GeForce GTX 1650 vs GeForce RTX 2060: specs and benchmark comparison
Short verdict
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 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 +306.1%NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 leads in this scenario (up to 306.1% 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
Board power 85 W lower75 W (board power) vs 160 W (board power)
Where GeForce RTX 2060 is better11
Blender Benchmark 2.93.1 91.9% lower70 s vs 134 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 268.3% lower35 s vs 130 s
Blender Benchmark 2.93.1 66% lower297 s vs 494 s
Blender Benchmark 2.93.1 112.6% lower133 s vs 282 s
Blender Benchmark 2.93.1 83.4% lower239 s vs 438 s
Blender Benchmark 2.93.1 81.9% lower438 s vs 796 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 142.7% lower588 s vs 1,427 s
Blender Benchmark 4.5.0 271.1% faster1,574 samples/min vs 424 samples/min
Shader units 1,024 more1,920 (CUDA cores) vs 896 (CUDA cores)
Video memory 2 GB more6 GB vs 4 GB
Memory bus 64 bit more192 bit vs 128 bit
Benchmarks
Results are compared within one benchmark, one version and the same conditions.
- B ahead by 91.9%
Blender Benchmark 2.93.1
GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1650134.4 sGeForce RTX 206070 sPosition among tested models (31, CUDA)
B · 70A · 1340100200300Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 is ahead by 91.9% 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 RTX 2060
70 s · community measurement, sample 99 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 99 submissions (4 outliers excluded), interquartile range 65.53–74.02; submissions 2021-07-09 to 2022-02-27; 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 268.3%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1650130.3 sGeForce RTX 206035.4 sPosition among tested models (17, OptiX)
B · 35A · 130050100150Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 is ahead by 268.3% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · 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.
- B · NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060
35.4 s · community measurement, sample 170 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 170 submissions (2 outliers excluded), interquartile range 34.18–38.26; submissions 2020-09-02 to 2022-01-01; 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.
- B ahead by 66%
Blender Benchmark 2.93.1
GPU, classroom (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1650493.7 sGeForce RTX 2060297.5 sPosition among tested models (26, CUDA)
B · 297A · 4940200400600800Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 is ahead by 66% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · 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.
- B · NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060
297.5 s · community measurement, sample 68 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 68 submissions (13 outliers excluded), interquartile range 281.72–323.97; submissions 2021-07-09 to 2022-02-27; 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 112.6%
Blender Benchmark 2.93.1
GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1650282.2 sGeForce RTX 2060132.7 sPosition among tested models (21, CUDA)
B · 133A · 2820100200300Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 is ahead by 112.6% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · 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.
- B · NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060
132.7 s · community measurement, sample 51 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 51 submissions (7 outliers excluded), interquartile range 125.23–140.84; submissions 2021-07-09 to 2022-02-27; 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 83.4%
Blender Benchmark 2.93.1
GPU, koro (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1650437.8 sGeForce RTX 2060238.7 sPosition among tested models (20, CUDA)
B · 239A · 4380200400600Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 is ahead by 83.4% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · 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.
- B · NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060
238.7 s · community measurement, sample 47 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 47 submissions (7 outliers excluded), interquartile range 229.05–251.72; submissions 2021-07-09 to 2022-02-27; 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 81.9%
Blender Benchmark 2.93.1
GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1650796.1 sGeForce RTX 2060437.6 sPosition among tested models (21, CUDA)
B · 438A · 7960200400600800Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 is ahead by 81.9% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · 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.
- B · NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060
437.6 s · community measurement, sample 56 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 56 submissions (7 outliers excluded), interquartile range 413.2–473.78; submissions 2021-07-09 to 2022-02-27; 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 142.7%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, victor (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 16501,426.6 sGeForce RTX 2060587.9 sPosition among tested models (20, CUDA)
B · 588A · 1,42705001,0001,500Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 is ahead by 142.7% 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 RTX 2060
587.9 s · community measurement, sample 206 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 206 submissions (11 outliers excluded), interquartile range 527.27–641.21; submissions 2020-09-02 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 271.1%
Blender Benchmark 4.5.0
GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) · samples/min, higher is better
GeForce GTX 1650424 samples/minGeForce RTX 20601,573.6 samples/minPosition among tested models (67, OptiX)
A · 424B · 1,57405,00010,00015,000Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, samples/min. NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 is ahead by 271.1% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · 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.
