NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is a dramatically faster GPU than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A, based on the single shared benchmark result. The GTX 1650 SUPER delivers a Geekbench OpenCL score of 43875, which is 327.1% higher than the GTX 950A's 10273. While the GTX 950A holds a 48th percentile ranking versus the 1650 SUPER's 50th, this is a generational mismatch: the 1650 SUPER uses a modern Turing architecture with 1280 shading units, while the 950A is a Maxwell-era mobile part with only 640. The data clearly indicates that the 1650 SUPER is the superior choice for any workload that leverages compute or graphics performance, whereas the 950A's only advantage lies in its dramatically lower power consumption and compact MXM form factor.

The Verdict

The choice between these two GPUs is not a difficult one based on the performance data. The GTX 1650 SUPER is the definitive winner for anyone prioritizing performance, as its Geekbench OpenCL score of 43875 absolutely crushes the GTX 950A's 10273. The 327.1% delta in that test is not a marginal improvement; it is a leap across generations that makes the 950A non-competitive for modern gaming or compute tasks. The 1650 SUPER also has a slightly higher percentile rank (50th vs 48th), reinforcing its status as the stronger part.

However, the GTX 950A is not without a niche. Its 75 W TDP is 25 W lower than the 1650 SUPER's 100 W, and it requires no external power connectors, making it a candidate for ultra-low-power or legacy portable systems. Furthermore, its MXM-B (3.0) interface and "Portable Device Dependent" display outputs mean it is designed for laptops or modular systems, not standard desktop slots. The 1650 SUPER, by contrast, is a dual-slot desktop card with a 1x 6-pin connector and a 300 W suggested PSU.

For a desktop user, the GTX 1650 SUPER is the only rational pick. The data shows it is faster, has twice the VRAM (4 GB vs 2 GB), and uses GDDR6 memory versus the 950A's DDR3. For a niche portable device repair or upgrade, the 950A's low power draw and MXM form factor might be the only option, but users should expect performance roughly equivalent to a fraction of the 1650 SUPER's output. The verdict is clear: choose the 1650 SUPER for any performance-oriented task; choose the 950A only if the physical or power constraints demand it.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is vast, reflecting their different release eras and design goals. The GTX 1650 SUPER is built on the Turing architecture using the TU116 chip, fabricated on a 12 nm process at TSMC. It houses 6,600 million transistors on a 284 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 23.2 million per mm². In contrast, the GTX 950A uses the Maxwell architecture with the GM107 chip, built on an older 28 nm process. It contains just 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, with a density of 12.6 million per mm² — a significant gap that explains the performance difference.

The compute resources are similarly skewed. The 1650 SUPER features 1280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 raster output units (ROPs). The 950A is cut down to 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs — exactly half of the newer card's core configuration. This doubling of resources is reflected in the raw throughput numbers: the 1650 SUPER delivers 4.416 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the 950A manages only 1,438.7 GFLOPS. The 1650 SUPER also supports FP16 at 8.832 TFLOPS (2:1 rate), a feature entirely absent from the 950A.

Memory architecture is another major divider. The 1650 SUPER uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The 950A is limited to 2 GB of DDR3 on the same 128-bit bus, but its bandwidth is a meager 32.03 GB/s — a six-fold deficit that hampers every memory-intensive operation. Clock speeds tell a similar story: the 1650 SUPER has a base clock of 1530 MHz and a boost of 1725 MHz, while the 950A runs at 993 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost. Even the memory clock differs wildly, with the 1650 SUPER at 12 Gbps effective versus the 950A's 2 Gbps.

Feature support also diverges. The 1650 SUPER supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the 950A only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, but the 1650 SUPER's newer architecture provides better shader efficiency. The 1650 SUPER is a dual-slot desktop card with PCIe 3.0 x16, while the 950A is an MXM Module with MXM-B (3.0) interface, indicating a fundamentally different deployment target.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data is sparse — only one shared test — but it paints a one-sided picture. The GTX 1650 SUPER wins the sole head-to-head benchmark (Geekbench OpenCL) with a score of 43875 versus 10273. This 327.1% advantage means the 1650 SUPER is the clear winner in any OpenCL compute workload, which includes many physics simulations, video encoding tasks, and general-purpose GPU compute applications.

