NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 sit at opposite ends of a hardware generation gap, and the recorded data makes the distance between them unmistakable. Both are end-of-life NVIDIA products built at TSMC, and both occupy dual-slot form factors, but the GTX 1650 SUPER's Turing-based TU116 chip and the GTX 560's Fermi 2.0-based GF114 silicon represent radically different eras of GPU design. In the single directly comparable benchmark in the database, the Geekbench OpenCL compute test, the GTX 1650 SUPER posts a score of 43875 against the GTX 560's 9058, a gap of 384.4 percent. That figure frames everything else in this comparison.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the GTX 1650 SUPER than the GTX 560 in the shared benchmark?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 1650 SUPER scores 43875 versus 9058 for the GTX 560, a difference of 384.4 percent in favor of the newer card. It is the only test both cards have recorded results for in the database.

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER, with an average benchmark score of 11047 against 9058 for the GTX 560. The GTX 1650 SUPER sits at the 50th percentile across all GPUs in the database, while the GTX 560 sits at the 45th percentile.

Q: How do the power requirements differ?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER has a TDP of 100 W, uses a single 6-pin power connector, and carries a suggested PSU of 300 W. The GTX 560 has a TDP of 150 W, requires two 6-pin connectors, and carries a suggested PSU of 450 W. The newer card delivers far more performance while drawing less power.

Q: What memory does each card have?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 560 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a wider 256-bit bus but only 128.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which API support separates the two?

A: Both report DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, but the GTX 1650 SUPER supports feature level 12_1 versus 11_0 on the GTX 560, and it also supports Vulkan 1.4, which the GTX 560 lacks entirely.

Q: How do the launch MSRPs compare?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER launched at an MSRP of 159 USD, while the GTX 560 launched at 199 USD.

Architecture Differences

The architectural distance between these two cards is the story of nearly a decade of GPU evolution. The GTX 1650 SUPER uses the TU116 chip on the Turing architecture, fabricated at TSMC on a 12 nm process. The GTX 560 uses the GF114 chip on the Fermi 2.0 architecture, fabricated at TSMC on a much older 40 nm process. The consequences of that node gap show up directly in the density figures: the TU116 packs 6,600 million transistors into 284 mm² for a density of 23.2M per mm², while the GF114 carries only 1,950 million transistors across a larger 332 mm² die, working out to 5.9M per mm².

That means the newer card delivers roughly three and a half times the transistor count on a physically smaller piece of silicon. Transistor density is the mechanism behind the efficiency story elsewhere in the datasheet: the GTX 1650 SUPER's 100 W TDP against the GTX 560's 150 W TDP, despite the enormous performance advantage, is a direct product of the process node leap.

The shading resources tell a similar tale. The GTX 1650 SUPER fields 1280 shading units and 80 texture mapping units against 336 shading units and 56 TMUs on the GTX 560. Raster output units are equal at 32 on both cards, one of the few areas of parity, but the newer card drives them far harder: its boost clock reaches 1725 MHz from a 1530 MHz base, while the GTX 560's recorded data lists no core clock figures at all, only its memory clock. The resulting throughput gap is stark, with the GTX 1650 SUPER delivering 55.20 GPixel/s of pixel fill and 138.0 GTexel/s of texture fill against 11.34 GPixel/s and 45.36 GTexel/s for the GTX 560.

Neither card carries RT cores or tensor cores, so ray tracing and machine learning acceleration are absent from both feature sets. The GTX 1650 SUPER does bring FP16 compute at 8.832 TFLOPS in a 2:1 ratio alongside its 4.416 TFLOPS of FP32, while the GTX 560 offers only FP32 at 1,088.6 GFLOPS with no FP16 figure recorded.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Direct head-to-head data is limited to a single test, but it is emphatic. In the Geekbench OpenCL compute benchmark, the GTX 1650 SUPER scores 43875 and the GTX 560 scores 9058, giving the newer card a 384.4 percent victory. That is not a marginal generational step; it is close to a fivefold advantage in general-purpose GPU compute, and it aligns with the raw specification gap of roughly four times the FP32 throughput (4.416 TFLOPS versus 1,088.6 GFLOPS).