- B · NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060
1,573.6 samples/min · community measurement, sample 162 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 162 submissions (6 outliers excluded), interquartile range 1437.27–1643.46; submissions 2025-07-20 to 2026-07-05; 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 (26)
| Benchmark | A | B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 149.1 | 74.3 | B +100.7% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 153.3 | 74.6 | B +105.5% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 158.3 | 79.9 | B +98.1% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 156.3 | 78.6 | B +98.7% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 516.2 | 295.4 | B +74.8% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 536.1 | 297.5 | B +80.2% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 540.8 | 310.5 | B +74.2% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 294.8 | 133.2 | B +121.3% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 302 | 139.4 | B +116.6% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, koro (CUDA) | 472.3 | 249.4 | B +89.4% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, koro (CUDA) | 485.1 | 252.5 | B +92.1% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 894.6 | 478 | B +87.1% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 942.6 | 494.2 | B +90.7% |
| Blender Benchmark 4.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 438.5 | 1,524.6 | B +247.6% |
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 391.6 | 1,522.3 | B +288.8% |
| Blender Benchmark 5.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 364.1 | 1,426.3 | B +291.7% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 474.7 | 1,712.1 | B +260.7% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 448.8 | 1,743.7 | B +288.5% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 433.3 | 1,759.7 | B +306.1% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 429.7 | 1,713.7 | B +298.8% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 470 | 1,830.5 | B +289.5% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.6.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 476.8 | 1,856.7 | B +289.4% |
| Blender Benchmark 4.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 428.9 | 1,613.2 | B +276.1% |
| Blender Benchmark 4.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 429.3 | 1,627.8 | B +279.2% |
| Blender Benchmark 4.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 442.7 | 1,529 | B +245.4% |
| Blender Benchmark 4.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 428.4 | 1,522.9 | B +255.5% |
Each benchmark version has its own scale: numbers are compared only within a row.
Reference results (109)
| Benchmark | A | B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, barbershop_interior (CUDA) | 1,732.3 | 1,058.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 147.7 | 75.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 147.5 | 74.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 156.1 | 93.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 157.6 | 80.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 137.3 | 40.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 126.2 | 36.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 127.4 | 37.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 133.9 | 42.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, classroom (CUDA) | 538.9 | 322.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 571.1 | 351 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 549.2 | 332.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 572 | 327.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 499.4 | 160.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 486.7 | 175.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 472.9 | 179.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 517.5 | 176.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 324.2 | 127.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 277.5 | 127.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 283.1 | 130.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 294.8 | 161.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 289.1 | 133.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 307.4 | 136.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 253.8 | 63.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 240.2 | 66.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 258.8 | 74.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 271.6 | 74.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, koro (CUDA) | 483 | 252.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, koro (CUDA) | 499.5 | 258.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, koro (CUDA) | 472.8 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, koro (CUDA) | 457.8 | 247.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, koro (CUDA) | 502.7 | 259.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 319.9 | 137.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 298 | 139.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 389.5 | 239 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 336.3 | 150.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 867.5 | 488 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 924.5 | 490.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 905.8 | 473.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 915.7 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 891.3 | 468.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 911 | 481.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 722.4 | 180.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 702.6 | 215.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 750.6 | 211.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 753.6 | 209.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, victor (CUDA) | 1,360.8 | 603.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, victor (CUDA) | 1,373 | 588.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, victor (CUDA) | 1,376.7 | 603.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, victor (CUDA) | 1,215.8 | 646.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, victor (CUDA) | 1,885.3 | 595.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, victor (CUDA) | 1,640 | 644.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, victor (CUDA) | 1,565.5 | 622.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 1,073.5 | 234.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 1,068 | 263.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 1,437.1 | 288.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.0.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 467.7 | 548 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 457.1 | 1,079.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 454.8 | 991.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 530.9 | 946.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 497.2 | 983.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 489.7 | 1,011.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 419.7 | 1,194.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.6.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 528.8 | 1,223 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 522.7 | 1,115.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 439.3 | 1,087.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 501.2 | 1,136.9 | reference |
| 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 | 977.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.0.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 508.8 | 1,886.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 488.5 | 1,762.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 417 | 1,447.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 356.4 | 1,487.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, barbershop_interior (CUDA) | — | 1,092.5 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, barbershop_interior (OPTIX) | — | 1,892.7 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, barbershop_interior (OPTIX) | — | 1,781.1 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | — | 38.8 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | — | 37.3 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | — | 37.2 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | — | 35.5 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, classroom (CUDA) | — | 310.6 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | — | 188.9 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, classroom (OPTIX) | — | 163.1 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | — | 159.5 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | — | 142.7 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | — | 180.1 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | — | 70.5 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | — | 63.6 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | — | 63.4 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | — | 63 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, koro (CUDA) | — | 258.2 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, koro (OPTIX) | — | 135.3 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, koro (OPTIX) | — | 117.6 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, koro (OPTIX) | — | 112.9 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, koro (OPTIX) | — | 111 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | — | 226.7 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | — | 203.4 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | — | 194.8 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | — | 183.2 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, victor (CUDA) | — | 597.7 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, victor (OPTIX) | — | 364.1 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, victor (OPTIX) | — | 382.8 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, victor (OPTIX) | — | 265.1 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, victor (OPTIX) | — | 255.7 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, victor (OPTIX) | — | 299.6 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.1.2GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | — | 315.1 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 4.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | — | 874.8 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 5.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | — | 1,032.5 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.1.2GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | — | 905 | no pair |
Each benchmark version has its own scale: numbers are compared only within a row.
