GeForce GTX 1650 vs GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER: specs and benchmark comparison
Short verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER leads in every scenario with comparable benchmarks: rendering and compute. This does not imply an advantage in tasks without benchmarks.
Compare with AIRendering and compute
B +23.9%NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER leads in this scenario (up to 23.9% in comparable benchmarks).
No comparable benchmarks yet: gaming: rasterization, gaming: ray tracing, power efficiency.
Advantages
Only measured and rated values: a noticeable benchmark gap and specs where more is better.
Where GeForce GTX 1650 is better1
Launch price $10 lower$149 vs $159
Where GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is better6
Blender Benchmark 2.93.1 6.5% lower126 s vs 134 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 18.1% lower458 s vs 541 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 7.9% lower280 s vs 302 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 11.2% lower436 s vs 485 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 9.7% lower859 s vs 943 s
Shader units 384 more1,280 (CUDA cores) vs 896 (CUDA cores)
Benchmarks
Results are compared within one benchmark, one version and the same conditions.
- B ahead by 6.5%
Blender Benchmark 2.93.1
GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1650134.4 sGeForce GTX 1650 SUPER126.2 sPosition among tested models (31, CUDA)
B · 126A · 1340100200300Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is ahead by 6.5% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · 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.
- 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.
- B ahead by 18.1%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, classroom (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1650540.8 sGeForce GTX 1650 SUPER457.9 sPosition among tested models (25, CUDA)
B · 458A · 5410200400600800Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is ahead by 18.1% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · 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.
- 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.
- B ahead by 7.9%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1650302 sGeForce GTX 1650 SUPER279.8 sPosition among tested models (22, CUDA)
B · 280A · 3020200400600Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is ahead by 7.9% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · 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.
- 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.
- B ahead by 11.2%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, koro (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1650485.1 sGeForce GTX 1650 SUPER436.3 sPosition among tested models (22, CUDA)
B · 436A · 4850200400600800Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is ahead by 11.2% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · 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.
- 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.
- B ahead by 9.7%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1650942.6 sGeForce GTX 1650 SUPER859.5 sPosition among tested models (23, CUDA)
B · 859A · 94305001,0001,500Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is ahead by 9.7% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · 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.
- 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) | 149.1 | 142 | B +5% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 153.3 | 141.2 | B +8.5% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 158.3 | 155.3 | B +1.9% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 536.1 | 432.9 | B +23.9% |
Each benchmark version has its own scale: numbers are compared only within a row.
Reference results (102)
| Benchmark | A | B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, barbershop_interior (CUDA) | 1,732.3 | 1,216.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 147.7 | 139.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 147.5 | 137.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 156.1 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 157.6 | 151.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 156.3 | 153 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 130.3 | 96.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 137.3 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 126.2 | 94.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 127.4 | 99.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 133.9 | 100.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, classroom (CUDA) | 538.9 | 453.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 516.2 | 438 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 571.1 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 549.2 | 456.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 572 | 458.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 493.7 | 403.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 499.4 | 340.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 486.7 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 472.9 | 359.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 517.5 | 367.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 324.2 | 430.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 277.5 | 243.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 283.1 | 256.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 294.8 | 260.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 294.8 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 289.1 | 263.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 307.4 | 288.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 282.2 | 255.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 253.8 | 180.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 240.2 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 258.8 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 271.6 | 181.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, koro (CUDA) | 483 | 391.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, koro (CUDA) | 472.3 | 391.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, koro (CUDA) | 499.5 | 418.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, koro (CUDA) | 472.8 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, koro (CUDA) | 457.8 | 405.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, koro (CUDA) | 502.7 | 418.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, koro (CUDA) | 437.8 | 386.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 319.9 | 218.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 298 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 389.5 | 239.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 336.3 | 217.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 867.5 | 1,367.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 924.5 | 782.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 894.6 | 791.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 905.8 | 795.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 915.7 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 891.3 | 803.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 911 | 830.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 796.1 | 703.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 722.4 | 528.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 702.6 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 750.6 | 546.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 753.6 | 545.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, victor (CUDA) | 1,360.8 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, victor (CUDA) | 1,373 | 1,927.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, victor (CUDA) | 1,376.7 | 2,197.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, victor (CUDA) | 1,426.6 | 1,909.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, victor (CUDA) | 1,215.8 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, victor (CUDA) | 1,885.3 | 1,483 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, victor (CUDA) | 1,640 | 1,510.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, victor (CUDA) | 1,565.5 | 2,780.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 1,073.5 | 759.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 1,068 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 1,437.1 | 890.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.0.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 467.7 | 516.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 457.1 | 550.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 454.8 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 530.9 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 497.2 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 489.7 | 560 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 419.7 | 622.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.6.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 528.8 | — | 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 4.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 438.5 | 556.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 424 | 554.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 391.6 | 478.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 364.1 | 462.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.0.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 508.8 | 645.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 474.7 | 580.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 488.5 | 542.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 448.8 | 560.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 433.3 | 562.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 429.7 | 452.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 470 | 603.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.6.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 476.8 | 577.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 428.9 | 526.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 429.3 | 564.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 442.7 | 540 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 428.4 | 540.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 417 | 472.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 356.4 | 521.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, classroom (CUDA) | — | 638.3 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, koro (CUDA) | — | 704.3 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, victor (CUDA) | — | 2,390.4 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 4.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | — | 604.7 | no pair |
Each benchmark version has its own scale: numbers are compared only within a row.
