GeForce GTX 1070 vs GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER: 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 +42.2%NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 leads in this scenario (up to 42.2% 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 better8
Blender Benchmark 2.93.1 39.9% lower90 s vs 126 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 25.4% lower365 s vs 458 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 28.8% lower217 s vs 280 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 21.3% lower360 s vs 436 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 42.2% lower604 s vs 859 s
Video memory 4 GB more8 GB vs 4 GB
Memory bus 128 bit more256 bit vs 128 bit
Memory bandwidth 64.3 GB/s more256.3 GB/s vs 192 GB/s
Where GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is better2
Board power 50 W lower100 W (TDP) vs 150 W (TDP)
Launch price $220 lower$159 vs $379
Benchmarks
Results are compared within one benchmark, one version and the same conditions.
- A ahead by 39.9%
Blender Benchmark 2.93.1
GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 107090.2 sGeForce GTX 1650 SUPER126.2 sPosition among tested models (31, CUDA)
A · 90B · 1260100200300Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 is ahead by 39.9% 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 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.
- A ahead by 25.4%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, classroom (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1070365.3 sGeForce GTX 1650 SUPER457.9 sPosition among tested models (25, CUDA)
A · 365B · 4580200400600800Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 is ahead by 25.4% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070
365.3 s · community measurement, sample 179 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 179 submissions (23 outliers excluded), interquartile range 355.81–376.18; submissions 2020-09-02 to 2021-10-14; 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.
- A ahead by 28.8%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1070217.2 sGeForce GTX 1650 SUPER279.8 sPosition among tested models (22, CUDA)
A · 217B · 2800200400600Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 is ahead by 28.8% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070
217.2 s · community measurement, sample 159 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 159 submissions (15 outliers excluded), interquartile range 212.58–221.75; submissions 2020-09-02 to 2021-10-14; 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.
- A ahead by 21.3%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, koro (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1070359.7 sGeForce GTX 1650 SUPER436.3 sPosition among tested models (22, CUDA)
A · 360B · 4360200400600800Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 is ahead by 21.3% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070
359.7 s · community measurement, sample 157 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 157 submissions (10 outliers excluded), interquartile range 350.81–370.44; submissions 2020-09-02 to 2021-10-14; 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.
- A ahead by 42.2%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1070604.4 sGeForce GTX 1650 SUPER859.5 sPosition among tested models (23, CUDA)
A · 604B · 85905001,0001,500Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 is ahead by 42.2% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070
604.4 s · community measurement, sample 154 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 154 submissions (14 outliers excluded), interquartile range 591.84–621.3; submissions 2020-09-02 to 2021-10-14; 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) | 102.9 | 142 | A +38% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 105.6 | 141.2 | A +33.7% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 112.1 | 155.3 | A +38.6% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 363.8 | 432.9 | A +19% |
Each benchmark version has its own scale: numbers are compared only within a row.
Reference results (102)
| 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 | 1,216.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 103.4 | 139.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 104.1 | 137.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 105.4 | 151.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 104.2 | 153 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 108.5 | 96.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 162.3 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 107.8 | 94.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 109.1 | 99.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 108.3 | 100.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 351.4 | 638.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, classroom (CUDA) | 361.2 | 453.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 353.4 | 438 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 329.9 | 456.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 351.7 | 458.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 317.9 | 403.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 396.6 | 340.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 630.3 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 389.5 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 386.7 | 359.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 412.9 | 367.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 205.9 | 430.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 208.3 | 243.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 211.7 | 256.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 213 | 260.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 204 | 263.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 208.4 | 288.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 211.5 | 255.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 205.8 | 180.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 322.6 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 200.3 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 204.8 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 213.2 | 181.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, koro (CUDA) | 401.4 | 704.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, koro (CUDA) | 408.8 | 391.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, koro (CUDA) | 401 | 391.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, koro (CUDA) | 393.7 | 418.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, koro (CUDA) | 345.7 | 405.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, koro (CUDA) | 362.2 | 418.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, koro (CUDA) | 369 | 386.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 239.7 | 218.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 377.3 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 228.9 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 316.7 | 239.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 247.4 | 217.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 575.7 | 1,367.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 580.5 | 782.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 575.1 | 791.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 588.2 | 795.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 558.8 | 803.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 582.9 | 830.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 550.6 | 703.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 579 | 528.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 873.9 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 560.3 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 558.4 | 546.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 592.5 | 545.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, victor (CUDA) | 836.2 | 2,390.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, victor (CUDA) | 906.2 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, victor (CUDA) | 878.9 | 1,927.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, victor (CUDA) | 807.6 | 2,197.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, victor (CUDA) | 800.4 | 1,909.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, victor (CUDA) | 763.4 | 1,483 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, victor (CUDA) | 867.1 | 1,510.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, victor (CUDA) | 850.4 | 2,780.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 778.6 | 759.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 1,202.1 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 752.1 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 818.9 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 848.4 | 890.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.0.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 705.2 | 516.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 639.5 | 550.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 642.2 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 653.8 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 619.2 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 647.6 | 560 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 631.4 | 622.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.6.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 653 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 4.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 610.5 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 4.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 662.3 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 4.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 606.7 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 4.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 628.7 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 4.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 534.5 | 556.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 523.6 | 554.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 449.5 | 478.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 474.2 | 462.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.0.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 624.6 | 645.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 567.2 | 580.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 567.1 | 542.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 572.3 | 560.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 567.4 | 562.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 567.6 | 452.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 573.3 | 603.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.6.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 574 | 577.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 540.2 | 526.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 548 | 564.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 522.5 | 540 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 527.1 | 540.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 461.2 | 521.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | — | 604.7 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 5.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | — | 472.3 | 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 SUPER | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chip | |||
| GPU chip | GP104-200-A1 | TU116-250-KA-A1 | differs |
| Architecture | Pascal | Turing | differs |
| Shader unitsShader unit counts are comparable only within one architecture. | 1,920 (CUDA cores) | 1,280 (CUDA cores) | not directly comparable |
| Clocks | |||
| Base clock | 1,506 MHz | 1,530 MHz | B: 24 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 | 1,725 MHz | B: 42 MHz more |
| Memory | |||
| Video memory | 8 GB | 4 GB | A: 4 GB more |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 | differs |
| 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 | 192 GB/s | A: 64.3 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. | 150 W (TDP) | 100 W (TDP) | A: 50 W higher |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | no data | no data for B |
Chip
GPU chip
AGP104-200-A1
BTU116-250-KA-A1
differsArchitecture
APascal
BTuring
differsShader units
A1,920 (CUDA cores)
B1,280 (CUDA cores)
not directly comparableShader unit counts are comparable only within one architecture.
Clocks
Base clock
A1,506 MHz
B1,530 MHz
B: 24 MHz moreBoost clock
A1,683 MHz
B1,725 MHz
B: 42 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
BGDDR6
differsMemory bus
A256 bit
B128 bit
A: 128 bit moreMemory bandwidth
A256.3 GB/s
B192 GB/s
A: 64.3 GB/s moreExcludes cache (Infinity Cache / L2), which affects effective bandwidth differently.
Power and dimensions
Board power
A150 W (TDP)
B100 W (TDP)
A: 50 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 1070 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER have?
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070: 8 GB GDDR5, 256-bit bus. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER: 4 GB GDDR6, 128-bit bus.
Which is faster: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 or NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER?
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 (2)
- Wikipedia (English) — specifications of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070, 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 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 5.1.1, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.2.0, 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.