GPU Comparison

The Intel Arc A310 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 are both end-of-life graphics cards targeting the entry-level segment, but they represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The Arc A310 is Intel’s low-power Alchemist part, built on a 6 nm process, while the GTX 1650 is a Turing-based product from NVIDIA that has been a staple of budget builds. Benchmark data shows a clear split: the GTX 1650 dominates in raw DirectX and compute workloads, while the Arc A310 counters in specific OpenCL and 2D tests. The average benchmark scores are remarkably close, 7550 for the Arc A310 versus 7472 for the GTX 1650, a difference of just 1%, placing both cards at the 40th percentile of all GPUs. This parity in overall averages, however, masks significant per-test swings that define their respective strengths and weaknesses.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive victory for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 comes in the Passmark DirectX 9 test, where it scores 124 against the Arc A310’s 69. That is a 44.4% lead for NVIDIA, the largest delta in the entire comparison. This result indicates a massive advantage in legacy API performance, likely stemming from mature driver overhead and architectural optimizations for older workloads. Similarly, in Passmark DirectX 11, the GTX 1650 posts a score of 58 versus 33 for the Arc A310, a 43.1% margin. These two tests alone show that for traditional rasterization APIs, the NVIDIA card is in a different league.

The trend continues in the more modern Passmark DirectX 12 test, though the gap narrows. The GTX 1650 wins with a score of 35 against 29, a 17.1% advantage. This suggests that while the Arc A310’s Xe-HPG architecture is designed for DirectX 12 Ultimate, it still trails in raw execution. The 3DMark Steel Nomad test, which is exclusive to the GTX 1650’s benchmark suite, shows a score of 305, but no comparable Arc A310 data exists for that specific workload. The most impactful result for gaming is the Passmark G3D score, where the GTX 1650 achieves 7880 versus 5433 for the Arc A310. This 31.1% deficit for Intel is the single largest gap in overall 3D performance, reinforcing that the GTX 1650 is the superior choice for general graphics rendering.

Compute performance also favors NVIDIA, though not as overwhelmingly. In Passmark GPU Compute, the GTX 1650 scores 3048 against 2157 for the Arc A310, a 29.2% lead. The Vulkan API test tells a similar story: the GTX 1650 wins with 33042 points versus 28964 for the Arc A310, a 12.3% margin. This indicates that NVIDIA’s drivers are better optimized for cross-platform compute and modern graphics APIs. The Arc A310 does secure a win in Geekbench OpenCL, scoring 30607 versus 29629 for the GTX 1650, a modest 3.3% advantage. This is a notable outlier, suggesting that Intel’s compute stack can outperform NVIDIA in specific OpenCL workloads, likely due to the Arc A310’s dedicated ray tracing units and newer architecture.

The second and final win for the Arc A310 comes in Passmark G2D, a 2D graphics test. Here, Intel scores 625 against NVIDIA’s 561, an 11.4% lead. This is a niche result, but it indicates that the Arc A310 has superior memory bandwidth utilization or driver efficiency for desktop composition and 2D rendering tasks. In the remaining DirectX tests, the pattern is consistent: the GTX 1650 wins Passmark DirectX 10 with 39 points versus 31 (a 20.5% lead). Across nine head-to-head benchmarks, NVIDIA wins seven, with the two Intel victories being isolated to specific API or 2D workloads. The data clearly shows that the GTX 1650 is the more consistent and powerful performer in the majority of scenarios.

The Verdict

Based strictly on benchmark results, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the superior card for most users. It wins seven out of nine head-to-head tests, including the critical Passmark G3D score (7880 vs 5433), which is the most representative metric for gaming performance. The GTX 1650 also offers a 29.2% lead in compute (3048 vs 2157) and a 12.3% lead in Vulkan (33042 vs 28964), making it the better choice for content creation and modern API workloads. Its dominance in DirectX 9 (44.4% lead) and DirectX 11 (43.1% lead) also ensures better compatibility with older games and applications. The average benchmark scores are nearly identical, 7472 for NVIDIA versus 7550 for Intel, but this parity is misleading, as the GTX 1650 wins by larger margins in the tests that matter most for 3D rendering.

