GeForce GTX 1650 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 +89.4%NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti leads in this scenario (up to 89.4% 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 $500 lower$149 vs $649
Where GeForce GTX 980 Ti is better9
Blender Benchmark 2.90 65.2% lower96 s vs 158 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 75.3% lower308 s vs 541 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 54.5% lower195 s vs 302 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 31.8% lower368 s vs 485 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 89.4% lower498 s vs 943 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 40.1% lower1,018 s vs 1,427 s
Blender Benchmark 3.4.0 30.2% faster560 samples/min vs 430 samples/min
Video memory 2 GB more6 GB vs 4 GB
Memory bus 256 bit more384 bit vs 128 bit
Benchmarks
Results are compared within one benchmark, one version and the same conditions.
- B ahead by 65.2%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1650158.3 sGeForce GTX 980 Ti95.8 sPosition among tested models (27, CUDA)
B · 96A · 1580100200300400Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti is ahead by 65.2% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
158.3 s · community measurement, sample 89 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 89 submissions (7 outliers excluded), interquartile range 154.87–163.22; submissions 2020-09-03 to 2021-12-13; 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 75.3%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, classroom (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1650540.8 sGeForce GTX 980 Ti308.5 sPosition among tested models (25, CUDA)
B · 308A · 5410200400600800Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti is ahead by 75.3% 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 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 54.5%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1650302 sGeForce GTX 980 Ti195.4 sPosition among tested models (22, CUDA)
B · 195A · 3020200400600Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti is ahead by 54.5% 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 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 31.8%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, koro (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1650485.1 sGeForce GTX 980 Ti368.1 sPosition among tested models (22, CUDA)
B · 368A · 4850200400600800Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti is ahead by 31.8% 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 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 89.4%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1650942.6 sGeForce GTX 980 Ti497.8 sPosition among tested models (23, CUDA)
B · 498A · 94305001,0001,500Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti is ahead by 89.4% 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 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.
- B ahead by 40.1%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, victor (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 16501,426.6 sGeForce GTX 980 Ti1,018.5 sPosition among tested models (20, CUDA)
B · 1,018A · 1,42705001,0001,500Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti is ahead by 40.1% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · 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.
- B · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti
1,018.5 s · community measurement, sample 24 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 24 submissions (4 outliers excluded), interquartile range 998.23–1095.03; 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 30.2%
Blender Benchmark 3.4.0
GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) · samples/min, higher is better
GeForce GTX 1650429.7 samples/minGeForce GTX 980 Ti559.7 samples/minPosition among tested models (43, OptiX)
A · 430B · 56005,00010,00015,000Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, samples/min. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti is ahead by 30.2% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
429.7 samples/min · community measurement, sample 64 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 64 submissions (1 outliers excluded), interquartile range 384.09–468.34; submissions 2022-12-08 to 2023-09-05; OPTIX backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
- B · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti
559.7 samples/min · community measurement, sample 20 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 20 submissions (3 outliers excluded), interquartile range 520.75–576.54; submissions 2023-01-03 to 2023-03-19; 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 (4)
| Benchmark | A | B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 149.1 | 92.2 | B +61.7% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 153.3 | 94.2 | B +62.7% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 536.1 | 303.8 | B +76.5% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 474.7 | 545.1 | B +14.8% |
Each benchmark version has its own scale: numbers are compared only within a row.