Specifications
| Specification | A · GeForce GTX 1650 | B · GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chip | |||
| GPU chip | no data | TU116-250-KA-A1 | no data for A |
| Architecture | Turing | Turing | equal |
| Shader unitsShader unit counts are comparable only within one architecture. | 896 (CUDA cores) | 1,280 (CUDA cores) | B: 384 more |
| Clocks | |||
| Base clock | 1,485 MHz | 1,530 MHz | B: 45 MHz more |
| Boost clockClocks of different architectures do not reflect performance directly. For laptop chips, the clock depends on the laptop’s power limit. | 1,665 MHz | 1,725 MHz | B: 60 MHz more |
| Memory | |||
| Video memory | 4 GB | 4 GB | equal |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 | differs |
| Memory bus | 128 bit | 128 bit | equal |
| Memory bandwidthExcludes cache (Infinity Cache / L2), which affects effective bandwidth differently. | no data | 192 GB/s | no data for A |
| Power and dimensions | |||
| Board powerTGP (NVIDIA) and TBP (AMD/Intel) are calculated differently; higher is not better. For laptops, the chip maker sets the range and the laptop maker picks the value, so the same chip behaves differently in different laptops. | 75 W (board power) | 100 W (TDP) | not directly comparable |
| Recommended PSU | 300 W | no data | no data for B |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 | no data | no data for B |
| Length (reference / Founders Edition)Partner cards have different dimensions; check the specific SKU. | 130 mm | no data | no data for B |
| Thickness (slots) | 2 | no data | no data for B |
| Power connectors (reference) | 1x 6-pin | no data | no data for B |
Chip
GPU chip
Ano data
BTU116-250-KA-A1
no data for AArchitecture
ATuring
BTuring
equalShader units
A896 (CUDA cores)
B1,280 (CUDA cores)
B: 384 moreShader unit counts are comparable only within one architecture.
Clocks
Base clock
A1,485 MHz
B1,530 MHz
B: 45 MHz moreBoost clock
A1,665 MHz
B1,725 MHz
B: 60 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
B4 GB
equalMemory type
AGDDR5
BGDDR6
differsMemory bus
A128 bit
B128 bit
equalMemory bandwidth
Ano data
B192 GB/s
no data for AExcludes cache (Infinity Cache / L2), which affects effective bandwidth differently.
Power and dimensions
Board power
A75 W (board power)
B100 W (TDP)
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
A300 W
Bno data
no data for BInterface
APCIe 3.0
Bno data
no data for BLength (reference / Founders Edition)
A130 mm
Bno data
no data for BPartner cards have different dimensions; check the specific SKU.
Thickness (slots)
A2
Bno data
no data for BPower connectors (reference)
A1x 6-pin
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 1650 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER have?
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650: 4 GB GDDR5, 128-bit bus. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER: 4 GB GDDR6, 128-bit bus.
Which is faster: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 or NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER?
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER leads in every scenario with comparable benchmarks: rendering and compute. This does not imply an advantage in tasks without benchmarks.
See also
Data sources (3)
- NVIDIA — specifications of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650checked November 7, 2026
- Wikipedia (English) — specifications of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER, 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 2.90.1, benchmark Blender Benchmark 2.91.2, benchmark Blender Benchmark 2.92, benchmark Blender Benchmark 2.93.1, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.0.1, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.1.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.2.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.2.1, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.3.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.4.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.5.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.6.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.0.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.1.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.2.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.3.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.5.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.4.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.1.1, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.2.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.0.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.1.0checked November 14, 2026
How we compare: methodology. Where the data comes from: sources.