The Intel Arc A310 is the pick only for users with very specific needs. Its 3.3% win in Geekbench OpenCL (30607 vs 29629) and 11.4% win in Passmark G2D (625 vs 561) are the only areas where it outperforms the GTX 1650. These results suggest that the Arc A310 has a niche advantage in OpenCL compute tasks and 2D desktop environments. However, the Arc A310’s DirectX 12 score of 29 is 17.1% lower than the GTX 1650’s 35, and its DirectX 11 score of 33 is 43.1% lower, making it a poor fit for gaming. The data indicates that the GTX 1650 is the safer, more versatile choice, while the Arc A310 is a specialist card for users who prioritize OpenCL performance over everything else. Neither card is a standout; both sit at the 40th percentile of all GPUs, but NVIDIA’s offering is clearly the more balanced product.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Arc A310 has a slightly higher average benchmark score of 7550, compared to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650’s 7472. This represents a 1% difference in favor of Intel, placing both cards in the same performance tier.

Q: How much faster is the GTX 1650 in DirectX 11?

A: The GTX 1650 scores 58 in Passmark DirectX 11, while the Arc A310 scores 33. This gives NVIDIA a 43.1% advantage, making it significantly faster for DirectX 11 workloads.

Q: In which benchmark does the Arc A310 achieve its largest win?

A: The Arc A310’s largest win is in Passmark G2D, where it scores 625 against the GTX 1650’s 561. This is an 11.4% lead for Intel in 2D graphics performance.

Q: What is the difference in Vulkan performance?

A: The GTX 1650 scores 33042 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the Arc A310 scores 28964. This results in a 12.3% advantage for NVIDIA in the Vulkan API.

Q: Does the GTX 1650 have better compute performance?

A: Yes, the GTX 1650 scores 3048 in Passmark GPU Compute, compared to 2157 for the Arc A310. This is a 29.2% lead for NVIDIA in compute workloads.

Q: How do the cards compare in DirectX 9?

A: The GTX 1650 has a massive lead in Passmark DirectX 9, scoring 124 versus 69 for the Arc A310. This is a 44.4% difference, the largest margin in any head-to-head test.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ substantially in their core specifications. The Intel Arc A310 uses a 64-bit memory bus with 4 GB of GDDR6 memory, achieving a bandwidth of 124.0 GB/s. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 uses a 128-bit bus with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, providing a slightly higher bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s. The GTX 1650 has more shading units (896 vs 768), more texture mapping units (56 vs 32), and double the raster output units (32 vs 16). The GTX 1650 also has higher pixel and texture rates: 53.28 GPixel/s and 93.24 GTexel/s respectively, compared to 28.00 GPixel/s and 56.00 GTexel/s for the Arc A310. In terms of raw compute, the GTX 1650 offers 2.984 TFLOPS of FP32 performance versus 2.688 TFLOPS for the Arc A310, and 5.967 TFLOPS of FP16 versus 5.376 TFLOPS.

The power profiles are starkly different. The Arc A310 has a TDP of 30 W, while the GTX 1650 has a TDP of 75 W. The Arc A310 requires only a 200 W suggested PSU, whereas the GTX 1650 suggests 250 W. The Arc A310 is a single-slot card with no power connectors, while the GTX 1650 is a dual-slot card that also has no power connectors but has physical dimensions of 229 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 35 mm in width. The bus interfaces also differ: the Arc A310 uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the GTX 1650 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs are another differentiator, with the Arc A310 offering 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0, and the GTX 1650 offering 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is fundamental. The Intel Arc A310 is built on the Xe-HPG architecture, specifically the DG2-128 chip, and is part of the Alchemist generation (Arc 3). It is manufactured on a 6 nm process at TSMC, with 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 45.9M per mm². The GTX 1650 uses the Turing architecture with the TU117 chip, part of the GeForce 16 generation. It is built on a 12 nm process, also at TSMC, with 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, giving a density of 23.5M per mm². This means the Arc A310 has a significantly smaller and denser chip.

The Arc A310 features 6 dedicated ray tracing cores, while the GTX 1650 has none. This is a major architectural difference, as the Arc A310 supports hardware-accelerated ray tracing, a feature absent from the Turing-based GTX 1650. The API support reflects this: the Arc A310 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the GTX 1650 only supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both cards support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, but the Arc A310’s higher DirectX feature level is a clear generational advantage. The Arc A310’s base and boost clocks are identical at 1750 MHz, while the GTX 1650 has a base clock of 1485 MHz and a boost clock of 1665 MHz. The memory clocks also differ, with the Arc A310 running at 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective) and the GTX 1650 at 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective). The Arc A310’s predecessor is Xe Graphics and its successor is Battlemage, while the GTX 1650’s predecessor is GeForce 10 and successor is GeForce 20. The Intel card was released in October 2022, while the NVIDIA card was released in April 2019.