NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 Comparison

The data clearly separates these two NVIDIA cards, with the GTX 1650 SUPER dominating the comparison. The benchmark results show a massive generational leap, but the GTX 465 still holds a distinct place in the record for its era. The GTX 1650 SUPER wins the only head-to-head test, and its overall average score is significantly higher, marking it as the superior performer in every measurable way.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 1650 SUPER wins in all recorded benchmark categories. Its compute performance is in a different class entirely, as shown by the Geekbench OpenCL result where it scores 43,875 against the GTX 465's 9,294. This is not a marginal improvement; it is a 372.1% lead, meaning the newer card processes compute workloads nearly five times faster. The GTX 1650 SUPER also excels in modern API support, with DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4 support, making it the clear choice for contemporary applications.

The GTX 465 has no benchmark wins in the recorded data. Its only strength lies in its legacy status. As a Fermi architecture card from the GeForce 400 generation, it represents an older approach to GPU design. The data shows it falls behind in compute, memory bandwidth, and raw throughput. Its 46th percentile ranking among all GPUs places it below the GTX 1650 SUPER's 50th percentile, and its average score of 9,294 is far lower. If a workload requires modern feature sets, the GTX 1650 SUPER is the only viable option from this pair.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from completely different architectural eras. The GTX 1650 SUPER uses the Turing architecture on a 12 nm process, while the GTX 465 uses the older Fermi architecture on a 40 nm process. This process shrink is a major factor in performance. The GTX 1650 SUPER packs 6,600 million transistors onto a 284 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 23.2M per mm². The GTX 465 has 3,100 million transistors on a much larger 529 mm² die, with a density of only 5.9M per mm².

The memory subsystems also differ sharply. The GTX 1650 SUPER has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 465 has just 1 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 102.7 GB/s. While the GTX 465 has a wider bus, the newer memory technology in the GTX 1650 SUPER results in nearly double the bandwidth. The GTX 1650 SUPER's memory runs at 12 Gbps effective, while the GTX 465's memory runs at 3.2 Gbps effective.

The compute cores are also vastly different. The GTX 1650 SUPER has 1,280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The GTX 465 has only 352 shading units, 44 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. This leads to a huge gap in throughput: the GTX 1650 SUPER delivers 4.416 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the GTX 465 delivers just 855.4 GFLOPS. The GTX 1650 SUPER also supports FP16 at 8.832 TFLOPS, a feature the GTX 465 lacks entirely. The pixel and texture rates confirm the gap: 55.20 GPixel/s and 138.0 GTexel/s for the newer card, versus 13.38 GPixel/s and 26.75 GTexel/s for the older one.

Power requirements are also notable. The GTX 1650 SUPER has a TDP of 100 W and requires a single 6-pin power connector, while the GTX 465 has a TDP of 200 W and needs two 6-pin connectors. The suggested PSU is 300 W for the newer card and 550 W for the older one, showing the efficiency gains of the newer process node.

The Verdict

The verdict is straightforward: the GTX 1650 SUPER is the superior card in every measured aspect. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 43,875 is 372.1% higher than the GTX 465's 9,294, a decisive margin that reflects the architectural advancements of Turing over Fermi. The newer card also has a higher average benchmark score of 11,047 compared to 9,294, and it ranks in the 50th percentile of all GPUs versus the 46th percentile for the GTX 465.

For users seeking performance in modern workloads, the GTX 1650 SUPER is the only choice. Its support for DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4, combined with 4 GB of GDDR6 memory, makes it suitable for current gaming and compute tasks. The GTX 465, with its DirectX 12 (11_0) support and lack of Vulkan, is limited to older applications. Its 1 GB memory capacity is also a severe constraint.

The GTX 465 launch MSRP was 279 USD, while the GTX 1650 SUPER launch MSRP was 159 USD. The newer card costs less and performs dramatically better, solidifying its position as the recommended option. The GTX 465 should only be considered for legacy system restoration or historical benchmarking, where its Fermi architecture and 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI outputs might be relevant.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher compute performance?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER dominates compute workloads. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 43,875 versus 9,294 for the GTX 465, a 372.1% advantage.

