GeForce GTX 1070 vs GeForce GTX 1650: specs and benchmark comparison
Short verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 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 +78.2%NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 leads in this scenario (up to 78.2% 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 is better11
Blender Benchmark 2.93.1 49% lower90 s vs 134 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 20.1% lower108 s vs 130 s
Blender Benchmark 2.93.1 55.3% lower318 s vs 494 s
Blender Benchmark 2.93.1 33.5% lower211 s vs 282 s
Blender Benchmark 2.93.1 18.6% lower369 s vs 438 s
Blender Benchmark 2.93.1 44.6% lower551 s vs 796 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 78.2% lower800 s vs 1,427 s
Blender Benchmark 3.1.0 39.9% faster640 samples/min vs 457 samples/min
Blender Benchmark 4.5.0 23.5% faster524 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 $230 lower$149 vs $379
Benchmarks
Results are compared within one benchmark, one version and the same conditions.
- A ahead by 49%
Blender Benchmark 2.93.1
GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 107090.2 sGeForce GTX 1650134.4 sPosition among tested models (31, CUDA)
A · 90B · 1340100200300Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 is ahead by 49% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070
90.2 s · community measurement, sample 83 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 83 submissions (7 outliers excluded), interquartile range 88.16–91.66; submissions 2021-07-11 to 2022-02-28; 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 20.1%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1070108.5 sGeForce GTX 1650130.3 sPosition among tested models (17, OptiX)
A · 108B · 130050100150Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 is ahead by 20.1% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070
108.5 s · community measurement, sample 45 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 45 submissions (2 outliers excluded), interquartile range 105.64–112.73; submissions 2020-09-02 to 2021-01-30; OPTIX backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
- B · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
130.3 s · community measurement, sample 23 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 23 submissions (1 outliers excluded), interquartile range 125.32–131.5; submissions 2020-09-05 to 2021-08-24; OPTIX 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 55.3%
Blender Benchmark 2.93.1
GPU, classroom (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1070317.9 sGeForce GTX 1650493.7 sPosition among tested models (26, CUDA)
A · 318B · 4940200400600800Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 is ahead by 55.3% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070
317.9 s · community measurement, sample 54 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 54 submissions (8 outliers excluded), interquartile range 310.1–327.85; submissions 2021-07-09 to 2022-02-24; 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.
- A ahead by 33.5%
Blender Benchmark 2.93.1
GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1070211.5 sGeForce GTX 1650282.2 sPosition among tested models (21, CUDA)
A · 211B · 2820100200300Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 is ahead by 33.5% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070
211.5 s · community measurement, sample 40 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 40 submissions (8 outliers excluded), interquartile range 208.23–215.49; submissions 2021-07-12 to 2022-02-24; CUDA backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
- B · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
282.2 s · community measurement, sample 31 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 31 submissions (1 outliers excluded), interquartile range 269.36–300.06; 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 18.6%
Blender Benchmark 2.93.1
GPU, koro (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1070369 sGeForce GTX 1650437.8 sPosition among tested models (20, CUDA)
A · 369B · 4380200400600Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 is ahead by 18.6% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070
369 s · community measurement, sample 40 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 40 submissions (8 outliers excluded), interquartile range 361.19–376.13; submissions 2021-07-12 to 2022-02-24; CUDA backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
- B · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
437.8 s · community measurement, sample 29 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 29 submissions (1 outliers excluded), interquartile range 424.2–492.04; 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 44.6%
Blender Benchmark 2.93.1
GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1070550.6 sGeForce GTX 1650796.1 sPosition among tested models (21, CUDA)
A · 551B · 7960200400600800Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 is ahead by 44.6% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070
550.6 s · community measurement, sample 46 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 46 submissions (4 outliers excluded), interquartile range 539.97–570.38; submissions 2021-07-12 to 2022-02-24; CUDA backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
- B · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
796.1 s · community measurement, sample 22 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 22 submissions (2 outliers excluded), interquartile range 772.6–831.24; 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 78.2%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, victor (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1070800.4 sGeForce GTX 16501,426.6 sPosition among tested models (20, CUDA)
A · 800B · 1,42705001,0001,500Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 is ahead by 78.2% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070
800.4 s · community measurement, sample 138 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 138 submissions (22 outliers excluded), interquartile range 784.18–821.9; submissions 2020-09-02 to 2021-10-14; 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 39.9%
Blender Benchmark 3.1.0
GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) · samples/min, higher is better
GeForce GTX 1070639.5 samples/minGeForce GTX 1650457.1 samples/minNVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 is ahead by 39.9% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070
639.5 samples/min · community measurement, sample 22 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 22 submissions (8 outliers excluded), interquartile range 633.83–646.79; submissions 2022-03-13 to 2022-06-22; CUDA backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
- B · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
457.1 samples/min · community measurement, sample 21 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 21 submissions (2 outliers excluded), interquartile range 450.28–495.35; submissions 2022-03-09 to 2022-06-24; CUDA backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
difference = |A − B| ÷ the smaller value × 100%. The 5% noticeable threshold is a UX heuristic, not statistical significance.
Cycles render in Blender Benchmark. Median of the sum of samples per minute over three scenes after removing outliers.
