NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE Comparison

Where Each One Wins

Looking strictly at the recorded data, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 wins every benchmark where both cards have been measured. The GTX 460 SE has no wins in the database. The only head-to-head benchmark available is Geekbench OpenCL, and the GTX 1650 takes it by a massive margin.

The GTX 1650 also has a broader benchmark footprint. The database includes results for 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, multiple Passmark tests (DirectX 9, 10, 11, 12, G2D, G3D, and GPU compute), plus Geekbench Vulkan and OpenCL. The GTX 460 SE only has a single recorded benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL. This means the GTX 1650 is the only one of the two that can be assessed across modern API workloads, particularly DirectX 12 and Vulkan, where the GTX 460 SE has no recorded data at all.

For a user targeting older DirectX 9 or DirectX 10 games, the GTX 1650 still leads based on its Passmark scores, but the GTX 460 SE cannot be compared there because no such scores exist for it. The data simply does not support any scenario where the GTX 460 SE comes out ahead. If you are building around a specific workload, the GTX 1650 is the only card with evidence of competence in compute, modern APIs, and legacy DirectX modes.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different eras of NVIDIA design. The GTX 1650 uses the TU117 chip built on Turing architecture at a 12 nm process node from TSMC. It packs 4,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 23.5 million per mm². The GTX 460 SE uses the GF104 chip on the older Fermi architecture, fabricated at 40 nm, also by TSMC. That chip holds 1,950 million transistors on a much larger 332 mm² die, resulting in a density of only 5.9 million per mm².

The GTX 1650 has 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The GTX 460 SE has 288 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The ROP count is identical, but the shading and texture resources heavily favor the newer card. Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, so those features are absent from both.

Memory configurations differ substantially. The GTX 1650 comes with 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128 bit bus, with memory clocked at 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective) for 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 460 SE has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a wider 256 bit bus, but memory runs at 850 MHz (3.4 Gbps effective), yielding 108.8 GB/s. The GTX 1650 has more capacity and more bandwidth despite the narrower bus.

Pixel and texture rates tell the same story. The GTX 1650 outputs 53.28 GPixel/s and 93.24 GTexel/s. The GTX 460 SE manages 7.800 GPixel/s and 31.20 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 2.984 TFLOPS for the GTX 1650 versus 748.8 GFLOPS for the GTX 460 SE. The GTX 1650 also supports FP16 at 5.967 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the GTX 460 SE has no FP16 support recorded.

Power delivery requirements are a notable point of separation. The GTX 1650 has a 75 W TDP and requires no power connectors, with a suggested 250 W PSU. The GTX 460 SE has a 150 W TDP, needs two 6-pin connectors, and calls for a 450 W PSU. The newer card delivers far more performance while drawing half the power.

Interface and outputs also differ. The GTX 1650 uses PCIe 3.0 x16 and offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a. The GTX 460 SE uses PCIe 2.0 x16 and provides 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a. API support follows the hardware generation: the GTX 1650 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The GTX 460 SE supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but Vulkan support is not recorded.

Physical dimensions also differ. The GTX 1650 is 229 mm (9 inches) long, 111 mm (4.4 inches) tall, and 35 mm (1.4 inches) wide. The GTX 460 SE is 210 mm (8.3 inches) long, with no recorded height or width. Both are dual-slot cards.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL. The GTX 1650 scores 29,629, while the GTX 460 SE scores 6,389. That is a delta of 363.8%, meaning the GTX 1650 is roughly 4.6 times faster in this compute workload. This is not a close contest by any measure.

Looking at the broader benchmark suite, the GTX 1650 posts an average benchmark score of 7,472 across all recorded tests. The GTX 460 SE has an average of 6,389, but that figure is based on a single test. The percentile rankings place the GTX 1650 at the 40th percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 460 SE sits at the 37th percentile.

The GTX 1650's nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (average score 7,447, delta 0.3%), the Intel UHD Graphics 750 (7,441, delta 0.4%), the AMD Radeon R7 350 (7,425, delta 0.6%), and the Intel Arc A310 (7,550, delta -1%). The GTX 1650 essentially trades blows with these parts, sitting within one percent in either direction. Its individual benchmark scores vary widely by test, from a low of 35 in Passmark DirectX 12 to a high of 33,042 in Geekbench Vulkan.

