NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Comparison

The GeForce GTX 650 Ti and GeForce GTX 1650 represent two very different eras of NVIDIA’s mainstream GPU lineup. The data shows a generational chasm between the 2012 Kepler part and the 2019 Turing part, with the newer card dominating every shared benchmark. While both cards launched at the same MSRP, the architectural and performance gaps are stark, making the GTX 1650 the clear choice for modern workloads.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the GTX 1650 than the GTX 650 Ti in OpenCL?

A: The GTX 1650 scores 29,629 in Geekbench OpenCL, compared to the GTX 650 Ti’s 7,877. This represents a 73.4% delta in favor of the GTX 1650, meaning the newer card delivers nearly four times the compute performance.

Q: Which card has a better Vulkan score?

A: The GTX 1650 wins decisively in Geekbench Vulkan with a score of 33,042 versus the GTX 650 Ti’s 8,229. The deltaPct is -75.1% from the perspective of the older card, showing a massive advantage for the Turing architecture.

Q: Do both cards have the same amount of VRAM?

A: No. The GTX 650 Ti has 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, while the GTX 1650 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus. The newer card also has higher memory bandwidth at 128.1 GB/s versus 86.40 GB/s.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The GTX 1650 has a TDP of 75 W and requires no power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The GTX 650 Ti has a TDP of 110 W, needs a single 6-pin connector, and requires a 300 W PSU.

Q: Are these cards still in production?

A: Both are end-of-life products. The GTX 650 Ti was released in October 2012, while the GTX 1650 came out in April 2019.

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The GTX 650 Ti has an average benchmark score of 8,053 across its tests, while the GTX 1650 averages 7,472. However, this is misleading because the GTX 1650’s average is pulled down by its Passmark DirectX 9 (124) and DirectX 10 (39) results, which are older API tests where the Kepler card was not evaluated.

Architecture Differences

The GTX 650 Ti uses the GK106S chip built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, featuring 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die. This yields a transistor density of 11.5M / mm². It has 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The GTX 1650, by contrast, uses the TU117 chip on a 12 nm process, packing 4,700 million transistors into a smaller 200 mm² die, resulting in a 23.5M / mm² density—more than double the older chip.

The GTX 1650 doubles the ROP count to 32 and increases shading units to 896, though TMUs drop slightly to 56. The memory subsystem is a major differentiator: both use GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, but the GTX 1650 has 4 GB versus 1 GB, and its bandwidth is 128.1 GB/s versus 86.40 GB/s. The memory clock is 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective) versus 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective).

Architecturally, the GTX 1650 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the GTX 650 Ti is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the GTX 1650 has Vulkan 1.4 support versus Vulkan 1.2.175 on the older card. The GTX 1650 also has a base clock of 1485 MHz and a boost clock of 1665 MHz; the GTX 650 Ti has no listed base or boost clocks. The newer card is dual-slot with no power connectors, while the older is single-slot with a 6-pin connector.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data includes two tests, and the GTX 1650 wins both outright. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 1650 scores 29,629 against the GTX 650 Ti’s 7,877, a delta of -73.4% for the older card. That is not a marginal improvement; it is roughly a 3.76x increase in raw compute throughput. The Vulkan test shows a similar story: 33,042 versus 8,229, a -75.1% delta. This means the GTX 1650 is about four times faster in Vulkan workloads.

The GTX 650 Ti’s nearest rivals include the GTX 880M (avg 8,040, +0.2%), GTX 650 Ti Boost (avg 8,067, -0.2%), Quadro P5000 (avg 8,039, +0.2%), and GRID K2 (avg 8,080, -0.3%). This places the GTX 650 Ti in a tight cluster around 8,000-8,080. The GTX 1650’s rivals are the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (avg 7,447, +0.3%), Intel UHD Graphics 750 (avg 7,441, +0.4%), AMD Radeon R7 350 (avg 7,425, +0.6%), and Intel Arc A310 (avg 7,550, -1%). The GTX 1650’s average of 7,472 is actually lower than the GTX 650 Ti’s 8,053, but the head-to-head tests show the newer card’s dominance in modern APIs.

