GeForce GTX 1050 Ti vs GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER: specs and benchmark comparison
Short verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER 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 +83.6%NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER leads in this scenario (up to 83.6% 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 better2
Board power 25 W lower75 W (TDP) vs 100 W (TDP)
Launch price $20 lower$139 vs $159
Where GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is better6
Blender Benchmark 2.93.1 66.5% lower126 s vs 210 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 63.9% lower458 s vs 750 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 83.6% lower280 s vs 514 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 74.2% lower436 s vs 760 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 56.2% lower859 s vs 1,342 s
Memory bandwidth 79.9 GB/s more192 GB/s vs 112.1 GB/s
Benchmarks
Results are compared within one benchmark, one version and the same conditions.
- B ahead by 66.5%
Blender Benchmark 2.93.1
GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti210.1 sGeForce GTX 1650 SUPER126.2 sPosition among tested models (31, CUDA)
B · 126A · 2100100200300Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is ahead by 66.5% 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 SUPER
126.2 s · community measurement, sample 24 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 24 submissions (5 outliers excluded), interquartile range 124.97–128.98; submissions 2021-07-17 to 2022-02-25; 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 63.9%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, classroom (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti750.3 sGeForce GTX 1650 SUPER457.9 sPosition among tested models (25, CUDA)
B · 458A · 7500200400600800Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is ahead by 63.9% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti
750.3 s · community measurement, sample 42 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 42 submissions (2 outliers excluded), interquartile range 729.86–762.18; submissions 2020-09-04 to 2021-01-28; CUDA backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
- B · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER
457.9 s · community measurement, sample 27 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 27 submissions (1 outliers excluded), interquartile range 449.24–463.14; submissions 2020-09-03 to 2021-01-18; 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 83.6%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti513.6 sGeForce GTX 1650 SUPER279.8 sPosition among tested models (22, CUDA)
B · 280A · 5140200400600Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is ahead by 83.6% 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 SUPER
279.8 s · community measurement, sample 24 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 24 submissions (1 outliers excluded), interquartile range 275.58–282.32; submissions 2020-09-03 to 2021-01-18; 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 74.2%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, koro (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti760.2 sGeForce GTX 1650 SUPER436.3 sPosition among tested models (22, CUDA)
B · 436A · 7600200400600800Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is ahead by 74.2% 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 SUPER
436.3 s · community measurement, sample 24 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 24 submissions (0 outliers excluded), interquartile range 429.7–442.75; submissions 2020-09-03 to 2021-01-18; 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 56.2%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti1,342.2 sGeForce GTX 1650 SUPER859.5 sPosition among tested models (23, CUDA)
B · 859A · 1,34205001,0001,500Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is ahead by 56.2% 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 SUPER
859.5 s · community measurement, sample 22 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 22 submissions (2 outliers excluded), interquartile range 843.62–871.67; submissions 2020-09-03 to 2021-01-18; 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.
Other comparable benchmarks (4)
| Benchmark | A | B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 240.3 | 142 | B +69.2% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 246.7 | 141.2 | B +74.7% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 262.2 | 155.3 | B +68.8% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 736.9 | 432.9 | B +70.2% |
Each benchmark version has its own scale: numbers are compared only within a row.