The GTX 460 SE's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M (6,389, delta 0%), the NVIDIA RTX PRO 5000 72 GB Blackwell (6,407, delta -0.3%), the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 (6,330, delta 0.9%), and the AMD Radeon R7 M350 (6,327, delta 1%). The GTX 460 SE sits in a cluster of much older or lower-tier hardware, and its single recorded score places it in that company.

In the recorded data, the GTX 1650 leads by 363.8% in OpenCL, and there are no other shared benchmarks to examine. The margin is so large that no reasonable interpretation of the data puts the GTX 460 SE ahead in any workload.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the GTX 1650 than the GTX 460 SE in OpenCL?

A: The GTX 1650 scores 29,629 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 6,389 for the GTX 460 SE, a delta of 363.8%.

Q: Which card has more VRAM?

A: The GTX 1650 has 4 GB of GDDR5, while the GTX 460 SE has 1024 MB of GDDR5.

Q: Does the GTX 460 SE support Vulkan?

A: No Vulkan support is recorded for the GTX 460 SE. The GTX 1650 supports Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What power connectors does each card need?

A: The GTX 1650 requires no power connectors and has a 75 W TDP. The GTX 460 SE requires two 6-pin connectors and has a 150 W TDP.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The GTX 1650 has a transistor density of 23.5M per mm², compared to 5.9M per mm² for the GTX 460 SE.

Q: Are there any benchmarks where the GTX 460 SE wins?

A: No. The GTX 460 SE has no recorded wins in the database. The GTX 1650 wins the only head-to-head benchmark.

The Verdict

The data points in one direction only. The GTX 1650 is categorically faster than the GTX 460 SE in the single benchmark where both have results, and it has a substantially broader set of recorded performance data. The GTX 460 SE cannot be recommended for any workload based on the database, because it loses the only direct comparison and lacks results for every other test.

If you need a card for modern APIs, the GTX 1650 is the clear pick. It has recorded results for DirectX 12, Vulkan, and OpenCL, and it supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4. The GTX 460 SE maxes out at DirectX 12 (11_0) and has no Vulkan support recorded. If you need a card for older DirectX 9 or DirectX 10 titles, the GTX 1650 still has the edge in its Passmark scores, though the GTX 460 SE has no comparable data.

Power draw is another deciding factor. The GTX 1650 runs on a 75 W TDP with no power connectors and a suggested 250 W PSU. The GTX 460 SE needs 150 W, two 6-pin connectors, and a 450 W PSU. The newer card delivers more performance while being far easier to install in a modest system.

The GTX 460 SE has one practical advantage: its launch MSRP was 160 USD, while the GTX 1650 launched at 149 USD. But performance per watt and raw capability overwhelmingly favor the GTX 1650. The GTX 460 SE belongs to the Fermi generation, and the recorded data shows it has aged into a niche below the GTX 1650 in every measurable way.

Users with a GTX 460 SE should consider the GTX 1650 a meaningful upgrade path. Users choosing between the two today should pick the GTX 1650 without hesitation. The only scenario where the GTX 460 SE makes sense is if a system cannot physically accommodate the GTX 1650, but even then, the GTX 1650 is only 19 mm longer, and its lack of power connectors makes it easier to fit in constrained builds.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Turing | Fermi |

| Process Node | 12 nm | 40 nm |

| Transistors | 4,700 million | 1,950 million |

| Die Size | 200 mm² | 332 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 23.5M / mm² | 5.9M / mm² |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 1024 MB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Clock | 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective) | 850 MHz (3.4 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 128.1 GB/s | 108.8 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 896 | 288 |

| TMUs | 56 | 48 |

| ROPs | 32 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 53.28 GPixel/s | 7.800 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 93.24 GTexel/s | 31.20 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 2.984 TFLOPS | 748.8 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 5.967 TFLOPS (2:1) | None |

| TDP | 75 W | 150 W |

| Power Connectors | None | 2x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 450 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| OpenGL Support | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | None |

| Length | 229 mm (9 inches) | 210 mm (8.3 inches) |

| Height | 111 mm (4.4 inches) | Not recorded |

| Width | 35 mm (1.4 inches) | Not recorded |

| Launch MSRP | 149 USD | 160 USD |