GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER vs GeForce GTX 980 Ti: specs and benchmark comparison
Short verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 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
B +72.7%NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti leads in this scenario (up to 72.7% 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 1650 SUPER is better2
Board power 150 W lower100 W (TDP) vs 250 W (TDP)
Launch price $490 lower$159 vs $649
Where GeForce GTX 980 Ti is better8
Blender Benchmark 2.90 62.1% lower96 s vs 155 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 48.4% lower308 s vs 458 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 43.1% lower195 s vs 280 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 18.5% lower368 s vs 436 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 72.7% lower498 s vs 859 s
Video memory 2 GB more6 GB vs 4 GB
Memory bus 256 bit more384 bit vs 128 bit
Memory bandwidth 144.6 GB/s more336.6 GB/s vs 192 GB/s
Benchmarks
Results are compared within one benchmark, one version and the same conditions.
- B ahead by 62.1%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER155.3 sGeForce GTX 980 Ti95.8 sPosition among tested models (27, CUDA)
B · 96A · 1550100200300400Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti is ahead by 62.1% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER
155.3 s · community measurement, sample 48 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 48 submissions (3 outliers excluded), interquartile range 151.89–157.88; submissions 2020-09-03 to 2021-06-21; CUDA backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
- B · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti
95.8 s · community measurement, sample 38 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 38 submissions (6 outliers excluded), interquartile range 93.94–99.12; submissions 2020-09-06 to 2021-06-01; 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 48.4%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, classroom (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER457.9 sGeForce GTX 980 Ti308.5 sPosition among tested models (25, CUDA)
B · 308A · 4580200400600800Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti is ahead by 48.4% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · 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.
- B · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti
308.5 s · community measurement, sample 33 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 33 submissions (4 outliers excluded), interquartile range 295.78–316.04; submissions 2020-09-06 to 2021-02-01; 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 43.1%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER279.8 sGeForce GTX 980 Ti195.4 sPosition among tested models (22, CUDA)
B · 195A · 2800200400600Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti is ahead by 43.1% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · 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.
- B · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti
195.4 s · community measurement, sample 30 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 30 submissions (4 outliers excluded), interquartile range 193.05–203.58; submissions 2020-09-06 to 2021-02-01; 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 18.5%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, koro (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER436.3 sGeForce GTX 980 Ti368.1 sPosition among tested models (22, CUDA)
B · 368A · 4360200400600800Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti is ahead by 18.5% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · 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.
- B · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti
368.1 s · community measurement, sample 27 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 27 submissions (3 outliers excluded), interquartile range 363.27–383.13; submissions 2020-09-06 to 2021-02-01; 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 72.7%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER859.5 sGeForce GTX 980 Ti497.8 sPosition among tested models (23, CUDA)
B · 498A · 85905001,0001,500Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti is ahead by 72.7% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · 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.
- B · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti
497.8 s · community measurement, sample 27 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 27 submissions (3 outliers excluded), interquartile range 483.58–510.64; submissions 2020-09-06 to 2021-02-01; 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) | 142 | 92.2 | B +54.1% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 141.2 | 94.2 | B +49.9% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 432.9 | 303.8 | B +42.5% |
Each benchmark version has its own scale: numbers are compared only within a row.
