NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 are two end-of-life cards separated by roughly a decade of GPU development, and the recorded data shows how lopsided that gap became. Both sit in the lower-middle of the historical database (45th percentile for the GTX 560, 40th percentile for the GTX 1650 across all GPUs), yet in the one head-to-head benchmark they share, the GTX 1650 wins outright. The interesting story is where the GTX 560 still holds its ground: raw memory interface, legacy display and API coverage, and a shorter physical footprint.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 1650 wins the performance comparison, full stop. The only shared test in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, where the GTX 1650 scores 29,629 against the GTX 560's 9,058, a gap of 69.4 percent in the newer card's favor. That single result decides the head-to-head: one win for the GTX 1650, zero for the GTX 560.

The GTX 1650's broader benchmark record reinforces the point. It posts a PassMark G3D score of 7,880, a GPU compute score of 3,048, and a Vulkan score in Geekbench of 33,042. Its measured average across all recorded tests is 7,472, and its closest rivals in the database are a mixed bag of integrated and entry-level parts: the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7,447, within 0.3 percent), Intel UHD Graphics 750 (7,441, within 0.4 percent), the AMD Radeon R7 350 (7,425, within 0.6 percent), and the Intel Arc A310 (7,550, ahead of the GTX 1650 by 1 percent). In other words, the GTX 1650 performs like a modern entry-level discrete card, sitting nose-to-nose with Intel's current integrated graphics and a low-end Arc part.

The GTX 560's average of 9,058 puts it in different company. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA TITAN V CEO Edition (9,037, within 0.2 percent), the GeForce GTX 660 (9,022, within 0.4 percent), the AMD Radeon 550X (8,918, 1.6 percent behind), and the AMD Radeon 890M (9,210, 1.7 percent ahead). The mix of competitors near its score is an artifact of how the database averages different test suites, but the practical takeaway is simple: on any workload that favors modern architectures, the GTX 560 falls far behind.

Where the GTX 560 still wins is in specification categories the benchmarks do not capture. Its 256-bit memory bus is twice the width of the GTX 1650's 128-bit bus, giving it 128.0 GB/s of bandwidth from a card launched in 2011, essentially identical to the GTX 1650's 128.1 GB/s. It is also physically shorter at 210 mm versus 229 mm, relevant for tight legacy cases, and it offers two DVI outputs plus mini-HDMI, which matters for older multi-monitor setups built around analog-era cabling.

Architecture Differences

These cards come from opposite ends of NVIDIA's architectural history. The GTX 560 uses the GF114 chip on the Fermi 2.0 architecture, part of the GeForce 500 generation, built on TSMC's 40 nm process. It packs 1,950 million transistors into a 332 mm² die, a density of 5.9 million transistors per square millimeter.

The GTX 1650 uses the TU117 chip on the Turing architecture, from the GeForce 16 generation, built on TSMC's 12 nm process. It holds 4,700 million transistors in a 200 mm² die at a density of 23.5 million transistors per square millimeter, roughly four times denser than the Fermi part. The transistor count is more than double despite a die that is substantially smaller.

The internal resource split is instructive. The GTX 1650 has 896 shading units against the GTX 560's 336, yet both have exactly 56 texture mapping units and 32 render output units. Clocks tell much of the story: the GTX 560's recorded data lists no base or boost clock, only memory running at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), while the GTX 1650 runs a 1485 MHz base and 1665 MHz boost with memory at 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective). The result is a pixel fill rate of 53.28 GPixel/s versus 11.34, and a texture rate of 93.24 GTexel/s versus 45.36. Compute scales similarly: 2.984 TFLOPS FP32 for the GTX 1650 versus 1,088.6 GFLOPS for the GTX 560, and the Turing card adds 5.967 TFLOPS of FP16 at a 2:1 rate, a capability the Fermi card entirely lacks. Neither card has RT cores or tensor cores.

Memory is a stark difference. The GTX 1650 carries 4 GB of GDDR5; the GTX 560 has just 1024 MB of GDDR5. Both deliver effectively the same bandwidth, but the capacity gap alone disqualifies the older card from modern workloads. Bus interfaces differ too: PCIe 3.0 x16 for the GTX 1650 versus PCIe 2.0 x16 for the GTX 560.

API support splits along generational lines. The GTX 560 reports DirectX 12 with feature level 11_0, OpenGL 4.6, and no Vulkan. The GTX 1650 supports DirectX 12 with feature level 12_1, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Display outputs reflect their eras: the GTX 1650 carries one DVI, one HDMI 2.0, and one DisplayPort 1.4a, while the GTX 560 has two DVI and one mini-HDMI 1.3a.

Power delivery is another clear divide. The GTX 560 has a 150 W TDP, needs two 6-pin PCIe power connectors, and calls for a 450 W PSU. The GTX 1650 runs at 75 W with no power connectors at all, drawing everything from the slot, with a suggested 250 W PSU. Both are dual-slot cards.

The Verdict

The data points one way for performance and the other for a few niche scenarios. For anyone choosing between these two for gaming or compute, the GTX 1650 is the only sensible pick: a 69.4 percent win in the shared OpenCL benchmark, nearly triple the FP32 throughput, quadruple the memory capacity, and half the power draw with no external connectors required. It also supports Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 feature level 12_1, where the GTX 560 tops out at feature level 11_0 with no Vulkan at all.

