NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive generational gap between these two NVIDIA parts. In the two directly comparable benchmark tests, the GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER wins outright, and the margins are substantial. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 1650 SUPER scores 43,875 points against the GTX 760's 11,299, a delta of 288.3%. That is not a marginal improvement; it is nearly four times the compute throughput in a synthetic workload that stresses raw parallel processing. The Vulkan result is even more lopsided: the GTX 1650 SUPER hits 50,519, while the GTX 760 manages 12,551, a 302.5% advantage. These are the only head-to-head tests available in the database, and both favor the newer card by a wide margin.

Context from the broader benchmark suite reinforces the pattern. The GTX 1650 SUPER's average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 11,047, placing it at the 50th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The GTX 760's average is 9,458, putting it at the 46th percentile. While the percentile gap looks modest, the raw average difference is 1,589 points, roughly 16.8% higher for the GTX 1650 SUPER. The older card's nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK, scores 9,474, just 0.2% higher than the GTX 760, meaning the GTX 760 sits directly in a cluster of older high-end parts. The GTX 1650 SUPER, by contrast, sits near the AMD Radeon RX 550 (11,075, only 0.2% lower) and the NVIDIA MX350 (10,883, 1.5% lower), indicating it competes in a much faster tier despite its modest specifications.

Looking at individual tests, the GTX 1650 SUPER shows particular strength in DirectX 9 legacy workloads: it scores 148 in Passmark DirectX 9, versus the GTX 760 which has no comparable recorded result. The newer card also posts a Passmark G3D score of 10,179 and a GPU compute score of 4,477, both far above the GTX 760's limited benchmark entries. The GTX 760 only has three recorded benchmarks (Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan), and in every one it trails. This is not a close fight; the data indicates the GTX 1650 SUPER is in a different performance class entirely.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER has an average benchmark score of 11,047, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 averages 9,458. That puts the GTX 1650 SUPER about 16.8% ahead in overall recorded performance.

Q: How much faster is the GTX 1650 SUPER in Vulkan?

A: In Geekbench Vulkan, the GTX 1650 SUPER scores 50,519 versus the GTX 760's 12,551, a 302.5% advantage. This is the largest single-test delta between the two cards in the database.

Q: Does the GTX 760 have any benchmark where it wins?

A: No. Across all recorded head-to-head tests (Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan), the GTX 1650 SUPER wins both. The GTX 760 has no recorded wins in the database.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 192.0 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 760 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 192.3 GB/s bandwidth. Bandwidth is nearly identical, but the GTX 1650 SUPER has twice the capacity.

Q: How do the transistor counts compare?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER has 6,600 million transistors on a 284 mm² die, while the GTX 760 has 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. The newer card packs nearly double the transistors into a slightly smaller area.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of each card?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER had a launch MSRP of 159 USD, while the GTX 760 had a launch MSRP of 249 USD.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap here is fundamental. The GTX 1650 SUPER is built on the Turing architecture (chip TU116) using a 12 nm process at TSMC, while the GTX 760 uses the Kepler architecture (chip GK104) on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. The process shrink is significant: 12 nm versus 28 nm allows the newer chip to pack 6,600 million transistors onto a 284 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 23.2 million per mm². The GTX 760's 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die gives a density of only 12.0 million per mm². That is nearly a 2x density improvement, which explains why the GTX 1650 SUPER can deliver far more compute without a larger die.

The shading unit counts differ meaningfully: the GTX 1650 SUPER has 1,280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The GTX 760 has 1,152 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The newer card has more shaders but fewer TMUs, yet its texture rate is substantially higher: 138.0 GTexel/s versus 99.07 GTexel/s. Pixel rate also jumps from 24.77 GPixel/s on the GTX 760 to 55.20 GPixel/s on the GTX 1650 SUPER, a 2.2x improvement. FP32 throughput tells the same story: 4.416 TFLOPS versus 2.378 TFLOPS. The GTX 1650 SUPER also supports FP16 at 8.832 TFLOPS (2:1 rate), while the GTX 760 has no recorded FP16 capability.

The GTX 1650 SUPER supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The GTX 760 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The newer card's higher DirectX feature level and newer Vulkan version indicate better support for modern rendering paths. Neither card has ray tracing or tensor cores, so those features are absent from both. Memory technology also differs: GDDR6 at 12 Gbps effective on the GTX 1650 SUPER versus GDDR5 at 6 Gbps effective on the GTX 760. The bus width narrows from 256-bit to 128-bit, but the higher clock speed keeps bandwidth nearly equal (192.0 GB/s versus 192.3 GB/s).

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification field. The GTX 1650 SUPER has a base clock of 1530 MHz and a boost clock of 1725 MHz, while the GTX 760 runs at 980 MHz base and 1032 MHz boost. The newer card's clocks are roughly 56% higher at base and 67% higher at boost. Memory capacity doubles from 2 GB to 4 GB, and the type changes from GDDR5 to GDDR6. The bus width drops from 256-bit to 128-bit, but effective memory speed rises from 6 Gbps to 12 Gbps. The result is a nearly identical bandwidth figure: 192.3 GB/s versus 192.0 GB/s.

Power draw diverges sharply. The GTX 1650 SUPER has a TDP of 100 W, requires a single 6-pin power connector, and recommends a 300 W PSU. The GTX 760 has a TDP of 170 W, needs two 6-pin connectors, and recommends a 450 W PSU. Despite delivering far more performance, the newer card consumes 70 W less. Physical dimensions also differ: the GTX 1650 SUPER is 229 mm long (9 inches), 111 mm tall (4.4 inches), and 35 mm wide (1.4 inches). The GTX 760 is 241 mm long (9.5 inches), with no recorded height or width. Both are dual-slot cards. Display outputs differ as well: the GTX 1650 SUPER offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the GTX 760 offers 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2. The newer card supports newer display standards.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 1650 SUPER wins everywhere the database records a comparison. In compute-heavy workloads like OpenCL, it is 288.3% faster. In Vulkan rendering, it is 302.5% faster. Its average benchmark score of 11,047 versus 9,458 means it outperforms the GTX 760 in every recorded metric. The newer card's higher FP32 throughput (4.416 TFLOPS versus 2.378 TFLOPS), higher pixel rate (55.20 GPixel/s versus 24.77 GPixel/s), and higher texture rate (138.0 GTexel/s versus 99.07 GTexel/s) make it the clear choice for modern gaming and GPU compute tasks. Its 4 GB VRAM also provides more headroom for texture-heavy workloads than the GTX 760's 2 GB.

The GTX 760 retains one theoretical advantage: bandwidth. At 192.3 GB/s, it edges out the GTX 1650 SUPER's 192.0 GB/s by a negligible margin. It also has a wider 256-bit memory bus, which can be beneficial in certain bandwidth-sensitive legacy workloads. However, the recorded data shows no test where this translates into a win. The GTX 760's higher TDP (170 W versus 100 W) and older Kepler architecture place it firmly in a lower performance tier. Its only practical niche would be running very old DirectX 9 titles or applications that predate modern driver optimizations, but even there, the GTX 1650 SUPER's Passmark DirectX 9 score of 148 indicates strong legacy performance.

For users choosing between these two, the data is unambiguous. The GTX 1650 SUPER offers roughly triple the compute performance in synthetic benchmarks, consumes less power, supports newer APIs, and has double the memory capacity. The GTX 760's sole advantages are a slightly wider memory bus and a negligible bandwidth edge, neither of which appears in any recorded benchmark win. The GTX 1650 SUPER is the superior card in every measurable way.