Reference results (93)
| 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 | 1,216.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 244.6 | 139.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 239.3 | 137.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 262.1 | 151.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 246.2 | 153 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 282 | 96.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 291.2 | 94.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 281 | 99.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 291 | 100.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 740.8 | 638.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, classroom (CUDA) | 714.7 | 453.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 724.1 | 438 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 765.4 | 456.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 713.6 | 458.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 649.9 | 403.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 889.8 | 340.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 927.7 | 359.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 948.2 | 367.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 499.3 | 430.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 484.7 | 243.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 496.8 | 256.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 504.2 | 260.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 493.1 | 288.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 497.5 | 255.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 528.7 | 180.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 566.2 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 613.6 | 181.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, koro (CUDA) | 863.8 | 704.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, koro (CUDA) | 830.5 | 391.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, koro (CUDA) | 830.1 | 391.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, koro (CUDA) | 807.5 | 418.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, koro (CUDA) | 760.2 | 418.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, koro (CUDA) | 773.5 | 386.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 635.9 | 218.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 905.2 | 239.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 1,414.9 | 1,367.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 1,228.3 | 782.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 1,252.9 | 791.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 1,278.6 | 795.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 1,271.1 | 830.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 1,168.2 | 703.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 1,443.6 | 528.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 1,483.2 | 546.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 1,577.2 | 545.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, victor (CUDA) | 14,116.7 | 2,390.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, victor (CUDA) | 9,729.6 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, victor (CUDA) | 7,575 | 1,927.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, victor (CUDA) | 8,373.1 | 2,197.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, victor (CUDA) | 9,266.8 | 1,909.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, victor (CUDA) | 7,320 | 1,483 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, victor (CUDA) | 6,327.4 | 1,510.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, victor (CUDA) | 5,837.1 | 2,780.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 3,441.1 | 759.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.0.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 261.7 | 516.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 226.7 | 550.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 229 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 218 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 275.9 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 218.6 | 560 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 262.3 | 622.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.6.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 279.4 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 4.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 235.7 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 4.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 238.8 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 4.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 252.3 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 4.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 273.9 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 4.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 303.3 | 604.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 277.8 | — | no pair |
| 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 | 556.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 209.2 | 554.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 182.3 | 478.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 177.4 | 462.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.0.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 238 | 645.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 224.2 | 580.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 226.7 | 542.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 223.8 | 560.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 218.1 | 562.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 213.5 | 452.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 204 | 603.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.6.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 229.8 | 577.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 208.3 | 526.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 211 | 564.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 215.3 | 540 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 209 | 540.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 179.9 | 472.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 194.6 | 521.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | — | 263.5 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, koro (CUDA) | — | 405.6 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, koro (OPTIX) | — | 217.8 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | — | 803.3 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, victor (OPTIX) | — | 890.6 | 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 SUPER | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chip | |||
| GPU chip | GP107-400-A1 | TU116-250-KA-A1 | differs |
| Architecture | Pascal | Turing | differs |
| Shader unitsShader unit counts are comparable only within one architecture. | 768 (CUDA cores) | 1,280 (CUDA cores) | not directly comparable |
| Clocks | |||
| Base clock | 1,291 MHz | 1,530 MHz | B: 239 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 | 1,725 MHz | B: 333 MHz more |
| Memory | |||
| Video memory | 4 GB | 4 GB | equal |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 | differs |
| Memory bus | 128 bit | 128 bit | equal |
| Memory bandwidthExcludes cache (Infinity Cache / L2), which affects effective bandwidth differently. | 112.1 GB/s | 192 GB/s | B: 79.9 GB/s more |
| 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) | 100 W (TDP) | B: 25 W higher |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | no data | no data for B |
Chip
GPU chip
AGP107-400-A1
BTU116-250-KA-A1
differsArchitecture
APascal
BTuring
differsShader units
A768 (CUDA cores)
B1,280 (CUDA cores)
not directly comparableShader unit counts are comparable only within one architecture.
Clocks
Base clock
A1,291 MHz
B1,530 MHz
B: 239 MHz moreBoost clock
A1,392 MHz
B1,725 MHz
B: 333 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
BGDDR6
differsMemory bus
A128 bit
B128 bit
equalMemory bandwidth
A112.1 GB/s
B192 GB/s
B: 79.9 GB/s moreExcludes cache (Infinity Cache / L2), which affects effective bandwidth differently.
Power and dimensions
Board power
A75 W (TDP)
B100 W (TDP)
B: 25 W higherTGP (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.
Interface
APCIe 3.0 x16
Bno data
no data for B
“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 SUPER have?
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti: 4 GB GDDR5, 128-bit bus. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER: 4 GB GDDR6, 128-bit bus.
Which is faster: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti or NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER?
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER leads in every scenario with comparable benchmarks: rendering and compute. This does not imply an advantage in tasks without benchmarks.
See also
Data sources (2)
- Wikipedia (English) — specifications of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti, specifications of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER, release date and launch pricechecked November 14, 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 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.