Q: How does memory capacity compare?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the GTX 465 has only 1 GB of GDDR5. The newer card also has higher bandwidth at 192.0 GB/s versus 102.7 GB/s.

Q: What are the API support differences?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER supports DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4. The GTX 465 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and has no Vulkan support, limiting it to older graphics APIs.

Q: Which card requires more power?

A: The GTX 465 has a TDP of 200 W and needs two 6-pin connectors, while the GTX 1650 SUPER has a TDP of 100 W and uses a single 6-pin connector.

Q: Are there any benchmarks where the GTX 465 wins?

A: No. In the recorded head-to-head data, the GTX 1650 SUPER wins the only test (Geekbench OpenCL) with a 372.1% lead.

Q: What is the performance percentile for each card?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER ranks in the 50th percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 465 ranks in the 46th percentile.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is a landslide. The GTX 1650 SUPER scores 43,875, while the GTX 465 scores 9,294. This represents a delta of 372.1%, meaning the newer card is nearly five times faster in this compute test. This single result encapsulates the entire performance gap between the two architectures.

The GTX 1650 SUPER's average benchmark score of 11,047 also exceeds the GTX 465's average of 9,294. The newer card's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 550 (average score 11,075, delta -0.2%) and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q (average score 11,088, delta -0.4%), showing it sits in a competitive mid-range bracket. The GTX 465's nearest rivals, such as the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M (average score 9,302, delta -0.1%) and the AMD Radeon R7 M380 (average score 9,313, delta -0.2%), place it in a much lower performance tier.

The wins tally is equally clear: the GTX 1650 SUPER has 1 win in the head-to-head benchmarks, while the GTX 465 has 0. There is no metric in the database where the older card pulls ahead. The 4.416 TFLOPS FP32 performance of the GTX 1650 SUPER versus the 855.4 GFLOPS of the GTX 465, along with the 138.0 GTexel/s versus 26.75 GTexel/s texture rate, all reinforce this outcome. The GTX 1650 SUPER is not just better; it is categorically superior across every recorded data point.

Specification Differences

The specifications where the two cards differ are extensive, reflecting a decade of GPU evolution.

• Architecture: Turing (GTX 1650 SUPER) vs Fermi (GTX 465)
• Process Node: 12 nm vs 40 nm
• Transistors: 6,600 million vs 3,100 million
• Die Size: 284 mm² vs 529 mm²
• Transistor Density: 23.2M / mm² vs 5.9M / mm²
• Memory Size: 4 GB vs 1024 MB
• Memory Type: GDDR6 vs GDDR5
• Memory Bus Width: 128 bit vs 256 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 192.0 GB/s vs 102.7 GB/s
• Memory Clock: 1500 MHz, 12 Gbps effective vs 802 MHz, 3.2 Gbps effective
• Shading Units: 1280 vs 352
• Texture Mapping Units: 80 vs 44
• Pixel Rate: 55.20 GPixel/s vs 13.38 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 138.0 GTexel/s vs 26.75 GTexel/s
• FP32 Performance: 4.416 TFLOPS vs 855.4 GFLOPS
• FP16 Performance: 8.832 TFLOPS (2:1) vs null
• TDP: 100 W vs 200 W
• Power Connectors: 1x 6-pin vs 2x 6-pin
• Suggested PSU: 300 W vs 550 W
• Bus Interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 vs PCIe 2.0 x16
• Display Outputs: 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a vs 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a
• DirectX Support: 12 (12_1) vs 12 (11_0)
• Vulkan Support: 1.4 vs null
• Release Date: 2019-11-21 vs 2010-05-30
• Predecessor: GeForce 10 vs GeForce 200
• Successor: GeForce 20 vs GeForce 500
• Launch MSRP: 159 USD vs 279 USD
• Length: 229 mm (9 inches) vs 241 mm (9.5 inches)

The GTX 465 matches the GTX 1650 SUPER in ROPs (32 for both) and slot width (Dual-slot for both), but every other relevant specification favors the newer card. The data shows a clear, one-sided comparison where architectural advancement delivers overwhelming performance gains.