. 20 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 94%
?

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
  • nvidia-geforce-gtx-1650
  • nvidia-geforce-gtx-1650
  • nvidia-geforce-gtx-1650
  • nvidia-geforce-gtx-1650
  • nvidia-geforce-gtx-1650
  • nvidia-geforce-gtx-1650
nvidia-geforce-gtx-1650
nvidia-geforce-gtx-1650
nvidia-geforce-gtx-1650
nvidia-geforce-gtx-1650
nvidia-geforce-gtx-1650
nvidia-geforce-gtx-1650
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 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650

Based on 15 · 20

Reviewers praise its low power use and compact, cool design, but find gaming performance divisive and video memory too limited.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650

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 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650

Technical score
Technical score
4.2/ 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 92% of models
Score components:

44%

2.6

Performance

24%

2.1

Memory

12%

7.7

Power

11%

7.7

Features

5%

8.8

Design

4%

7.3

Connectivity

4.2
Reviews score
4.2
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.4/ 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 88% of models
Score components:

70%

5.0

Overall score

30%

9.6

Price

6.4
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
3,500 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 3,500 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 92% of graphics cards and equal to 0.3% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
3,400 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 3,400 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 77.3% of graphics cards and equal to 0.2% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
7,870 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 7,870 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 89.3% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
3,037 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 3,037 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 90.1% of graphics cards and equal to 0.4% 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
GDDR5
This graphics card uses GDDR5 memory, which is older than on 85.4% of graphics cards and equal to 13.2% 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
8,000 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 8,000 MHz, which is slower than that of 86.1% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.6% 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
What reviewers say
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
1.4a
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
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)
75 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 75 W, which is lower than that of 90.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.6% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
75 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 75 W under peak load, which is lower than 91.8% of graphics cards and equal to 2.3% 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
145x 111x 35 mm
Length
229 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 229 mm long, which is shorter than 81.1% of graphics cards and equal in length to 0.9% of graphics cards.
Height
111 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 111 mm tall, which is shorter than 83.6% of graphics cards and equal in height to 5.1% 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
443 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 443 g, which is lighter than 93.7% of Graphics cards and equal to 0.2% of Graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 65.1% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (75 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    75 W vs 215 W
  • 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
  • 53.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (229 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    229 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 14 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (111 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    111 mm vs 125 mm
  • 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
  • 14.3% faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (2000 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    2,000 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 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
    NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is cheaper than the average graphics card (£180 vs £520).
    £180 vs £520
  • 14.3% faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (2000 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    2,000 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
  • 65.1% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (75 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    75 W vs 215 W
  • 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
  • 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
  • 65.9% lower peak power draw
    This graphics card has a lower peak power draw than the average graphics card (75 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a peak power draw of 220 W.
    75 W vs 220 W
  • 7 °C lower idle temperature
    This graphics card has a lower idle temperature than the average graphics card (30 °C vs 37 °C). The average graphics card has an idle temperature of 37 °C.
    30 °C vs 37 °C
  • 53.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (229 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    229 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 14 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (111 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    111 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
  • 56.3% lighter
    This graphics card is lighter than the average graphics card (443 g vs 1,014 g). The average graphics card weighs 1,014 g.
    443 g vs 1,014 g
  • 33.5% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,665 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,665 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 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
  • 41.7% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.2/ 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 94% of models

    4.2

    Mark 7.4 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    6.9

    Average grade

    20%

    9.3

    Popularity

    Grades by review (35)
    15 reviews: 8 with a printed score, 7 estimated from the review. 20 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.
    4.2 vs 7.2
  • 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
  • 2 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (1 vs 3).
    1 vs 3
  • 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
  • 41.7% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.2/ 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 94% of models

