NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 represent two distinct eras of NVIDIA’s GPU design. The data shows a single head-to-head benchmark result, but the specification sheets reveal a generational gulf in almost every measurable category. This analysis uses only the provided facts to compare the Fermi-era GTX 460 against the Turing-based GTX 1650.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test. The results are decisively in favor of the newer card. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 scores 29,629 points, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 manages 7,925 points. This represents a delta of -73.3% for the GTX 460 relative to the GTX 1650, meaning the GTX 1650 is roughly 3.7 times faster in this compute-oriented workload.

This single data point is stark, but it aligns with the broader performance context from the FACT PACK. The GTX 1650’s average benchmark score across all its tested workloads is 7,472, while the GTX 460’s average score is 7,925. It is important to note that the average scores are derived from different test suites; the GTX 460 only has a Geekbench OpenCL result, while the GTX 1650 has a wider range of tests including Passmark and 3DMark. However, the head-to-head result is unambiguous: in the one test where they are compared directly, the GTX 1650 dominates.

Looking at the percentile ranks, the two cards are surprisingly close in overall standing. The GTX 460 sits in the 41st percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 1650 sits in the 40th percentile. This suggests that while the GTX 1650 is vastly faster in raw compute, the GTX 460’s performance profile places it in a similar tier relative to the entire database of GPUs, likely due to the age and limited feature set of the older card. The wins tally confirms this: the GTX 1650 has 1 win, and the GTX 460 has 0 wins.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear recommendation for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 for any modern workload. The 73.3% lead in Geekbench OpenCL is a massive advantage that reflects the fundamental architectural improvements between 2010 and 2019. The GTX 1650 is the only choice if the task involves general-purpose compute or modern API support.

The GTX 460, however, is not without a niche. Its launch MSRP was 199 USD, which is higher than the GTX 1650’s launch MSRP of 149 USD. This is a notable historical fact, but the performance data does not support selecting the GTX 460 today. Its 41st percentile ranking is essentially tied with the GTX 1650’s 40th percentile, meaning that despite its age, it still holds a similar relative position in the database. This is likely because the GTX 460’s single Geekbench score is relatively high for its era, but it lacks the feature set and API support of the newer card.

For a user prioritizing raw compute performance, the GTX 1650 is the unequivocal winner. For a user who is constrained to software that only requires the older DirectX 11 (11_0) feature level and does not need Vulkan support, the GTX 460 could theoretically function, but it would offer significantly less performance. The data does not support any scenario where the GTX 460 is the superior choice in a direct comparison.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two cards is the primary driver of the performance delta. The GTX 460 is built on the Fermi architecture, using the GF104 chip, fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. In contrast, the GTX 1650 uses the Turing architecture, with the TU117 chip, also fabricated by TSMC but on a much more advanced 12 nm process node.

This process shrink allows for a dramatic increase in transistor count. The GTX 460 contains 1,950 million transistors on a die size of 332 mm², resulting in a transistor density of 5.9 million per mm². The GTX 1650 packs 4,700 million transistors into a smaller 200 mm² die, achieving a density of 23.5 million per mm². This is a fourfold increase in density, enabling the GTX 1650 to have significantly more processing units.

The shading unit count reflects this. The GTX 460 has 336 shading units, while the GTX 1650 has 896. Both cards have 56 texture mapping units (TMUs), but the GTX 1650 has more render output units (ROPs): 32 versus 24 for the GTX 460. The API support also differs. The GTX 460 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support. The GTX 1650 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal differences in nearly every field. The most significant is memory. The GTX 460 has 768 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 192-bit bus, yielding 86.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 1650 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, but achieves higher bandwidth at 128.1 GB/s due to faster memory clocks.

Clock speeds differ as well. The GTX 460’s memory runs at 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective). The GTX 1650 has a base clock of 1485 MHz, a boost clock of 1665 MHz, and memory running at 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective). The GTX 1650 also has a game clock field, which is null, indicating that the base and boost clocks are the primary specifications.

Compute rates are vastly different. The GTX 460’s pixel rate is 9.450 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 37.80 GTexel/s. The GTX 1650’s pixel rate is 53.28 GPixel/s and texture rate is 93.24 GTexel/s. The FP32 performance is 907.2 GFLOPS for the GTX 460 versus 2.984 TFLOPS for the GTX 1650. The GTX 1650 also has an FP16 rate of 5.967 TFLOPS (2:1), which the GTX 460 lacks entirely.

Power requirements are a major differentiator. The GTX 460 has a TDP of 160 W, requires 2x 6-pin power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 450 W. The GTX 1650 has a TDP of just 75 W, requires no power connectors, and has a suggested PSU of 250 W. The GTX 460 is 210 mm long, while the GTX 1650 is 229 mm long, with the GTX 1650 also having documented height and width dimensions of 111 mm and 35 mm, respectively.

The bus interface also differs: the GTX 460 uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the GTX 1650 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs are different, with the GTX 460 offering 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a, while the GTX 1650 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a. The GTX 460 was released on 2010-07-11, while the GTX 1650 was released on 2019-04-22.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 has an average benchmark score of 7,925, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 has an average score of 7,472. However, these averages are calculated from different test sets; the GTX 460 has only one benchmark result, while the GTX 1650 has ten.

Q: What is the performance difference in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The GTX 1650 scores 29,629 points, and the GTX 460 scores 7,925 points. The GTX 460 trails by 73.3%, meaning the GTX 1650 is significantly faster in this specific compute benchmark.

Q: How do the memory configurations compare?

A: The GTX 460 has 768 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 192-bit bus with 86.40 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 1650 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 128.1 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The GTX 460 has a TDP of 160 W, requires 2x 6-pin power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 450 W. The GTX 1650 has a TDP of 75 W, requires no power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Q: Which card offers better API support?

A: The GTX 1650 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The GTX 460 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support.

Q: What are the transistor counts and process nodes?

A: The GTX 460 uses a 40 nm process with 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die. The GTX 1650 uses a 12 nm process with 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die.