GeForce GTX 1050 Ti vs GeForce GTX 1650: specs and benchmark comparison
Short verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 leads in every scenario with comparable benchmarks: rendering and compute. This does not imply an advantage in tasks without benchmarks.
Compare with AIRendering and compute
B +111.7%NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 leads in this scenario (up to 111.7% in comparable benchmarks).
No comparable benchmarks yet: gaming: rasterization, gaming: ray tracing, power efficiency.
Advantages
Only measured and rated values: a noticeable benchmark gap and specs where more is better.
Where GeForce GTX 1050 Ti is better1
Launch price $10 lower$139 vs $149
Where GeForce GTX 1650 is better6
Blender Benchmark 2.93.1 56.3% lower134 s vs 210 s
Blender Benchmark 2.93.1 31.6% lower494 s vs 650 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 70.1% lower302 s vs 514 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 56.7% lower485 s vs 760 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 42.4% lower943 s vs 1,342 s
Blender Benchmark 4.5.0 102.7% faster424 samples/min vs 209 samples/min
Benchmarks
Results are compared within one benchmark, one version and the same conditions.
- B ahead by 56.3%
Blender Benchmark 2.93.1
GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti210.1 sGeForce GTX 1650134.4 sPosition among tested models (31, CUDA)
B · 134A · 2100100200300Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is ahead by 56.3% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti
210.1 s · community measurement, sample 39 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 39 submissions (3 outliers excluded), interquartile range 208.16–213.28; submissions 2021-07-13 to 2022-02-27; CUDA backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
- B · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
134.4 s · community measurement, sample 76 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 76 submissions (5 outliers excluded), interquartile range 131.03–137.76; submissions 2021-07-13 to 2022-02-12; CUDA backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
difference = |A − B| ÷ the smaller value × 100%. The 5% noticeable threshold is a UX heuristic, not statistical significance.
Render time of a single Cycles scene without synchronization. Median of submissions after filtering.
- B ahead by 31.6%
Blender Benchmark 2.93.1
GPU, classroom (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti649.9 sGeForce GTX 1650493.7 sPosition among tested models (26, CUDA)
B · 494A · 6500200400600800Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is ahead by 31.6% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti
649.9 s · community measurement, sample 21 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 21 submissions (1 outliers excluded), interquartile range 639.11–666.02; submissions 2021-07-29 to 2022-02-27; CUDA backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
- B · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
493.7 s · community measurement, sample 46 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 46 submissions (5 outliers excluded), interquartile range 479.05–499.89; submissions 2021-07-13 to 2022-02-12; CUDA backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
difference = |A − B| ÷ the smaller value × 100%. The 5% noticeable threshold is a UX heuristic, not statistical significance.
Render time of a single Cycles scene without synchronization. Median of submissions after filtering.
- B ahead by 70.1%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti513.6 sGeForce GTX 1650302 sPosition among tested models (22, CUDA)
B · 302A · 5140200400600Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is ahead by 70.1% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti
513.6 s · community measurement, sample 28 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 28 submissions (2 outliers excluded), interquartile range 507.94–520.93; submissions 2020-09-03 to 2021-01-26; CUDA backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
- B · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
302 s · community measurement, sample 56 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 56 submissions (5 outliers excluded), interquartile range 292.2–311.17; submissions 2020-09-03 to 2022-01-14; CUDA backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
difference = |A − B| ÷ the smaller value × 100%. The 5% noticeable threshold is a UX heuristic, not statistical significance.
Render time of a single Cycles scene without synchronization. Median of submissions after filtering.
- B ahead by 56.7%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, koro (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti760.2 sGeForce GTX 1650485.1 sPosition among tested models (22, CUDA)
B · 485A · 7600200400600800Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is ahead by 56.7% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti
760.2 s · community measurement, sample 26 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 26 submissions (3 outliers excluded), interquartile range 746.79–768.74; submissions 2020-09-02 to 2021-01-26; CUDA backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
- B · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
485.1 s · community measurement, sample 56 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 56 submissions (2 outliers excluded), interquartile range 467.43–502.01; submissions 2020-09-03 to 2021-08-24; CUDA backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
difference = |A − B| ÷ the smaller value × 100%. The 5% noticeable threshold is a UX heuristic, not statistical significance.
Render time of a single Cycles scene without synchronization. Median of submissions after filtering.
- B ahead by 42.4%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti1,342.2 sGeForce GTX 1650942.6 sPosition among tested models (23, CUDA)
B · 943A · 1,34205001,0001,500Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is ahead by 42.4% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti
1,342.2 s · community measurement, sample 24 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 24 submissions (3 outliers excluded), interquartile range 1328.71–1356.78; submissions 2020-09-03 to 2021-01-26; CUDA backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
- B · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
942.6 s · community measurement, sample 59 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 59 submissions (4 outliers excluded), interquartile range 916.59–971.11; submissions 2020-09-03 to 2021-08-24; CUDA backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
difference = |A − B| ÷ the smaller value × 100%. The 5% noticeable threshold is a UX heuristic, not statistical significance.
