NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 sit at opposite ends of the desktop GPU landscape, and the recorded data leaves no ambiguity about the gap between them. The GTX 1650 is a compact, power-frugal Turing card built on the TU117 chip, while the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 is a large Ada Lovelace part fabricated on TSMC's 5 nm process with a 609 mm² die. In the one direct head-to-head test the database holds for both cards, the 3DMark Steel Nomad DirectX 12 benchmark, the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 scores 6269.5 against 305 for the GTX 1650, a difference of roughly 95 percent in the AD102 card's favor. That single result frames everything else in this comparison.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only test with recorded scores for both GPUs is 3dmark_3dmark_steel_nomad_dx12, and it is a landslide. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 posts 6269.5; the GTX 1650 manages 305. The GTX 1650's score is about 5 percent of what the AD102-based card delivers, which tells you these two products were never meant to compete. Steel Nomad is a modern DirectX 12 workload, exactly the kind of test where a card with 8448 shading units, 66 RT cores, and 264 tensor cores separates itself from one with 896 shading units and no ray tracing or AI hardware at all.

The wider benchmark records reinforce the picture even without direct overlap. The GTX 1650's individual results include a PassMark G3D score of 7880, a Geekbench OpenCL score of 29629, a Geekbench Vulkan score of 33042, and a PassMark GPU compute score of 3048. Its DirectX-specific PassMark results are modest across the board: 124 in DirectX 9, 39 in DirectX 10, 58 in DirectX 11, and 35 in DirectX 12. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 has a single recorded benchmark, the Steel Nomad result above, but its average benchmark score across the database is 6270. The GTX 1650's average is 7472, though these averages are computed over different test mixes and should not be read as a like-for-like comparison. The percentile fields tell a similar cautionary story: the GTX 1650 sits at the 40th percentile against all GPUs in the database and the AD102 card at the 36th, but these figures reflect different scoring populations, and the lone shared benchmark remains the only apples-to-apples data point.

Context from each card's rival set helps calibrate expectations. The GTX 1650 performs within a fraction of a percent of the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7447 average), the Intel UHD Graphics 750 (7441), and the AMD Radeon R7 350 (7425), and trails the Intel Arc A310 (7550) by about 1 percent. Those are entry-level and integrated-class competitors. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102's nearest rivals by average score include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER at an identical 6270, the NVIDIA Quadro K620 at 6282, the AMD FirePro W600 at 6223, and the AMD Radeon R7 M350 at 6327. Note that the database's average-score matching can pair dissimilar hardware, so treat those neighbor lists as scoring context rather than performance equivalence.

FAQ

Q: Is the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 faster than the GTX 1650?

A: Yes, decisively. In the shared 3DMark Steel Nomad DirectX 12 benchmark the AD102 card scores 6269.5 versus 305, meaning the GTX 1650 delivers only about 5 percent of the AD102 card's performance in that test.

Q: Can the GTX 1650 handle ray tracing?

A: Not in hardware. The GTX 1650 has no RT cores and no tensor cores. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 has 66 RT cores and 264 tensor cores, and it supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (feature level 12_2) versus the GTX 1650's DirectX 12 (12_1).

Q: Do these cards need external power connectors?

A: The GTX 1650 does not; its 75 W TDP is fed entirely through the PCIe slot, with a 250 W suggested PSU. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 draws 285 W through one 16-pin connector and carries a 600 W suggested PSU rating.

Q: How much memory does each card have, and what type?

A: The GTX 1650 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 has 16 GB of GDDR6X on a 256-bit bus with 672.3 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No. The database lists both as end-of-life. The GTX 1650 launched on April 22, 2019; the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 was released on June 9, 2024.

Q: What are their physical sizes?

