Component comparison
GeForce RTX 5060 vs GeForce GTX 1650
GeForce RTX 5060 vs GeForce GTX 1650 — detailed GPU comparison: performance, gaming FPS, specifications.
Advantages
A
GeForce RTX 5060
- + Release year (+5)
- + VRAM (GB) (+4 GB)
- + Bandwidth (GB/s) (+320 GB/s)
- + Lithography (nm) (-7 nm)
- + Transistors (M) (+17,200M)
- + Die size (mm²) (+19 mm²)
- + CUDA cores (+2816)
- + TMUs (+56)
- + ROPs (+16)
- + FP32 performance (TFLOPS) (+16.88 TFLOPS)
- + Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) (+66.62 GPixel/s)
- + Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) (+206.36 GTexel/s)
- + Energy efficiency (+42.7)
- + PassMark (overall) (+9633)
- + 3DMark Fire Strike (+22053)
B
GeForce GTX 1650
- + TGP / TDP (W) (+5 W)
- + Normalized score (+3.0)
Detailed spec comparison
| Spec |
Component A
GeForce RTX 5060
|
Component B
GeForce GTX 1650
|
|---|---|---|
| Release year | 2025 (+5) | 2020 |
| VRAM (GB) | 8 GB (+4 GB) | 4 GB |
| Memory type | GDDR7 | GDDR6 |
| Memory clock (MHz) | 1500 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Bandwidth (GB/s) | 448 GB/s (+320 GB/s) | 128 GB/s |
| Memory bus (bit) | 128 bit | 128 bit |
| TGP / TDP (W) | 45 W | 50 W (+5 W) |
| Lithography (nm) | 5 nm (-7 nm) | 12 nm |
| Transistors (M) | 21,900M (+17,200M) | 4,700M |
| Die size (mm²) | 181 mm² (+19 mm²) | 200 mm² |
| Base clock (MHz) | — | — |
| Boost clock (MHz) | — | — |
| CUDA cores | 3,840 (+2816) | 1,024 |
| TMUs | 120 (+56) | 64 |
| ROPs | 48 (+16) | 32 |
| RT cores | 30 | — |
| Tensor cores | 120 | — |
| FP32 performance (TFLOPS) | 19.18 TFLOPS (+16.88 TFLOPS) | 2.30 TFLOPS |
| Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) | 119.90 GPixel/s (+66.62 GPixel/s) | 53.28 GPixel/s |
| Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) | 299.60 GTexel/s (+206.36 GTexel/s) | 93.24 GTexel/s |
| Energy efficiency | 69.2 (+42.7) | 26.4 |
| PassMark (overall) | 16,749 (+9633) | 7,116 |
| 3DMark Time Spy | — | 3,488 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike | 31,366 (+22053) | 9,313 |
| Geekbench OpenCL | — | 39,153 |
| Geekbench Vulkan | — | 36,248 |
| Normalized score | 50.3 | 53.3 (+3.0) |
Only in component A
DLSS
ReBAR
ray_tracing
In both
CUDA
FPS in games (1080p)
| Game | GeForce RTX 5060 | GeForce GTX 1650 | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| Battlefield 5 | 130 FPS | 60 FPS | +116.7% (A) |
| CS:GO | 240 FPS | 240 FPS | ≈ |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 220 FPS | 131 FPS | +67.9% (A) |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 95 FPS | 52 FPS | +82.7% (A) |
| Escape from Tarkov | 120 FPS | 80 FPS | +50% (A) |
| Far Cry 5 | 130 FPS | 60 FPS | +116.7% (A) |
| Fortnite | 170 FPS | 90 FPS | +88.9% (A) |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 150 FPS | 82 FPS | +82.9% (A) |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 255 FPS | 73 FPS | +249.3% (A) |
| GTA V | 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
| Metro Exodus | 95 FPS | 33 FPS | +187.9% (A) |
| Overwatch | 240 FPS | 240 FPS | ≈ |
| PUBG | 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 110 FPS | 46 FPS | +139.1% (A) |
| The Witcher 3 | 140 FPS | 62 FPS | +125.8% (A) |
| Valorant | 230 FPS | 164 FPS | +40.2% (A) |
Specs from public sources (PassMark, Geekbench). FPS measured at 1080p medium settings.
Based on the comparison:
GeForce RTX 5060 wins 15 of the comparable criteria.
The choice depends on your use case.
🤔 How to choose
Universal advice for any use case.
- Reliability vs price: reliability (median 50) ↔ price (median 385.1).
- Weight vs CPU: mobility (median 48) ↔ overall performance (median 49.8).
- Upgradeability vs battery: upgradability (median 50) ↔ battery life (median 2.8).