Render time of a single Cycles scene without synchronization. Median of submissions after filtering.
- B ahead by 102.7%
Blender Benchmark 4.5.0
GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) · samples/min, higher is better
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti209.2 samples/minGeForce GTX 1650424 samples/minPosition among tested models (67, OptiX)
A · 209B · 42405,00010,00015,000Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, samples/min. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is ahead by 102.7% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti
209.2 samples/min · community measurement, sample 70 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 70 submissions (3 outliers excluded), interquartile range 197.88–217.04; submissions 2025-07-18 to 2026-04-28; OPTIX backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
- B · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
424 samples/min · community measurement, sample 143 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 143 submissions (3 outliers excluded), interquartile range 388.63–450.69; submissions 2025-07-19 to 2026-10-11; OPTIX backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
difference = |A − B| ÷ the smaller value × 100%. The 5% noticeable threshold is a UX heuristic, not statistical significance.
Cycles render in Blender Benchmark. Median of the sum of samples per minute over three scenes after removing outliers.
Other comparable benchmarks (14)
| Benchmark | A | B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 240.3 | 149.1 | B +61.2% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 246.7 | 153.3 | B +61% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 262.2 | 158.3 | B +65.6% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 724.1 | 516.2 | B +40.3% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 736.9 | 536.1 | B +37.5% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 750.3 | 540.8 | B +38.7% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 504.2 | 294.8 | B +71% |
| Blender Benchmark 5.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 177.4 | 364.1 | B +105.2% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 224.2 | 474.7 | B +111.7% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 218.1 | 433.3 | B +98.7% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 213.5 | 429.7 | B +101.3% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.6.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 229.8 | 476.8 | B +107.5% |
| Blender Benchmark 4.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 215.3 | 442.7 | B +105.6% |
| Blender Benchmark 4.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 209 | 428.4 | B +104.9% |
Each benchmark version has its own scale: numbers are compared only within a row.
Reference results (94)
| Benchmark | A | B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, barbershop_interior (CUDA) | 2,202.7 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, barbershop_interior (CUDA) | 1,980.4 | 1,732.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 244.6 | 147.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 239.3 | 147.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 262.1 | 157.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 246.2 | 156.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 282 | 130.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 291.2 | 126.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 281 | 127.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 291 | 133.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 740.8 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, classroom (CUDA) | 714.7 | 538.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 765.4 | 549.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 713.6 | 572 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 889.8 | 499.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 927.7 | 472.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 948.2 | 517.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 499.3 | 324.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 484.7 | 277.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 496.8 | 283.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 493.1 | 307.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 497.5 | 282.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 528.7 | 253.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 566.2 | 258.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 613.6 | 271.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, koro (CUDA) | 863.8 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, koro (CUDA) | 830.5 | 483 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, koro (CUDA) | 830.1 | 472.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, koro (CUDA) | 807.5 | 499.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, koro (CUDA) | 760.2 | 502.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, koro (CUDA) | 773.5 | 437.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 635.9 | 319.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 905.2 | 389.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 1,414.9 | 867.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 1,228.3 | 924.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 1,252.9 | 894.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 1,278.6 | 905.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 1,271.1 | 911 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 1,168.2 | 796.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 1,443.6 | 722.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 1,483.2 | 750.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 1,577.2 | 753.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, victor (CUDA) | 14,116.7 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, victor (CUDA) | 9,729.6 | 1,360.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, victor (CUDA) | 7,575 | 1,373 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, victor (CUDA) | 8,373.1 | 1,376.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, victor (CUDA) | 9,266.8 | 1,426.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, victor (CUDA) | 7,320 | 1,885.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, victor (CUDA) | 6,327.4 | 1,640 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, victor (CUDA) | 5,837.1 | 1,565.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 3,441.1 | 1,073.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.0.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 261.7 | 467.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 226.7 | 457.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 229 | 454.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 218 | 530.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 275.9 | 497.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 218.6 | 489.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 262.3 | 419.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.6.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 279.4 | 528.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 235.7 | 522.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 238.8 | 439.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 252.3 | 501.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 273.9 | 513.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 303.3 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 4.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 277.8 | 498.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 232 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 217.1 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 4.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 214.1 | 438.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 182.3 | 391.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.0.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 238 | 508.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 226.7 | 488.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 223.8 | 448.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 204 | 470 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 208.3 | 428.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 211 | 429.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 179.9 | 417 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 194.6 | 356.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | — | 156.1 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | — | 137.3 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, classroom (CUDA) | — | 571.1 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | — | 486.7 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | — | 294.8 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | — | 289.1 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | — | 240.2 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, koro (CUDA) | — | 472.8 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, koro (CUDA) | — | 457.8 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, koro (OPTIX) | — | 298 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, koro (OPTIX) | — | 336.3 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | — | 915.7 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | — | 891.3 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | — | 702.6 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, victor (CUDA) | — | 1,215.8 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, victor (OPTIX) | — | 1,068 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, victor (OPTIX) | — | 1,437.1 | no pair |
Each benchmark version has its own scale: numbers are compared only within a row.