    4.2

    Mark 7.4 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    6.9

    Average grade

    20%

    9.3

    Popularity

    Grades by review (35)
    15 reviews: 8 with a printed score, 7 estimated from the review. 20 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.
    4.2 vs 7.2
  • 46.2% lower sentiment score
    4.2 vs 7.8
  • 16.2% worse value for money
    NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 has worse value for money than the average graphics card (6.38 vs 7.4).
    6.38 vs 7.41
  • 33.5% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,665 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,665 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 67% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (53.3 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    53.28 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
  • 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
  • 65.2% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (7,870 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    7,870 points vs 22,638 points
  • 76.3% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (3,500 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    3,500 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
  • 62.8% lower ray tracing score
    This graphics card has a lower ray tracing score than the average graphics card (3,400 points vs 9,148 points). The average graphics card has a ray tracing score of 9,148 points.
    3,400 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
  • 74.8% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (3,037 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    3,037 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 79.8% lower FP16 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP16 performance than the average graphics card (6 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP16 performance of 29.5 TFLOPS.
    5.97 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 (8,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    8,000 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
  • 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
  • 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 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.
  • Older shader model
    This graphics card supports an older shader model than the average graphics card (6.6 vs 6.8).
    6.6 vs 6.8
  • 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
  • Not VR ready
    This graphics card is not VR ready, while the average graphics card is.
  • 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
  • 2 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (1 vs 3).
    1 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.
  • 28 dB noisier at idle
    This graphics card has a higher idle noise level than the average graphics card (28 dB vs 0 dB). The average graphics card has an idle noise level of 0 dB.
    28 dB vs 0 dB
  • 8 °C higher load temperature
    This graphics card has a higher load temperature than the average graphics card (75 °C vs 67 °C). The average graphics card has a load temperature of 67 °C.
    75 °C vs 67 °C
  • No backplate
    This graphics card does not include a backplate, the average graphics card does.
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.

Video reviews

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

7.0
RandomGaminginHD
≈ estimated
02/04/2026
Hands-on review · benchmarks in 15 games
Verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is fine for low-power and older systems, but weak in demanding new games.
8.0
The Tech Quest
≈ estimated
15/02/2026
Hands-on review · 1080p game benchmarks and everyday use
Verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 has aged better than its launch suggested, making it a competent budget pick held back by 4GB of VRAM.
7.0
ProYamYamPC
≈ estimated
07/02/2026
Hands-on review · esports and AAA game tests at 1080p
Verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is not a bad card, but its used-market value is weak and AAA games need compromises.
4.0
zWORMz Gaming
≈ estimated
22/12/2024
Revisit review · 20 games tested at 1080p in 2024
Verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is falling behind in newer games with only 4 GB of memory, and it's not worth buying new at current prices.
8.0
DanielC
≈ estimated
05/06/2024
Hands-on review · game benchmarks and FSR frame generation tests
Verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is a decent budget card, and FSR upscaling and frame generation make demanding games playable.
3.0
Hardware Unboxed
≈ estimated
24/04/2019
Hands-on review · 12-game benchmarks and value analysis
Verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is pointless at its launch price; it trails the RX 570 and only becomes competitive when priced much lower.
7.0
eTeknix
≈ estimated
24/04/2019
Hands-on review · four partner cards, benchmarks and noise levels
Verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 offers good performance for the money, but its fan profile is loud at idle and one model is overpriced.
4.0
Gamers Nexus
≈ estimated
23/04/2019
Full review · benchmarks, overclocking and power vs RX 570
Verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 isn't competitive enough to recommend; an RX 570 is the better buy at a similar price.
8.0
Adi 4 u
≈ estimated
26/02/2024
Comparison and benchmarks · 1080p games versus RX 580
Verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is a comfortable 1080p performer that matches the RX 580 in most games, though its 4GB VRAM and heavy titles hold it back.
Not graded
Overview video
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