A: The GTX 1650 is a dual-slot card measuring 229 mm long, 111 mm tall, and 35 mm wide. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 is a triple-slot card at 310 mm long, 140 mm tall, and 61 mm wide, so it needs substantially more chassis clearance.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 wins the only benchmark the two cards share, and it wins by a margin that decides every performance-sensitive use case. Modern DirectX 12 gaming, ray-traced workloads, and anything that benefits from tensor cores fall squarely to the AD102 card. Its raw throughput numbers back this up: 44.10 TFLOPS of FP32 compute against 2.984 TFLOPS, a pixel fill rate of 250.6 GPixel/s against 53.28 GPixel/s, and a texture rate of 689.0 GTexel/s against 93.24 GTexel/s. Its FP16 performance is particularly striking, matching its FP32 rate at 44.10 TFLOPS (1:1), while the GTX 1650 manages 5.967 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1).

The GTX 1650 wins on the criteria that have nothing to do with frame rates. It needs no power connector at all, draws 75 W, fits in small cases thanks to its 229 mm dual-slot body, and works with a 250 W suggested PSU. For a compact build or an older system without modern PCIe power cabling, it is the only one of the two that qualifies. It also carries a launch MSRP of 149 USD, compared with 799 USD for the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102. Its connectivity is dated, though: one DVI, one HDMI 2.0, and one DisplayPort 1.4a, against the AD102 card's one HDMI 2.1 and three DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ on nearly every line of the spec sheet. Process node: 12 nm for the GTX 1650 versus 5 nm for the AD102 card, both built at TSMC. Transistor count: 4,700 million versus 76,300 million. Die size: 200 mm² versus 609 mm², with density of 23.5M per mm² versus 125.3M per mm². Clocks: 1485 MHz base and 1665 MHz boost on the GTX 1650 against 2340 MHz base and 2610 MHz boost on the AD102 part. Memory: 4 GB GDDR5 at 8 Gbps effective on a 128-bit bus versus 16 GB GDDR6X at 21 Gbps effective on a 256-bit bus.

Shader resources diverge just as sharply: 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs for the GTX 1650 versus 8448 shading units, 264 TMUs, and 96 ROPs for the AD102 card. The GTX 1650 has zero RT and tensor cores; the AD102 card has 66 and 264 respectively. Board power is 75 W versus 285 W, slot width is dual-slot versus triple-slot, and the bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x16. API support differs at the DirectX feature level, 12_1 versus 12 Ultimate (12_2), while OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4 are common to both.

Architecture Differences

The GTX 1650 uses NVIDIA's Turing architecture on the TU117 chip and belongs to the GeForce 16 generation, which the database lists under the GeForce 10-series with the GeForce 20 line as its successor. Notably, this variant of Turing ships without the RT and tensor cores that appeared in other Turing products, so it is a pure rasterization design. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 uses the Ada Lovelace architecture on the AD102 chip, a GeForce 40-generation part that succeeded the GeForce 30 line and precedes the GeForce 50 series. The AD102 silicon is more than three times the area of TU117 and packs over sixteen times the transistors, enabled by the jump from a 12 nm to a 5 nm TSMC process. Ada Lovelace also brings the dedicated ray tracing and AI acceleration hardware that the cut-down TU117 lacks, along with GDDR6X memory, a memory type unavailable to the GTX 1650's generation.

The Verdict

The data supports a simple split. If the goal is modern gaming performance, DirectX 12 Ultimate features, ray tracing, or GPU compute of any seriousness, the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 is the only realistic choice here: it wins the shared benchmark by a 95 percent margin, delivers roughly fifteen times the FP32 throughput, and pairs it with four times the memory capacity and more than five times the memory bandwidth. The cost of that performance is physical and electrical: a 285 W TDP, a 16-pin power connector, a 600 W suggested PSU, and a triple-slot, 310 mm board that demands a spacious case.

The GTX 1650 is for a different buyer entirely. It runs on slot power alone at 75 W, fits tight enclosures, and its launch MSRP of 149 USD reflects an entry-level positioning. Its measured performance sits alongside integrated-class graphics like the Intel UHD Graphics 750 and older discrete parts like the Radeon R7 350, which is the honest frame of reference for what it can do. Neither card is in production any longer, so both are secondary-market purchases today. For a low-power, small-form-factor build where gaming demands are minimal, the GTX 1650 still makes sense on paper. For everything else, the AD102-based card is in a different class, and the benchmark data says so without qualification.