Specifications
| Specification | A · GeForce GTX 1050 Ti | B · GeForce GTX 1650 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chip | |||
| GPU chip | GP107-400-A1 | no data | no data for B |
| Architecture | Pascal | Turing | differs |
| Shader unitsShader unit counts are comparable only within one architecture. | 768 (CUDA cores) | 896 (CUDA cores) | not directly comparable |
| Clocks | |||
| Base clock | 1,291 MHz | 1,485 MHz | B: 194 MHz more |
| Boost clockClocks of different architectures do not reflect performance directly. For laptop chips, the clock depends on the laptop’s power limit. | 1,392 MHz | 1,665 MHz | B: 273 MHz more |
| Memory | |||
| Video memory | 4 GB | 4 GB | equal |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 | equal |
| Memory bus | 128 bit | 128 bit | equal |
| Memory bandwidthExcludes cache (Infinity Cache / L2), which affects effective bandwidth differently. | 112.1 GB/s | no data | no data for B |
| Power and dimensions | |||
| Board powerTGP (NVIDIA) and TBP (AMD/Intel) are calculated differently; higher is not better. For laptops, the chip maker sets the range and the laptop maker picks the value, so the same chip behaves differently in different laptops. | 75 W (TDP) | 75 W (board power) | not directly comparable |
| Recommended PSU | no data | 300 W | no data for A |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 | differs |
| Length (reference / Founders Edition)Partner cards have different dimensions; check the specific SKU. | no data | 130 mm | no data for A |
| Thickness (slots) | no data | 2 | no data for A |
| Power connectors (reference) | no data | 1x 6-pin | no data for A |
Chip
GPU chip
AGP107-400-A1
Bno data
no data for BArchitecture
APascal
BTuring
differsShader units
A768 (CUDA cores)
B896 (CUDA cores)
not directly comparableShader unit counts are comparable only within one architecture.
Clocks
Base clock
A1,291 MHz
B1,485 MHz
B: 194 MHz moreBoost clock
A1,392 MHz
B1,665 MHz
B: 273 MHz moreClocks of different architectures do not reflect performance directly. For laptop chips, the clock depends on the laptop’s power limit.
Memory
Video memory
A4 GB
B4 GB
equalMemory type
AGDDR5
BGDDR5
equalMemory bus
A128 bit
B128 bit
equalMemory bandwidth
A112.1 GB/s
Bno data
no data for BExcludes cache (Infinity Cache / L2), which affects effective bandwidth differently.
Power and dimensions
Board power
A75 W (TDP)
B75 W (board power)
not directly comparableTGP (NVIDIA) and TBP (AMD/Intel) are calculated differently; higher is not better. For laptops, the chip maker sets the range and the laptop maker picks the value, so the same chip behaves differently in different laptops.
Recommended PSU
Ano data
B300 W
no data for AInterface
APCIe 3.0 x16
BPCIe 3.0
differsLength (reference / Founders Edition)
Ano data
B130 mm
no data for APartner cards have different dimensions; check the specific SKU.
Thickness (slots)
Ano data
B2
no data for APower connectors (reference)
Ano data
B1x 6-pin
no data for A
“More” does not always mean “better”: higher power draw or size is a system requirement, not an advantage (such bars are dimmed).
Compare with AI
An AI model reviews the specs and benchmarks of this pair and gives a plain-language verdict on who each model suits.
Questions and answers
How much video memory do NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 have?
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti: 4 GB GDDR5, 128-bit bus. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650: 4 GB GDDR5, 128-bit bus.
Which PCIe interface do the cards use?
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti: PCIe 3.0 x16. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650: PCIe 3.0.
Which is faster: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti or NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650?
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 leads in every scenario with comparable benchmarks: rendering and compute. This does not imply an advantage in tasks without benchmarks.
See also
Data sources (3)
- Wikipedia (English) — specifications of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti, release date and launch pricechecked November 14, 2026
- NVIDIA — specifications of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650checked November 7, 2026
- Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation) — benchmark Blender Benchmark 2.81, benchmark Blender Benchmark 2.81a, benchmark Blender Benchmark 2.82, benchmark Blender Benchmark 2.83, benchmark Blender Benchmark 2.90, benchmark Blender Benchmark 2.91.2, benchmark Blender Benchmark 2.92, benchmark Blender Benchmark 2.93.1, benchmark Blender Benchmark 2.90.1, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.0.1, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.1.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.2.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.2.1, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.3.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.4.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.5.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.6.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.0.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.1.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.2.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.3.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.4.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.5.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.1.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.1.1, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.2.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.0.0checked November 14, 2026
How we compare: methodology. Where the data comes from: sources.