7.5
pcgamer.com
✓ explicit
23/04/2019
Benchmark review · Low-power card
Verdict
The GeForce GTX 1650 is the fastest 75W graphics card on the market, a strong pick for small builds, but it trails the GTX 1660 and RX 570.
6.0
rockpapershotgun.com
≈ estimated
02/05/2019
Benchmark review · Full HD card
Verdict
The Zotac GeForce GTX 1650 OC is a 1080p card reaching 60fps on Medium to High settings, but it trails the 8GB Radeon RX 570 in most games.
5.0
hothardware.com
✓ explicit
03/05/2019
Hands-on test · Overclock-ready card
Verdict
The EVGA GeForce GTX 1650 SC Ultra Black suits overclockers with its extra power feed and big cooler, though its 8.5-inch length calls for roomier cases.
5.0
digitalfoundry.net
≈ estimated
18/06/2019
Benchmark test · Nine recent games
Verdict
The GTX 1650 handles 1080p, but the Radeon RX 570 beats it in most of nine games, so it mainly suits compact builds with weak power supplies.
10
techpowerup.com
✓ explicit
26/03/2020
Hands-on test · Fanless cooling
Verdict
The Palit GTX 1650 KalmX is a fully fanless card for small, quiet systems, but stock clocks and the 75W limit keep its speed modest.
6.0
techspot.com
✓ explicit
23/04/2019
Benchmark review · 1080p game tests
Verdict
The GTX 1650 is an efficient Turing card with low power draw, but it loses to the RX 570 in most of the 12 games tested at 1080p.
8.3
gamestar.de
✓ explicit
23/04/2019
Benchmark test · Entry-level card
Verdict
The Gigabyte GTX 1650 Gaming OC 4G is Nvidia's first entry-level Turing card, quiet and low-power, but its 4GB of memory is already small for 2019 games.
6.0
lesnumeriques.com
✓ explicit
03/05/2019
Lab test · Low-power card
Verdict
The PNY GeForce GTX 1650 XLR8 OC is a very low-power card with decent Full HD performance, but it trails the Radeon RX 570 in games.
5.0
tomshardware.fr
≈ estimated
24/04/2019
Benchmark test · Entry-level card
Verdict
The MSI GeForce GTX 1650 Gaming X runs cool and holds high clocks, but its 4GB of memory caps it at 86% of a Radeon RX 570's speed.
8.0
tomshardware.fr
✓ explicit
24/06/2019
Lab test · Compact card
Verdict
The PNY GeForce GTX 1650 XLR8 OC is a tiny, low-power card that runs from the motherboard alone, suiting older small PCs that need a graphics boost.
6.0
comptoir-hardware.com
≈ estimated
06/05/2019
Benchmark test · Game average and VR
Verdict
The GeForce GTX 1650 is a clear step above the GTX 1050 but trails the Radeon RX 570 by 13–16% on average and is too weak for comfortable VR.
7.6
profesionalreview.com
✓ explicit
24/04/2019
Hands-on test · Full HD gaming
Verdict
The ASUS GTX 1650 Strix is a compact, cool-running card for Full HD players who want medium-to-high settings, but it has no ray tracing or DLSS.
7.0
elchapuzasinformatico.com
≈ estimated
22/05/2019
Hands-on test · Full HD card
Verdict
The EVGA GeForce GTX 1650 XC Ultra is a near-silent Full HD card that runs cool, but its thick 2.75-slot cooler needs plenty of case space.
7.0
geektopia.es
≈ estimated
09/07/2019
Benchmark review · Factory overclock
Verdict
The ASUS GTX 1650 Phoenix OC suits buyers who want a factory overclock without extra tools, though the RX 570 wins most games tested.
5.0
hwupgrade.it
≈ estimated
24/04/2019
Benchmark review · ROG Strix card
Verdict
The ASUS ROG Strix GTX 1650 is quiet and efficient, but its speed trails the Radeon RX 570 and GTX 1660 even at Full HD.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650

  • Low power consumption (75W TDP), often requiring no external power connectors
  • Ideal for small form factor (SFF) and budget OEM office PC upgrades
  • Capable of solid 1080p performance in esports titles like Fortnite and CS:GO
  • Runs cool and quiet compared to more power-hungry cards
  • Plug-and-play simplicity for systems with low-wattage power supplies

What customers don't like about NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650

  • Poor value for money at launch compared to competitors like the RX 570
  • Limited 4GB VRAM significantly bottlenecks performance in modern AAA titles
  • Struggles to maintain 60 FPS in newer, more intensive games without lowering settings to low/medium
  • Performance uplift over the older 1050 Ti was considered unremarkable by many users
  • Lacks support for modern features like ray tracing and DLSS

Verdict

The Nvidia GeForce GTX 1650 is an entry-level graphics card built on the 12nm Turing architecture (TU117 chip), featuring 896 CUDA cores and typically 4GB of GDDR5 or GDDR6 VRAM on a 128-bit bus. Its main characteristics include a low 75W TDP that often eliminates the need for external power connectors and a base clock around 1485 MHz. The primary pros are its excellent power efficiency, compact form factor for budget builds, and solid 1080p performance in eSports titles. However, it lacks dedicated Ray Tracing and Tensor cores, struggles with modern AAA games at high settings, and offers a relatively poor price-to-performance ratio compared to newer entry-level alternatives.

Compare NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 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 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found