Specifications
| Specification | A · GeForce GTX 1650 | B · GeForce RTX 2060 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chip | |||
| Architecture | Turing | Turing | equal |
| Shader unitsShader unit counts are comparable only within one architecture. | 896 (CUDA cores) | 1,920 (CUDA cores) | B: 1,024 more |
| Clocks | |||
| Base clock | 1,485 MHz | 1,370 MHz | A: 115 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 | 1,680 MHz | B: 15 MHz more |
| Memory | |||
| Video memory | 4 GB | 6 GB | B: 2 GB more |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 | differs |
| Memory bus | 128 bit | 192 bit | B: 64 bit 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. | 75 W (board power) | 160 W (board power) | B: 85 W higher |
| Recommended PSU | 300 W | 500 W | B: 200 W higher |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 | PCIe 3.0 | equal |
| Length (reference / Founders Edition)Partner cards have different dimensions; check the specific SKU. | 130 mm | 229 mm | B: 99 mm higher |
| Thickness (slots) | 2 | 2 | equal |
| Power connectors (reference) | 1x 6-pin | 1x 8-pin | differs |
Chip
Architecture
ATuring
BTuring
equalShader units
A896 (CUDA cores)
B1,920 (CUDA cores)
B: 1,024 moreShader unit counts are comparable only within one architecture.
Clocks
Base clock
A1,485 MHz
B1,370 MHz
A: 115 MHz moreBoost clock
A1,665 MHz
B1,680 MHz
B: 15 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
BGDDR6
differsMemory bus
A128 bit
B192 bit
B: 64 bit more
Power and dimensions
Board power
A75 W (board power)
B160 W (board power)
B: 85 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.
Recommended PSU
A300 W
B500 W
B: 200 W higherInterface
APCIe 3.0
BPCIe 3.0
equalLength (reference / Founders Edition)
A130 mm
B229 mm
B: 99 mm higherPartner cards have different dimensions; check the specific SKU.
Thickness (slots)
A2
B2
equalPower connectors (reference)
A1x 6-pin
B1x 8-pin
differs
“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 RTX 2060 have?
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650: 4 GB GDDR5, 128-bit bus. NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060: 6 GB GDDR6, 192-bit bus.
What power supply does the manufacturer recommend?
For NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650, 300 W or more; for NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060, 500 W or more. This is a recommendation for a typical system; also check the power connectors of the specific card model.
Which PCIe interface do the cards use?
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650: PCIe 3.0. NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060: PCIe 3.0.
Which is faster: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 or NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060?
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 leads in every scenario with comparable benchmarks: rendering and compute. This does not imply an advantage in tasks without benchmarks.
See also
- ModelNVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
- ModelNVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060
- ComparisonGeForce RTX 2060 vs GeForce RTX 3050
- ComparisonGeForce GTX 1660 vs GeForce RTX 2060
- ComparisonGeForce RTX 2060 vs GeForce RTX 3060
- ComparisonGeForce GTX 1650 vs GeForce RTX 3050
- ComparisonGeForce GTX 1060 vs GeForce RTX 2060
- ComparisonGeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon RX 580
- ComparisonGeForce RTX 2060 vs Radeon RX 580
Data sources (3)
- NVIDIA — specifications of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650, specifications of NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060checked November 7, 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 3.1.2, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.4.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.2.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.1.1, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.0.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.1.0checked November 14, 2026
- Wikipedia (English) — release date and launch pricechecked November 14, 2026
How we compare: methodology. Where the data comes from: sources.