The broader database results reinforce the picture even where direct comparison is not possible. The GTX 1650 SUPER's recorded results span a wide set of tests: 352 in 3DMark Steel Nomad (DirectX 12), 50519 in Geekbench Vulkan, 10179 in Passmark G3D, 4477 in Passmark GPU Compute, and a spread of Passmark DirectX results from 45 (DirectX 12) to 148 (DirectX 9), with 749 in Passmark G2D. The GTX 560 has only the single Geekbench OpenCL entry in its record. That asymmetry itself is informative: the older card predates most of the modern benchmark suite, and its average score of 9058 is derived from that lone data point.

Context from each card's nearest rivals adds perspective. The GTX 1650 SUPER's average of 11047 places it within a fraction of a percent of the AMD Radeon RX 550 (11075, a 0.2 percent gap), essentially level with the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q variants (11088, 0.4 percent), and 1.5 percent ahead of the GeForce MX350 (10883). The GTX 560's average of 9058 puts it 0.2 percent above the TITAN V CEO Edition (9037), 0.4 percent above the GeForce GTX 660 (9022), 1.6 percent above the Radeon 550X (8918), and 1.7 percent below the Radeon 890M (9210). Note that these rival-based percentile clusters reflect the averaging methodology across differing benchmark sets rather than like-for-like performance in any single test.

Specification Differences

The specification table diverges on nearly every line. Process node: 12 nm versus 40 nm. Transistors: 6,600 million versus 1,950 million. Die size: 284 mm² versus 332 mm². Shading units: 1280 versus 336. TMUs: 80 versus 56. ROPs: 32 on both, the lone tie.

Memory differs in every dimension except ROP count. The GTX 1650 SUPER pairs 4 GB of GDDR6 with a 128-bit bus for 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth, running at an effective 12 Gbps. The GTX 560 pairs 1024 MB of GDDR5 with a 256-bit bus for 128.0 GB/s, at an effective 4 Gbps. The older card's wider bus cannot compensate for slower memory and a quarter of the capacity.

Power delivery and board design also split sharply. The GTX 1650 SUPER needs one 6-pin connector and a 300 W suggested PSU against two 6-pin connectors and a 450 W suggested PSU for the GTX 560. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs differ in both type and vintage: the newer card offers DVI, HDMI 2.0, and DisplayPort 1.4a, while the GTX 560 offers two DVI outputs and mini-HDMI 1.3a. Physically, the GTX 1650 SUPER measures 229 mm long, 111 mm tall, and 35 mm wide, against a 210 mm length for the GTX 560 with no height or width recorded. The GTX 1650 SUPER lists DirectX 12 feature level 12_1, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4; the GTX 560 lists DirectX 12 feature level 11_0 and OpenGL 4.6 with no Vulkan support. Release timing differs too: the GTX 560 arrived first as the older generation, followed much later by the GTX 1650 SUPER.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 1650 SUPER wins everything the data measures. It takes the sole head-to-head benchmark by 384.4 percent, and it leads in every specification category that matters for throughput: shader count, texture fill (138.0 versus 45.36 GTexel/s), pixel fill (55.20 versus 11.34 GPixel/s), compute (4.416 TFLOPS versus 1,088.6 GFLOPS FP32, plus FP16 capability), memory capacity, and memory bandwidth. It is also the more practical card to run, with lower power draw, fewer connectors, and a lower suggested PSU. For gaming, compute workloads via OpenCL or Vulkan, and modern API support, the GTX 1650 SUPER is the clear choice.

The GTX 560's wins are narrow and contextual. Its 256-bit memory bus is wider, though the resulting bandwidth still trails. Its 210 mm length is shorter than the GTX 1650 SUPER's 229 mm, a marginal consideration for cramped cases. It offers two DVI outputs for legacy multi-monitor setups relying on that connector. Beyond those points, the database offers no benchmark, specification, or efficiency category in which the GTX 560 comes out ahead. The recorded data describes a clean sweep for the Turing card, with the Fermi-based GTX 560 standing as a snapshot of an earlier era of GPU design rather than a competitive alternative.