NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the GeForce GTX 1650 compare to the GeForce GT 1010 in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The GTX 1650 scores 29,629 points, while the GT 1010 scores 6,698 points. This gives the GTX 1650 a 342.4% higher score, a decisive margin in compute workloads.

Q: What are the transistor counts for these two GPUs?

A: The GeForce GTX 1650 has 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, while the GeForce GT 1010 has 1,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die. The GTX 1650 uses a 12 nm process from TSMC, while the GT 1010 uses a 14 nm process from Samsung.

Q: Which GPU has more memory, and how does bandwidth compare?

A: The GTX 1650 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The GT 1010 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus, providing 48.06 GB/s. The GTX 1650 offers more capacity and more than double the bandwidth.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same modern graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither GPU includes ray tracing or tensor cores.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The GTX 1650 has an average benchmark score of 7,472, placing it at the 40th percentile of all GPUs. The GT 1010 has an average score of 6,698, placing it at the 38th percentile.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The GTX 1650 has a TDP of 75 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the GT 1010 has a TDP of 30 W and a suggested PSU of 200 W. Neither card requires external power connectors.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different NVIDIA architectures. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on the Turing architecture with the TU117 chip, fabricated at TSMC on a 12 nm process. The GeForce GT 1010 uses the older Pascal architecture with the GP108 chip, fabricated at Samsung on a 14 nm process. This architectural split explains many of the differences in performance and feature support.

The GTX 1650 packs 4,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 23.5M per mm². The GT 1010 has 1,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die, with a slightly higher density of 24.3M per mm². Despite the smaller process node of the GTX 1650, the GT 1010 achieves a comparable density because it has far fewer total transistors.

Core configuration differs substantially. The GTX 1650 has 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The GT 1010 has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs. The GTX 1650 therefore has 3.5 times the shading units, 3.5 times the TMUs, and 4 times the ROPs of the GT 1010. Neither card includes ray tracing cores or tensor cores.

Clock speeds also differ. The GTX 1650 runs at a base clock of 1485 MHz and a boost clock of 1665 MHz. The GT 1010 runs at 1228 MHz base and 1468 MHz boost. Memory clocks show a similar pattern: the GTX 1650 operates at 2001 MHz with 8 Gbps effective, while the GT 1010 operates at 1502 MHz with 6 Gbps effective.

The bus interface is another distinguishing factor. The GTX 1650 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the GT 1010 is limited to PCIe 3.0 x4. Display outputs also differ: the GTX 1650 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the GT 1010 offers 1x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 2.0.

The GT 1010 does not have a listed FP16 performance figure, while the GTX 1650 achieves 5.967 TFLOPS FP16 with a 2:1 ratio. In FP32, the GTX 1650 delivers 2.984 TFLOPS versus 751.6 GFLOPS for the GT 1010.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one direct head-to-head benchmark result between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. This test measures general-purpose compute performance across a range of workloads. The GTX 1650 scores 29,629 points, while the GT 1010 scores 6,698 points. The delta is 342.4% in favor of the GTX 1650. This is not a close contest; the GTX 1650 produces roughly four and a half times the OpenCL score of the GT 1010.

In the broader benchmark context, the GTX 1650 also has multiple additional benchmark results that the GT 1010 lacks. The GTX 1650 records 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 at 305 points, Passmark DirectX 10 at 39, DirectX 11 at 58, DirectX 12 at 35, and DirectX 9 at 124. It also scores 561 in Passmark G2D, 7,880 in Passmark G3D, and 3,048 in Passmark GPU Compute. The GT 1010 has no recorded results in any of these tests within the database, so the only direct comparison point is Geekbench OpenCL.

The average benchmark score for the GTX 1650 is 7,472, compared to 6,698 for the GT 1010. That is an 11.6% advantage for the GTX 1650 in average score, although this figure is influenced by the different sets of tests each GPU has been subjected to. The GTX 1650 sits at the 40th percentile of all GPUs, while the GT 1010 sits at the 38th percentile.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card helps contextualize the results. The GTX 1650's closest competitors by average score include the AMD Radeon HD 8850M at 7,447 (0.3% behind), the Intel UHD Graphics 750 at 7,441 (0.4% behind), and the AMD Radeon R7 350 at 7,425 (0.6% behind). The Intel Arc A310 sits slightly ahead at 7,550, which is 1% higher than the GTX 1650. The GT 1010's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R7 M370 at 6,764 (1% ahead of the GT 1010), the AMD Radeon R7 M460 at 6,612 (1.3% behind), and the AMD Radeon HD 7730M at 6,581 (1.8% behind). This places the GT 1010 in a much lower performance tier, competing with older mobile and low-end desktop parts.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs in the database:

• Architecture: Turing (GTX 1650) versus Pascal (GT 1010)
• Chip: TU117 versus GP108
• Generation: GeForce 16 versus GeForce 10
• Process node: 12 nm (TSMC) versus 14 nm (Samsung)
• Transistors: 4,700 million versus 1,800 million
• Die size: 200 mm² versus 74 mm²
• Transistor density: 23.5M / mm² versus 24.3M / mm²
• Base clock: 1485 MHz versus 1228 MHz
• Boost clock: 1665 MHz versus 1468 MHz
• Memory clock: 2001 MHz / 8 Gbps effective versus 1502 MHz / 6 Gbps effective
• Memory size: 4 GB versus 2 GB
• Memory bus width: 128 bit versus 64 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 128.1 GB/s versus 48.06 GB/s
• Shading units: 896 versus 256
• TMUs: 56 versus 16
• ROPs: 32 versus 8
• Pixel rate: 53.28 GPixel/s versus 11.74 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 93.24 GTexel/s versus 23.49 GTexel/s
• FP32 performance: 2.984 TFLOPS versus 751.6 GFLOPS
• FP16 performance: 5.967 TFLOPS (2:1) versus not listed
• TDP: 75 W versus 30 W
• Slot width: Dual-slot versus Single-slot
• Suggested PSU: 250 W versus 200 W
• Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x4
• Display outputs: 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a versus 1x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 2.0
• Dimensions: 229 mm length versus 147 mm length
• Release date: 2019-04-22 versus 2021-01-12
• Launch MSRP: 149 USD versus not listed
• Benchmark coverage: 10 tests versus 1 test

Fields that are the same include the manufacturer (NVIDIA), memory type (GDDR5), absence of RT and tensor cores, DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4, no power connectors, and end-of-life production status.

The Verdict

The data points clearly to the GeForce GTX 1650 as the stronger GPU. In the single direct comparison available, Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 1650 leads by 342.4%. Its average benchmark score of 7,472 is 11.6% higher than the GT 1010's 6,698, and it sits at the 40th percentile versus the 38th percentile. The GTX 1650 has more shading units, more memory, higher bandwidth, faster clocks, and a wider memory bus. It also supports the same modern APIs as the GT 1010, so there is no compatibility trade-off for choosing it.

The GT 1010 does have advantages in specific areas. It draws only 30 W versus 75 W, runs in a single-slot form factor, and is shorter at 147 mm versus 229 mm. Its lower power requirement means a 200 W PSU suffices, compared to 250 W for the GTX 1650. For users with severe power or space constraints, the GT 1010 is the more accommodating option. But in raw performance, the GTX 1650 dominates every measured category.

The GTX 1650 also has a wider benchmark footprint, with results across 10 tests including 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 and multiple Passmark DX tests. The GT 1010 has only one recorded benchmark. This means the GTX 1650's performance profile is far better documented, and every recorded result favors it.

There is no scenario in the data where the GT 1010 wins a performance comparison. The GTX 1650 is the recommended choice for anyone who prioritizes compute performance, memory capacity, or bandwidth. The GT 1010 is only preferable where power draw, physical size, or the lower PSU requirement are the deciding factors.

Where Each One Wins

GeForce GTX 1650 wins on:

• Compute performance: 342.4% ahead in Geekbench OpenCL.
• Memory capacity: 4 GB versus 2 GB.
• Memory bandwidth: 128.1 GB/s versus 48.06 GB/s.
• Core resources: 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs versus 256, 16, and 8.
• Pixel and texture rates: 53.28 GPixel/s and 93.24 GTexel/s versus 11.74 GPixel/s and 23.49 GTexel/s.
• FP32 throughput: 2.984 TFLOPS versus 751.6 GFLOPS.
• FP16 throughput: 5.967 TFLOPS versus no listed figure.
• Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x4.
• Display outputs: includes DisplayPort 1.4a, which the GT 1010 lacks.
• Average benchmark score: 7,472 versus 6,698.
• Percentile ranking: 40th versus 38th.

GeForce GT 1010 wins on:

• Power draw: 30 W versus 75 W.
• Physical size: 147 mm length versus 229 mm, single-slot versus dual-slot.
• Power supply requirement: 200 W versus 250 W.
• Transistor density: 24.3M / mm² versus 23.5M / mm².
• Release recency: launched in 2021 versus 2019.

The use-case split follows these strengths. The GTX 1650 suits workloads that demand memory bandwidth, compute throughput, or modern API support at higher resolutions. The GT 1010 fits systems where power efficiency, compact dimensions, and minimal thermal footprint matter more than performance. Based on the recorded data, the GTX 1650 is the clear performance leader, while the GT 1010 is the efficiency-oriented option.