The wins tally is 0 for the GTX 650 Ti and 2 for the GTX 1650. The percentile rankings tell a nuanced story: the GTX 650 Ti sits at the 42nd percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 1650 is at the 40th percentile. This suggests that while the GTX 1650 is far superior in these specific tests, its overall standing in the broader GPU landscape is slightly lower, likely due to its weaker legacy API performance.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the GTX 1650 is the superior card for any modern workload. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks by margins exceeding 73%, offers four times the VRAM, and does so at a lower TDP (75 W versus 110 W) with no external power connector. The GTX 650 Ti’s only advantages are its smaller physical footprint (145 mm versus 229 mm length) and its slightly higher average benchmark score (8,053 versus 7,472), which is skewed by the GTX 1650’s weak Passmark DirectX 9/10 results.

For a builder choosing between these two, the GTX 1650 is the obvious pick for gaming, compute, or any modern API workload. The GTX 650 Ti belongs in a museum or a retro build, not in a current system. The 1 GB VRAM alone disqualifies it for most contemporary games, and its compute performance is a fraction of what the GTX 1650 offers. The GTX 1650’s lack of a power connector also simplifies installation in small form factor systems.

Specification Differences

| Specification | GTX 650 Ti | GTX 1650 |

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

| Process Node | 28 nm | 12 nm |

| Transistors | 2,540 million | 4,700 million |

| Die Size | 221 mm² | 200 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 11.5M / mm² | 23.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | N/A | 1485 MHz |

| Boost Clock | N/A | 1665 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps) | 2001 MHz (8 Gbps) |

| Memory Size | 1024 MB | 4 GB |

| Memory Bandwidth | 86.40 GB/s | 128.1 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 768 | 896 |

| TMUs | 64 | 56 |

| ROPs | 16 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 14.85 GPixel/s | 53.28 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 59.39 GTexel/s | 93.24 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,425.4 GFLOPS | 2.984 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | N/A | 5.967 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 110 W | 75 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | 250 W |

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

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

| Vulkan | 1.2.175 | 1.4 |

| Length | 145 mm (5.7 in) | 229 mm (9 in) |

| Height | N/A | 111 mm (4.4 in) |

| Width | N/A | 35 mm (1.4 in) |

| Launch MSRP | 149 USD | 149 USD |

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 1650 wins in every meaningful category for a modern user. It dominates compute workloads: its FP32 throughput of 2.984 TFLOPS is more than double the GTX 650 Ti’s 1,425.4 GFLOPS, and its FP16 capability of 5.967 TFLOPS is entirely absent on the older card. The GTX 1650 also has higher pixel rate (53.28 GPixel/s versus 14.85 GPixel/s) and texture rate (93.24 GTexel/s versus 59.39 GTexel/s), making it far better for rasterization-heavy tasks.

The GTX 1650 is the clear winner for gaming at 1080p, especially in newer titles that use DirectX 12 or Vulkan. Its 4 GB VRAM buffer is adequate for modern textures, while the GTX 650 Ti’s 1 GB will cause stuttering and texture pop-in even in older games. The GTX 1650’s dual-slot cooler and 229 mm length suggest a more substantial cooling solution, which is appropriate for its higher clock speeds.

The GTX 650 Ti retains one niche: legacy systems with strict slot constraints. It is a single-slot card at 145 mm, making it suitable for compact cases or secondary display output. It also supports 2x DVI outputs, which may be useful for older monitors. However, its 110 W TDP and 6-pin connector make it less efficient than the GTX 1650, which draws 75 W and needs no external power.

In terms of API support, the GTX 1650 is future-proofed with DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 650 Ti is stuck at DirectX 11_0 and Vulkan 1.2.175. The GTX 1650’s display outputs are also more modern, including HDMI 2.0 and DisplayPort 1.4a, versus the older card’s mini-HDMI 1.4a. For any buyer, the GTX 1650 is the only rational choice unless the goal is a period-accurate 2012 build.