The GTX 560 earns consideration only in legacy-specific situations. Its 1024 MB frame buffer rules out modern titles, but its dual DVI outputs suit older monitors, its 210 mm length fits cramped legacy cases, and its PCIe 2.0 x16 interface matches motherboards of its era. Its launch MSRP was 199 USD against the GTX 1650's 149 USD, so the newer card also entered the market as the cheaper product. Both are end-of-life now; the GTX 560 arrived in 2011 as part of the GeForce 500 line (succeeding GeForce 400, succeeded by GeForce 600), while the GTX 1650 arrived in 2019 (predecessor GeForce 10, successor GeForce 20).

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in benchmarks?

A: The GTX 1650, decisively. In the only shared test, Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 29,629 versus 9,058, a 69.4 percent advantage. The head-to-head record shows one win for the GTX 1650 and zero for the GTX 560.

Q: How do the memory configurations compare?

A: Both use GDDR5 with nearly identical bandwidth (128.1 GB/s for the GTX 1650, 128.0 GB/s for the GTX 560), but the GTX 1650 has 4 GB versus 1024 MB, and reaches that bandwidth over a 128-bit bus instead of the GTX 560's 256-bit bus thanks to doubled effective memory speed.

Q: Do either of these cards support ray tracing or Vulkan?

A: Neither has RT cores or tensor cores. The GTX 1650 supports Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 feature level 12_1; the GTX 560 has no Vulkan support and tops out at DirectX 12 feature level 11_0.

Q: What power supply does each card need?

A: The GTX 560 has a 150 W TDP, two 6-pin power connectors, and a suggested 450 W PSU. The GTX 1650 has a 75 W TDP, no power connectors, and a suggested 250 W PSU.

Q: How do their database percentiles compare?

A: The GTX 560 sits at the 45th percentile versus all GPUs in the database; the GTX 1650 sits at the 40th. Note that these percentiles come from different test suites, so the shared OpenCL result is the better direct comparison.

Q: Which rival GPUs score closest to each card?

A: The GTX 560's nearest rivals by average score are the NVIDIA TITAN V CEO Edition (0.2 percent away), GeForce GTX 660 (0.4 percent), AMD Radeon 550X (1.6 percent), and AMD Radeon 890M (1.7 percent). The GTX 1650's are the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (0.3 percent), Intel UHD Graphics 750 (0.4 percent), AMD Radeon R7 350 (0.6 percent), and Intel Arc A310 (1 percent).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two cards share exactly one benchmark in the database, and it is not close. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 1650 scored 29,629 while the GTX 560 managed 9,058, a delta of 69.4 percent. That is the entire head-to-head record: one test, one winner.

The theoretical specifications explain the margin. FP32 compute is 2.984 TFLOPS on the GTX 1650 against 1,088.6 GFLOPS on the GTX 560, close to a threefold advantage before accounting for the Turing card's FP16 rate of 5.967 TFLOPS. Pixel throughput is nearly five times higher (53.28 versus 11.34 GPixel/s) and texture throughput roughly doubled (93.24 versus 45.36 GTexel/s) despite identical TMU and ROP counts, purely on the strength of the 1485/1665 MHz clock range.

The GTX 1650's supporting results round out the picture: 7,880 in PassMark G3D, 3,048 in PassMark GPU compute, 33,042 in Geekbench Vulkan, 305 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, and PassMark DirectX results of 124 (DX9), 39 (DX10), 58 (DX11), and 35 (DX12), plus 561 in G2D. The GTX 560 has no entries in any of those tests, so the OpenCL result stands as the sole direct evidence, and it is emphatic.

Specification Differences

• Architecture: Fermi 2.0 (GTX 560) versus Turing (GTX 1650)
• Chip: GF114 versus TU117
• Generation: GeForce 500 versus GeForce 16
• Process node: 40 nm versus 12 nm
• Transistors: 1,950 million versus 4,700 million
• Die size: 332 mm² versus 200 mm²
• Transistor density: 5.9M/mm² versus 23.5M/mm²
• Shading units: 336 versus 896
• Core clocks: not recorded for the GTX 560; 1485 MHz base / 1665 MHz boost for the GTX 1650
• Memory size: 1024 MB versus 4 GB
• Memory bus: 256 bit versus 128 bit
• Memory speed: 4 Gbps effective versus 8 Gbps effective
• Bandwidth: 128.0 GB/s versus 128.1 GB/s (effectively tied)
• FP32: 1,088.6 GFLOPS versus 2.984 TFLOPS
• FP16: not available versus 5.967 TFLOPS (2:1)
• Pixel rate: 11.34 versus 53.28 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 45.36 versus 93.24 GTexel/s
• TDP: 150 W versus 75 W
• Power connectors: 2x 6-pin versus none
• Suggested PSU: 450 W versus 250 W
• Bus interface: PCIe 2.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x16
• Display outputs: 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a versus 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a
• DirectX: 12 (11_0) versus 12 (12_1)
• Vulkan: none versus 1.4
• Card length: 210 mm versus 229 mm
• Recorded dimensions: height and width listed only for the GTX 1650 (111 mm, 35 mm)
• Release date: 2011 versus 2019
• Launch MSRP: 199 USD versus 149 USD
• Predecessor/successor lines: GeForce 400/600 versus GeForce 10/20