Reference results (86)
| Benchmark | A | B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, barbershop_interior (CUDA) | 1,216.2 | 1,009.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 139.2 | 94.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 137.7 | 92.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 151.5 | 109.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 153 | 115.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 126.2 | 74.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 96.4 | 104.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 94.6 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 99.4 | 94.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 100.5 | 100.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 638.3 | 303.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, classroom (CUDA) | 453.8 | 299.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 438 | 295.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 456.6 | 291.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 458.3 | 296.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 403.9 | 257.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 340.7 | 347.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 359.3 | 400.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 367.2 | 469 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 430.9 | 199.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 243.1 | 204.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 256.6 | 202.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 260.5 | 201.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 263.5 | 233.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 288.3 | 280.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 255.4 | 243.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 180.9 | 214.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 181.9 | 273.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, koro (CUDA) | 704.3 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, koro (CUDA) | 391.4 | 452.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, koro (CUDA) | 391.2 | 441.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, koro (CUDA) | 418.3 | 448.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, koro (CUDA) | 405.6 | 433.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, koro (CUDA) | 418.1 | 704.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, koro (CUDA) | 386.4 | 432.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 218.9 | 218.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 239.2 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 217.8 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 1,367.5 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 782.1 | 501.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 791.5 | 482.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 795.8 | 498.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 803.3 | 553.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 830.2 | 622.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 703.3 | 424.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 528.3 | 504.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 546.5 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 545.3 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, victor (CUDA) | 2,390.4 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, victor (CUDA) | 1,927.6 | 1,235.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, victor (CUDA) | 2,197.9 | 1,105.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, victor (CUDA) | 1,909.2 | 1,018.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, victor (CUDA) | 1,483 | 997.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, victor (CUDA) | 1,510.9 | 1,290.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, victor (CUDA) | 2,780.5 | 1,351.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 759.5 | 898.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 890.6 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.0.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 516.2 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 550.4 | 597.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 560 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 622.8 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 4.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 604.7 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 4.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 556.6 | 533 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 554.8 | 504.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 478.2 | 404.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 462.8 | 443 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.0.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 645.3 | 592.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 580.4 | 545.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 542.5 | 553.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 560.6 | 542.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 562.8 | 526.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 452.9 | 559.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 603.2 | 549 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.6.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 577.1 | 576.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 526.3 | 533.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 564.4 | 501.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 540 | 504.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 540.9 | 483.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 472.3 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 521.1 | 449.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | — | 104.5 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, classroom (CUDA) | — | 339.9 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | — | 222.7 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, victor (CUDA) | — | 1,256.3 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.6.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | — | 706.5 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 5.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | — | 189.4 | no pair |
Each benchmark version has its own scale: numbers are compared only within a row.
Specifications
| Specification | A · GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER | B · GeForce GTX 980 Ti | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chip | |||
| GPU chip | TU116-250-KA-A1 | GM200-310-A1 | differs |
| Architecture | Turing | Maxwell | differs |
| Shader unitsShader unit counts are comparable only within one architecture. | 1,280 (CUDA cores) | 2,816 (CUDA cores) | not directly comparable |
| Clocks | |||
| Base clock | 1,530 MHz | 1,000 MHz | A: 530 MHz more |
| Boost clockClocks of different architectures do not reflect performance directly. For laptop chips, the clock depends on the laptop’s power limit. | 1,725 MHz | 1,076 MHz | A: 649 MHz more |
| Memory | |||
| Video memory | 4 GB | 6 GB | B: 2 GB more |
| Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 | differs |
| Memory bus | 128 bit | 384 bit | B: 256 bit more |
| Memory bandwidthExcludes cache (Infinity Cache / L2), which affects effective bandwidth differently. | 192 GB/s | 336.6 GB/s | B: 144.6 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. | 100 W (TDP) | 250 W (TDP) | B: 150 W higher |
Chip
GPU chip
ATU116-250-KA-A1
BGM200-310-A1
differsArchitecture
ATuring
BMaxwell
differsShader units
A1,280 (CUDA cores)
B2,816 (CUDA cores)
not directly comparableShader unit counts are comparable only within one architecture.
Clocks
Base clock
A1,530 MHz
B1,000 MHz
A: 530 MHz moreBoost clock
A1,725 MHz
B1,076 MHz
A: 649 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
B6 GB
B: 2 GB moreMemory type
AGDDR6
BGDDR5
differsMemory bus
A128 bit
B384 bit
B: 256 bit moreMemory bandwidth
A192 GB/s
B336.6 GB/s
B: 144.6 GB/s moreExcludes cache (Infinity Cache / L2), which affects effective bandwidth differently.
Power and dimensions
Board power
A100 W (TDP)
B250 W (TDP)
B: 150 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.
“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 1650 SUPER and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti have?
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER: 4 GB GDDR6, 128-bit bus. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti: 6 GB GDDR5, 384-bit bus.
Which is faster: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER or NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti?
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 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 (2)
- Wikipedia (English) — specifications of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER, specifications of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti, release date and launch pricechecked November 14, 2026
- Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation) — benchmark Blender Benchmark 2.81a, benchmark Blender Benchmark 2.81, 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 3.4.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.5.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.4.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.6.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.2.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.5.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.1.1, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.2.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.2.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.2.1, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.3.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.0.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.1.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.3.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.0.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.1.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.3.0checked November 14, 2026
How we compare: methodology. Where the data comes from: sources.