NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 vs NVIDIA TITAN V CEO Edition Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score in the database?

A: The NVIDIA TITAN V CEO Edition records an average benchmark score of 9037, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 records 7472. This puts the TITAN V CEO Edition roughly 21% higher overall.

Q: How do the two cards compare in PassMark G3D scores?

A: The TITAN V CEO Edition scores 16988 in PassMark G3D, against 7880 for the GTX 1650. That is a 115.6% higher score for the TITAN V CEO Edition, meaning it more than doubles the GTX 1650's 3D performance.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The TITAN V CEO Edition uses 32 GB of HBM2 on a 4096-bit bus with 868.4 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 1650 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 128.1 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 in the database records.

Q: Which card has a higher boost clock?

A: The GTX 1650 has a boost clock of 1665 MHz, which is higher than the TITAN V CEO Edition's boost clock of 1455 MHz. However, the TITAN V compensates with far more shading units and memory bandwidth.

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The TITAN V CEO Edition has 21,100 million transistors on an 815 mm² die, while the GTX 1650 has 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die. The TITAN V uses roughly 4.5 times more transistors.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different NVIDIA architectures. The TITAN V CEO Edition is based on the Volta architecture with the GV100 chip, while the GTX 1650 is based on the Turing architecture with the TU117 chip. Both are fabricated on a 12 nm process at TSMC, but the die sizes diverge sharply: the GV100 measures 815 mm² versus 200 mm² for the TU117.

Transistor density is similar, with the TITAN V at 25.9 million transistors per mm² and the GTX 1650 at 23.5 million per mm². However, the absolute transistor counts are vastly different: 21,100 million versus 4,700 million. This scale difference drives nearly every performance gap.

The TITAN V CEO Edition includes 640 tensor cores, which are absent from the GTX 1650. Neither card has dedicated ray tracing cores, as both predate or omit that feature in their respective lineups. The TITAN V also offers 5120 shading units, 320 texture mapping units, and 128 render output units. The GTX 1650 has 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs.

Memory architecture is a fundamental split. The TITAN V uses 32 GB of HBM2 with a 4096-bit bus, achieving 868.4 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 1650 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, achieving 128.1 GB/s. The memory clock is also different: 848 MHz (1696 Mbps effective) for the TITAN V versus 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective) for the GTX 1650.

Power delivery differs significantly. The TITAN V carries a 250 W TDP, requires a 600 W suggested PSU, and uses a 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin connector setup. The GTX 1650 has a 75 W TDP, a 250 W suggested PSU, and no external power connectors.

Physical dimensions differ as well. The TITAN V is 267 mm long, 112 mm tall, and 40 mm wide. The GTX 1650 is 229 mm long, 111 mm tall, and 35 mm wide. Both are dual-slot cards. Display outputs are similar but not identical: the TITAN V has 1x HDMI 2.0 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the GTX 1650 has 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two shared benchmark tests between these cards: PassMark G2D and PassMark G3D. The TITAN V CEO Edition wins both, with no wins for the GTX 1650.

PassMark G2D measures 2D graphics and desktop compositing performance. The TITAN V scores 1086, while the GTX 1650 scores 561. The delta is 93.6%, meaning the TITAN V is nearly twice as fast in this workload. This likely reflects the TITAN V's massive memory bandwidth and higher ROP count, which help with framebuffer operations even in 2D tasks.

PassMark G3D is the more significant metric for gaming and 3D rendering. The TITAN V scores 16988, against 7880 for the GTX 1650. The delta is 115.6%, meaning the TITAN V delivers more than double the 3D performance. This is consistent with the raw specifications: the TITAN V has 5.7 times more shading units, 5.7 times more TMUs, and 4 times more ROPs than the GTX 1650.

The FP32 compute throughput reinforces this divide. The TITAN V delivers 14.90 TFLOPS, while the GTX 1650 delivers 2.984 TFLOPS. That is a 5x difference in raw single-precision compute. The TITAN V also has a pixel rate of 186.2 GPixel/s versus 53.28 GPixel/s for the GTX 1650, and a texture rate of 465.6 GTexel/s versus 93.24 GTexel/s.

The GTX 1650 does have a higher boost clock (1665 MHz versus 1455 MHz) and a higher base clock (1485 MHz versus 1200 MHz). However, clock speed alone cannot compensate for the TITAN V's overwhelming advantage in core count and memory bandwidth. The benchmark data shows the TITAN V winning by a wide margin in every shared test.

It is importantly the GTX 1650 has additional benchmark entries in the database (3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, Geekbench OpenCL, Geekbench Vulkan, and several PassMark DirectX tests) that are not recorded for the TITAN V. These cannot be used for direct comparison, as the TITAN V lacks corresponding scores in the database.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA TITAN V CEO Edition | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 |

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

| Architecture | Volta | Turing |

| Chip | GV100 | TU117 |

| Process Node | 12 nm | 12 nm |

| Transistors | 21,100 million | 4,700 million |

| Die Size | 815 mm² | 200 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 25.9M / mm² | 23.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1200 MHz | 1485 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1455 MHz | 1665 MHz |

| Memory Size | 32 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM2 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 4096 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 868.4 GB/s | 128.1 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 5120 | 896 |

| TMUs | 320 | 56 |

| ROPs | 128 | 32 |

| Tensor Cores | 640 | None |

| FP32 Performance | 14.90 TFLOPS | 2.984 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 29.80 TFLOPS (2:1) | 5.967 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| Pixel Rate | 186.2 GPixel/s | 53.28 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 465.6 GTexel/s | 93.24 GTexel/s |

| TDP | 250 W | 75 W |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 600 W | 250 W |

| Length | 267 mm | 229 mm |

| Width | 40 mm | 35 mm |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | 149 USD |

Where Each One Wins

The TITAN V CEO Edition wins decisively in every benchmark shared with the GTX 1650. It is the clear choice for any workload that stresses raw 3D rendering, high-resolution texture work, or compute-heavy tasks. Its 32 GB of HBM2 memory with 868.4 GB/s bandwidth makes it suited for large datasets, machine learning inference (thanks to the 640 tensor cores), and professional visualization. The FP32 throughput of 14.90 TFLOPS and FP16 of 29.80 TFLOPS place it in a different performance class entirely.

The GTX 1650 has no benchmark wins in the head-to-head data. However, it does have advantages that matter in specific contexts. Its 75 W TDP means it requires no external power connectors, making it compatible with a broader range of systems, including small form factor builds and pre-built machines with minimal PSU headroom. The 250 W suggested PSU is far more accessible than the TITAN V's 600 W requirement. Its shorter length (229 mm versus 267 mm) and narrower width (35 mm versus 40 mm) also improve case compatibility.

For gaming at lower resolutions and settings, the GTX 1650's 2.984 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is sufficient for many esports and older titles. Its higher boost clock of 1665 MHz gives it an edge in clock-sensitive workloads, though the TITAN V's massive core count overwhelms that advantage in practice.

The TITAN V's PassMark G2D score of 1086 versus 561 for the GTX 1650 indicates it also handles 2D and desktop workloads much faster, which may matter for multi-monitor setups or high-refresh-rate desktop usage.

In summary, the TITAN V CEO Edition is the performance leader by a wide margin, with a 115.6% advantage in PassMark G3D and a 93.6% advantage in PassMark G2D. The GTX 1650 is the more practical card for constrained systems, but it cannot match the TITAN V in any measured benchmark. Users prioritizing raw performance should choose the TITAN V; those prioritizing low power draw and physical compatibility may find the GTX 1650 sufficient for lighter workloads.