Reference results (98)
| Benchmark | A | B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, barbershop_interior (CUDA) | 1,732.3 | 1,009.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 147.7 | 94.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 147.5 | 92.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 156.1 | 104.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 157.6 | 109.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 156.3 | 115.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 134.4 | 74.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 130.3 | 104.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 137.3 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 126.2 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 127.4 | 94.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 133.9 | 100.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, classroom (CUDA) | 538.9 | 299.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 516.2 | 295.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 571.1 | 339.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 549.2 | 291.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 572 | 296.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 493.7 | 257.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 499.4 | 347.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 486.7 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 472.9 | 400.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 517.5 | 469 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 324.2 | 199.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 277.5 | 204.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 283.1 | 202.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 294.8 | 201.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 294.8 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 289.1 | 233.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 307.4 | 280.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 282.2 | 243.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 253.8 | 214.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 240.2 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 258.8 | 222.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 271.6 | 273.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, koro (CUDA) | 483 | 452.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, koro (CUDA) | 472.3 | 441.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, koro (CUDA) | 499.5 | 448.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, koro (CUDA) | 472.8 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, koro (CUDA) | 457.8 | 433.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, koro (CUDA) | 502.7 | 704.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, koro (CUDA) | 437.8 | 432.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 319.9 | 218.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 298 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 389.5 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 336.3 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 867.5 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 924.5 | 501.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 894.6 | 482.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 905.8 | 498.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 915.7 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 891.3 | 553.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 911 | 622.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 796.1 | 424.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 722.4 | 504.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 702.6 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 750.6 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 753.6 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, victor (CUDA) | 1,360.8 | 1,256.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, victor (CUDA) | 1,373 | 1,235.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, victor (CUDA) | 1,376.7 | 1,105.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, victor (CUDA) | 1,215.8 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, victor (CUDA) | 1,885.3 | 997.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, victor (CUDA) | 1,640 | 1,290.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, victor (CUDA) | 1,565.5 | 1,351.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 1,073.5 | 898.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 1,068 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 1,437.1 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.0.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 467.7 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 457.1 | 597.2 | 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 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 419.7 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.6.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 528.8 | 706.5 | reference |
| 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 | 533 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 424 | 504.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 391.6 | 404.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 364.1 | 443 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.0.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 508.8 | 592.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 488.5 | 553.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 448.8 | 542.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 433.3 | 526.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 470 | 549 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.6.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 476.8 | 576.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 428.9 | 533.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 429.3 | 501.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 442.7 | 504.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 428.4 | 483.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 417 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 356.4 | 449.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, classroom (CUDA) | — | 303.8 | 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 | B · GeForce GTX 980 Ti | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chip | |||
| GPU chip | no data | GM200-310-A1 | no data for A |
| Architecture | Turing | Maxwell | differs |
| Shader unitsShader unit counts are comparable only within one architecture. | 896 (CUDA cores) | 2,816 (CUDA cores) | not directly comparable |
| Clocks | |||
| Base clock | 1,485 MHz | 1,000 MHz | A: 485 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 | 1,076 MHz | A: 589 MHz more |
| Memory | |||
| Video memory | 4 GB | 6 GB | B: 2 GB more |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 | equal |
| Memory bus | 128 bit | 384 bit | B: 256 bit more |
| Memory bandwidthExcludes cache (Infinity Cache / L2), which affects effective bandwidth differently. | no data | 336.6 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) | 250 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
BGM200-310-A1
no data for AArchitecture
ATuring
BMaxwell
differsShader units
A896 (CUDA cores)
B2,816 (CUDA cores)
not directly comparableShader unit counts are comparable only within one architecture.
Clocks
Base clock
A1,485 MHz
B1,000 MHz
A: 485 MHz moreBoost clock
A1,665 MHz
B1,076 MHz
A: 589 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
AGDDR5
BGDDR5
equalMemory bus
A128 bit
B384 bit
B: 256 bit moreMemory bandwidth
Ano data
B336.6 GB/s
no data for AExcludes cache (Infinity Cache / L2), which affects effective bandwidth differently.
Power and dimensions
Board power
A75 W (board power)
B250 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 980 Ti have?
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650: 4 GB GDDR5, 128-bit bus. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti: 6 GB GDDR5, 384-bit bus.
Which is faster: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 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 (3)
- NVIDIA — specifications of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650checked November 7, 2026
- Wikipedia (English) — 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 2.90.1, 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 5.1.1, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.2.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.4.0, 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.