GeForce GTX 1050 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 +120.9%NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER leads in this scenario (up to 120.9% 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 is better2
Board power 25 W lower75 W (TDP) vs 100 W (TDP)
Launch price $50 lower$109 vs $159
Where GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is better1
Blender Benchmark 2.93.1 112.8% lower126 s vs 269 s
Benchmarks
Results are compared within one benchmark, one version and the same conditions.
- B ahead by 112.8%
Blender Benchmark 2.93.1
GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1050268.6 sGeForce GTX 1650 SUPER126.2 sPosition among tested models (31, CUDA)
B · 126A · 2690100200300Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is ahead by 112.8% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050
268.6 s · community measurement, sample 28 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 28 submissions (0 outliers excluded), interquartile range 244.17–271.98; submissions 2021-08-01 to 2022-02-28; 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.
Other comparable benchmarks (3)
| Benchmark | A | B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 309.3 | 142 | B +117.8% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 311.9 | 141.2 | B +120.9% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 336.8 | 155.3 | B +116.8% |
Each benchmark version has its own scale: numbers are compared only within a row.
Reference results (98)
| Benchmark | A | B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, barbershop_interior (CUDA) | 2,622.5 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 272.7 | 139.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 307.6 | 137.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 321.8 | 151.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 315.4 | 153 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 326.9 | 96.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 351.1 | 94.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 347.1 | 99.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 327.6 | 100.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 952.6 | 638.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, classroom (CUDA) | 912.7 | 453.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 922.4 | 438 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 934.3 | 432.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 950.5 | 457.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 834 | 456.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 908.8 | 458.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 826.2 | 403.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 1,133.1 | 340.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 1,103.1 | 359.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 1,158.6 | 367.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 642 | 430.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 619.6 | 243.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 636.3 | 256.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 638.6 | 260.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 654 | 279.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 598 | 288.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 614.7 | 255.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 651.1 | 180.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 644.2 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 714.7 | 181.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, koro (CUDA) | 1,086.1 | 704.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, koro (CUDA) | 1,051.1 | 391.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, koro (CUDA) | 1,070 | 391.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, koro (CUDA) | 991 | 418.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, koro (CUDA) | 909.7 | 436.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, koro (CUDA) | 1,038.8 | 418.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, koro (CUDA) | 938.8 | 386.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 825.9 | 218.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 1,123.1 | 239.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 842.9 | 217.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 1,647.4 | 1,367.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 1,583.4 | 782.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 1,617.4 | 791.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 1,548.7 | 795.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 1,540.2 | 859.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 1,737.3 | 830.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 1,351.8 | 703.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 1,866.9 | 528.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 1,848.7 | 546.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 1,958.1 | 545.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, victor (CUDA) | 12,147.5 | 2,390.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, victor (CUDA) | 11,497.6 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, victor (CUDA) | 12,940.3 | 1,927.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, victor (CUDA) | 11,171.9 | 2,197.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, victor (CUDA) | 31,537.3 | 1,909.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, victor (CUDA) | 9,443.5 | 1,510.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, victor (CUDA) | 34,426.4 | 2,780.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 4,853.3 | 759.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 4,712.5 | 890.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.0.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 217.3 | 516.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 204.4 | 550.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 152.1 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 210.3 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 207.3 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 203.2 | 560 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 205 | 622.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.6.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 212.7 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 4.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 202.6 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 4.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 180.7 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 4.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 169.2 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 4.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 199.4 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 4.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 224.4 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 5.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 136.5 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 4.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 155.9 | 556.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 173.5 | 554.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 121.9 | 478.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 142.1 | 462.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.0.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 197.8 | 645.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 173.8 | 580.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.1.2GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 181.2 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 183.4 | 542.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 162.7 | 560.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 169.3 | 562.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 163.1 | 452.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 162.9 | 603.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.6.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 179.5 | 577.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 166.4 | 526.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 162.3 | 564.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 174.9 | 540 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 162 | 540.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 130 | 472.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 137.1 | 521.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, barbershop_interior (CUDA) | — | 1,216.2 | no pair |
| 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 2.91.2GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | — | 803.3 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, victor (CUDA) | — | 1,483 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 4.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | — | 604.7 | no pair |
Each benchmark version has its own scale: numbers are compared only within a row.
Specifications
| Specification | A · GeForce GTX 1050 | B · GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chip | |||
| GPU chip | no data | TU116-250-KA-A1 | no data for A |
| Architecture | Pascal | Turing | differs |
| Shader unitsShader unit counts are comparable only within one architecture. | no data | 1,280 (CUDA cores) | no data for A |
| Clocks | |||
| Base clock | no data | 1,530 MHz | no data for A |
| Boost clockClocks of different architectures do not reflect performance directly. For laptop chips, the clock depends on the laptop’s power limit. | no data | 1,725 MHz | no data for A |
| Memory | |||
| Video memory | no data | 4 GB | no data for A |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 | differs |
| Memory bus | no data | 128 bit | no data for A |
| Memory bandwidthExcludes cache (Infinity Cache / L2), which affects effective bandwidth differently. | no data | 192 GB/s | no data for A |
| 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
Ano data
BTU116-250-KA-A1
no data for AArchitecture
APascal
BTuring
differsShader units
Ano data
B1,280 (CUDA cores)
no data for AShader unit counts are comparable only within one architecture.
Clocks
Base clock
Ano data
B1,530 MHz
no data for ABoost clock
Ano data
B1,725 MHz
no data for AClocks of different architectures do not reflect performance directly. For laptop chips, the clock depends on the laptop’s power limit.
Memory
Video memory
Ano data
B4 GB
no data for AMemory type
AGDDR5
BGDDR6
differsMemory bus
Ano data
B128 bit
no data for AMemory bandwidth
Ano data
B192 GB/s
no data for AExcludes 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
Which is faster: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 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, 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 4.5.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.2.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.4.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.1.1, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.1.2, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.0.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.1.0checked November 14, 2026
How we compare: methodology. Where the data comes from: sources.