- A ahead by 23.5%
Blender Benchmark 4.5.0
GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) · samples/min, higher is better
GeForce GTX 1070523.6 samples/minGeForce GTX 1650424 samples/minPosition among tested models (67, OptiX)
B · 424A · 52405,00010,00015,000Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, samples/min. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 is ahead by 23.5% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070
523.6 samples/min · community measurement, sample 72 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 72 submissions (6 outliers excluded), interquartile range 509.18–537.94; submissions 2025-07-25 to 2026-03-05; 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 (25)
| Benchmark | A | B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 102.9 | 149.1 | A +44.9% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 105.6 | 153.3 | A +45.1% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 112.1 | 158.3 | A +41.2% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 104.2 | 156.3 | A +50% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 353.4 | 516.2 | A +46.1% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 363.8 | 536.1 | A +47.4% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 365.3 | 540.8 | A +48% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 213 | 294.8 | A +38.4% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 217.2 | 302 | A +39% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, koro (CUDA) | 401 | 472.3 | A +17.8% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, koro (CUDA) | 359.7 | 485.1 | A +34.9% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 575.1 | 894.6 | A +55.6% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 604.4 | 942.6 | A +56% |
| Blender Benchmark 4.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 534.5 | 438.5 | A +21.9% |
| Blender Benchmark 5.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 474.2 | 364.1 | A +30.2% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 567.2 | 474.7 | A +19.5% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 572.3 | 448.8 | A +27.5% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 567.4 | 433.3 | A +31% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 567.6 | 429.7 | A +32.1% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 573.3 | 470 | A +22% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.6.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 574 | 476.8 | A +20.4% |
| Blender Benchmark 4.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 540.2 | 428.9 | A +26% |
| Blender Benchmark 4.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 548 | 429.3 | A +27.6% |
| Blender Benchmark 4.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 522.5 | 442.7 | A +18% |
| Blender Benchmark 4.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 527.1 | 428.4 | A +23% |
Each benchmark version has its own scale: numbers are compared only within a row.
Reference results (83)
| Benchmark | A | B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, barbershop_interior (CUDA) | 988.7 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, barbershop_interior (CUDA) | 1,012.7 | 1,732.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 103.4 | 147.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 104.1 | 147.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 105.4 | 157.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 162.3 | 137.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 107.8 | 126.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 109.1 | 127.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 108.3 | 133.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 351.4 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, classroom (CUDA) | 361.2 | 538.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 329.9 | 549.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 351.7 | 572 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 396.6 | 499.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 630.3 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 389.5 | 486.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 386.7 | 472.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 412.9 | 517.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 205.9 | 324.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 208.3 | 277.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 211.7 | 283.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 204 | 289.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 208.4 | 307.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 205.8 | 253.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 322.6 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 200.3 | 240.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 204.8 | 258.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 213.2 | 271.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, koro (CUDA) | 401.4 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, koro (CUDA) | 408.8 | 483 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, koro (CUDA) | 393.7 | 499.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, koro (CUDA) | 345.7 | 457.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, koro (CUDA) | 362.2 | 502.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 239.7 | 319.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 377.3 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 228.9 | 298 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 316.7 | 389.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 247.4 | 336.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 575.7 | 867.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 580.5 | 924.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 588.2 | 905.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 558.8 | 891.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 582.9 | 911 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 579 | 722.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 873.9 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 560.3 | 702.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 558.4 | 750.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 592.5 | 753.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, victor (CUDA) | 836.2 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, victor (CUDA) | 906.2 | 1,360.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, victor (CUDA) | 878.9 | 1,373 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, victor (CUDA) | 807.6 | 1,376.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, victor (CUDA) | 763.4 | 1,885.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, victor (CUDA) | 867.1 | 1,640 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, victor (CUDA) | 850.4 | 1,565.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 778.6 | 1,073.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 1,202.1 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 752.1 | 1,068 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 818.9 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 848.4 | 1,437.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.0.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 705.2 | 467.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 642.2 | 454.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 653.8 | 530.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 619.2 | 497.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 647.6 | 489.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 631.4 | 419.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.6.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 653 | 528.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 610.5 | 522.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 662.3 | 439.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 606.7 | 501.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 628.7 | 513.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 449.5 | 391.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.0.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 624.6 | 508.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 567.1 | 488.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 461.2 | 356.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | — | 156.1 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, classroom (CUDA) | — | 571.1 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | — | 294.8 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, koro (CUDA) | — | 472.8 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | — | 915.7 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, victor (CUDA) | — | 1,215.8 | 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 | B · GeForce GTX 1650 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chip | |||
| GPU chip | GP104-200-A1 | no data | no data for B |
| Architecture | Pascal | Turing | differs |
| Shader unitsShader unit counts are comparable only within one architecture. | 1,920 (CUDA cores) | 896 (CUDA cores) | not directly comparable |
| Clocks | |||
| Base clock | 1,506 MHz | 1,485 MHz | A: 21 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. | 150 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
AGP104-200-A1
Bno data
no data for BArchitecture
APascal
BTuring
differsShader units
A1,920 (CUDA cores)
B896 (CUDA cores)
not directly comparableShader unit counts are comparable only within one architecture.
Clocks
Base clock
A1,506 MHz
B1,485 MHz
A: 21 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
A150 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 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 have?
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070: 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: PCIe 3.0 x16. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650: PCIe 3.0.
Which is faster: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 or NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650?
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 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, 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 4.5.0, 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.