For gaming, the 1650 SUPER's advantages in texture rate (138.0 GTexel/s vs 44.96 GTexel/s) and pixel rate (55.20 GPixel/s vs 17.98 GPixel/s) suggest it will dominate in rasterization-heavy scenarios. The 192.0 GB/s memory bandwidth versus 32.03 GB/s also means the 1650 SUPER can handle higher resolutions and larger texture packs without stuttering. The 950A's 2 GB VRAM is a severe limitation for modern titles, while the 1650 SUPER's 4 GB is more workable for 1080p gaming.

The only area where the 950A "wins" is in power efficiency and form factor. Its 75 W TDP is lower than the 1650 SUPER's 100 W, and it requires no power connector, making it suitable for systems with weak power delivery. The MXM form factor is also a unique advantage for portable devices, though it severely limits upgradeability in standard desktops. In every performance metric, the 1650 SUPER is superior; the 950A's wins are purely logistical.

FAQ

Q: Is the GTX 1650 SUPER worth upgrading to from the GTX 950A?

A: Yes, unequivocally. The Geekbench OpenCL score jumps from 10273 to 43875, a 327.1% improvement. The 1650 SUPER also has double the VRAM (4 GB vs 2 GB) and much faster GDDR6 memory.

Q: Can the GTX 950A run modern games?

A: The data suggests severe limitations. With only 2 GB of DDR3 memory and 32.03 GB/s bandwidth, it would struggle with any modern game requiring high-resolution textures. Its 1,438.7 GFLOPS FP32 performance is roughly one-third of the 1650 SUPER's 4.416 TFLOPS.

Q: Which card has better API support?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the GTX 950A only supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Both cards support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, so the directx feature level is the key differentiator.

Q: Is the GTX 950A more power-efficient?

A: Yes, the 950A has a 75 W TDP versus the 1650 SUPER's 100 W. It also requires no external power connector, whereas the 1650 SUPER needs a 1x 6-pin connector and a 300 W suggested PSU.

Q: Can I use the GTX 950A in a desktop PC?

A: The 950A uses an MXM-B (3.0) interface and has "Portable Device Dependent" display outputs, meaning it is designed for laptops or modular systems, not standard desktop PCIe slots.

Q: How does the GTX 1650 SUPER compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The 1650 SUPER's average benchmark score is 11047, which is 0.2% below the AMD Radeon RX 550 (11075) and 1.5% above the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 (10883). It sits at the 50th percentile of all GPUs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it is a landslide. The GTX 1650 SUPER scores 43875, while the GTX 950A manages just 10273. The delta of 327.1% means the 1650 SUPER is more than four times faster in this compute workload. This result is not surprising given the underlying specifications: the 1650 SUPER has double the shading units (1280 vs 640), over three times the texture fill rate (138.0 GTexel/s vs 44.96 GTexel/s), and six times the memory bandwidth (192.0 GB/s vs 32.03 GB/s).

Breaking down the score, the 1650 SUPER's FP32 throughput of 4.416 TFLOPS is over three times the 950A's 1,438.7 GFLOPS. This raw compute advantage directly translates to the OpenCL score, which measures general-purpose GPU performance. The 950A's 2 GB of DDR3 at 2 Gbps effective is a bottleneck that the 1650 SUPER's 4 GB of GDDR6 at 12 Gbps completely eliminates.

In other benchmark categories not shared, the 1650 SUPER shows its strengths: it scores 10179 in Passmark G3D, 4477 in Passmark GPU Compute, and 50519 in Geekbench Vulkan. The 950A has no comparable data, but given its Geekbench OpenCL deficit, it would likely fall far behind in these tests as well. The 1650 SUPER's pixel rate of 55.20 GPixel/s and texture rate of 138.0 GTexel/s further underscore its dominance in real-time rendering tasks, where the 950A's 17.98 GPixel/s and 44.96 GTexel/s would struggle to maintain playable frame rates.

The single head-to-head result is decisive: the GTX 1650 SUPER wins 1-0 in wins, with a 327.1% average delta. There is no benchmark where the 950A comes out ahead, and the architectural data suggests none would exist. The 1650 SUPER is the clear victor in every measurable performance category.