GeForce GTX 1070 Ti vs GeForce GTX 1650: specs and benchmark comparison
Short verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Ti 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
A +106%NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Ti leads in this scenario (up to 106% 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 1070 Ti is better9
Blender Benchmark 2.93.1 73.1% lower78 s vs 134 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 84.2% lower294 s vs 541 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 61% lower188 s vs 302 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 63.9% lower296 s vs 485 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 87.4% lower503 s vs 943 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 106% lower693 s vs 1,427 s
Blender Benchmark 4.5.0 39.5% faster592 samples/min vs 424 samples/min
Video memory 4 GB more8 GB vs 4 GB
Memory bus 128 bit more256 bit vs 128 bit
Where GeForce GTX 1650 is better1
Launch price $250 lower$149 vs $399
Benchmarks
Results are compared within one benchmark, one version and the same conditions.
- A ahead by 73.1%
Blender Benchmark 2.93.1
GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1070 Ti77.7 sGeForce GTX 1650134.4 sPosition among tested models (31, CUDA)
A · 78B · 1340100200300Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Ti is ahead by 73.1% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Ti
77.7 s · community measurement, sample 20 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 20 submissions (2 outliers excluded), interquartile range 76.96–78.05; submissions 2021-07-12 to 2022-02-25; 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.
- A ahead by 84.2%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, classroom (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1070 Ti293.5 sGeForce GTX 1650540.8 sPosition among tested models (25, CUDA)
A · 294B · 5410200400600800Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Ti is ahead by 84.2% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Ti
293.5 s · community measurement, sample 75 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 75 submissions (3 outliers excluded), interquartile range 280.96–296.59; submissions 2020-09-02 to 2021-01-31; CUDA backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
- B · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
540.8 s · community measurement, sample 63 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 63 submissions (9 outliers excluded), interquartile range 528.23–552.69; 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.
- A ahead by 61%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1070 Ti187.6 sGeForce GTX 1650302 sPosition among tested models (22, CUDA)
A · 188B · 3020200400600Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Ti is ahead by 61% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Ti
187.6 s · community measurement, sample 56 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 56 submissions (3 outliers excluded), interquartile range 179.05–190.86; submissions 2020-09-02 to 2021-01-31; 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.
- A ahead by 63.9%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, koro (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1070 Ti296 sGeForce GTX 1650485.1 sPosition among tested models (22, CUDA)
A · 296B · 4850200400600800Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Ti is ahead by 63.9% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Ti
296 s · community measurement, sample 52 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 52 submissions (3 outliers excluded), interquartile range 283.33–300.59; submissions 2020-09-02 to 2021-01-31; 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.
- A ahead by 87.4%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1070 Ti502.9 sGeForce GTX 1650942.6 sPosition among tested models (23, CUDA)
A · 503B · 94305001,0001,500Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Ti is ahead by 87.4% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Ti
502.9 s · community measurement, sample 52 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 52 submissions (3 outliers excluded), interquartile range 479.86–509.1; submissions 2020-09-02 to 2021-01-31; 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.
- A ahead by 106%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, victor (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1070 Ti692.6 sGeForce GTX 16501,426.6 sPosition among tested models (20, CUDA)
A · 693B · 1,42705001,0001,500Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Ti is ahead by 106% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Ti
692.6 s · community measurement, sample 46 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 46 submissions (8 outliers excluded), interquartile range 663.89–711.48; submissions 2020-09-02 to 2021-01-31; CUDA backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
- B · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
1,426.6 s · community measurement, sample 49 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 49 submissions (7 outliers excluded), interquartile range 1314.64–1802.53; 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.
- A ahead by 39.5%
Blender Benchmark 4.5.0
GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) · samples/min, higher is better
GeForce GTX 1070 Ti591.6 samples/minGeForce GTX 1650424 samples/minPosition among tested models (67, OptiX)
B · 424A · 59205,00010,00015,000Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, samples/min. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Ti is ahead by 39.5% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Ti
591.6 samples/min · community measurement, sample 24 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 24 submissions (1 outliers excluded), interquartile range 582.59–600.66; submissions 2025-07-19 to 2026-04-11; 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) | 88 | 149.1 | A +69.4% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 89.3 | 153.3 | A +71.6% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 96.2 | 158.3 | A +64.5% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 285.5 | 516.2 | A +80.8% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 286.1 | 536.1 | A +87.4% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 180.9 | 294.8 | A +63% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, koro (CUDA) | 338 | 472.3 | A +39.7% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 474.3 | 894.6 | A +88.6% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 633.8 | 474.7 | A +33.5% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 635.3 | 433.3 | A +46.6% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 639.7 | 429.7 | A +48.9% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 662.4 | 470 | A +41% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.6.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 635.4 | 476.8 | A +33.3% |
| Blender Benchmark 4.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 596.6 | 428.9 | A +39.1% |
Each benchmark version has its own scale: numbers are compared only within a row.
Reference results (91)
| Benchmark | A | B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, barbershop_interior (CUDA) | 802.3 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, barbershop_interior (CUDA) | 802.9 | 1,732.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 88.4 | 147.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 86.8 | 147.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 89.7 | 157.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 89.9 | 156.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 90 | 130.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 88.9 | 126.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 89.5 | 127.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 91.7 | 133.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 286.5 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, classroom (CUDA) | 284.4 | 538.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 274.6 | 549.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 280 | 572 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 253.8 | 493.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 325.3 | 499.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 338.1 | 472.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 328.2 | 517.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 176.7 | 324.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 178.2 | 277.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 182.2 | 283.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 176.6 | 289.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 178.1 | 307.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 181.7 | 282.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 168.7 | 253.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 175 | 258.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 178.8 | 271.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, koro (CUDA) | 340.9 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, koro (CUDA) | 341.7 | 483 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, koro (CUDA) | 327.8 | 499.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, koro (CUDA) | 291.9 | 457.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, koro (CUDA) | 295.3 | 502.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, koro (CUDA) | 300.5 | 437.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 195.9 | 319.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 281.2 | 389.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 206.8 | 336.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 480.4 | 867.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 472.5 | 924.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 485.9 | 905.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 471.7 | 891.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 483.3 | 911 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 447.2 | 796.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 475.9 | 722.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 491.7 | 750.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 501.4 | 753.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, victor (CUDA) | 773 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, victor (CUDA) | 750.1 | 1,360.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, victor (CUDA) | 714.3 | 1,373 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, victor (CUDA) | 690.6 | 1,376.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, victor (CUDA) | 668.2 | 1,885.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, victor (CUDA) | 745.5 | 1,640 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, victor (CUDA) | 734.5 | 1,565.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 650.3 | 1,073.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 751.1 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 701.6 | 1,437.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 687.1 | 457.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 674.9 | 530.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 652.1 | 497.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 667.3 | 489.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 663.7 | 419.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.6.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 684 | 528.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 592.8 | 438.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 495 | 391.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 513.6 | 364.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.0.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 658.3 | 508.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 662.6 | 488.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 614.7 | 448.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 599.7 | 429.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 590.9 | 442.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 587.9 | 428.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 506.8 | 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 (OPTIX) | — | 240.2 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, koro (CUDA) | — | 472.8 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, koro (OPTIX) | — | 298 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | — | 915.7 | 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 3.0.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | — | 467.7 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | — | 454.8 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 4.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | — | 522.7 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 4.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | — | 439.3 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 4.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | — | 501.2 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 4.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | — | 513.4 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 4.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | — | 498.5 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 5.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | — | 417 | no pair |
Each benchmark version has its own scale: numbers are compared only within a row.
Specifications
| Specification | A · GeForce GTX 1070 Ti | B · GeForce GTX 1650 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chip | |||
| GPU chip | GP104-300-A1 | no data | no data for B |
| Architecture | Pascal | Turing | differs |
| Shader unitsShader unit counts are comparable only within one architecture. | 2,432 (CUDA cores) | 896 (CUDA cores) | not directly comparable |
| Clocks | |||
| Base clock | 1,607 MHz | 1,485 MHz | A: 122 MHz more |
| Boost clockClocks of different architectures do not reflect performance directly. For laptop chips, the clock depends on the laptop’s power limit. | 1,683 MHz | 1,665 MHz | A: 18 MHz more |
| Memory | |||
| Video memory | 8 GB | 4 GB | A: 4 GB more |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 | equal |
| Memory bus | 256 bit | 128 bit | A: 128 bit more |
| Memory bandwidthExcludes cache (Infinity Cache / L2), which affects effective bandwidth differently. | 256.3 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. | 180 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
AGP104-300-A1
Bno data
no data for BArchitecture
APascal
BTuring
differsShader units
A2,432 (CUDA cores)
B896 (CUDA cores)
not directly comparableShader unit counts are comparable only within one architecture.
Clocks
Base clock
A1,607 MHz
B1,485 MHz
A: 122 MHz moreBoost clock
A1,683 MHz
B1,665 MHz
A: 18 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
A8 GB
B4 GB
A: 4 GB moreMemory type
AGDDR5
BGDDR5
equalMemory bus
A256 bit
B128 bit
A: 128 bit moreMemory bandwidth
A256.3 GB/s
Bno data
no data for BExcludes cache (Infinity Cache / L2), which affects effective bandwidth differently.
Power and dimensions
Board power
A180 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 1070 Ti and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 have?
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Ti: 8 GB GDDR5, 256-bit bus. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650: 4 GB GDDR5, 128-bit bus.
Which PCIe interface do the cards use?
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Ti: PCIe 3.0 x16. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650: PCIe 3.0.
Which is faster: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Ti or NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650?
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Ti 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 1070 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 3.1.0, 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 3.0.1, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.2.0, 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 5.1.1, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.2.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.4.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.1.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.0.0checked November 14, 2026
How we compare: methodology. Where the data comes from: sources.