Component comparison
GeForce RTX 5070 vs GeForce GTX 1650
GeForce RTX 5070 vs GeForce GTX 1650 — detailed GPU comparison: performance, gaming FPS, specifications.
Advantages
A
GeForce RTX 5070
- + Release year (+5)
- + VRAM (GB) (+4 GB)
- + Memory clock (MHz) (+500 MHz)
- + Bandwidth (GB/s) (+544 GB/s)
- + Memory bus (bit) (+64 bit)
- + TGP / TDP (W) (+50 W)
- + Lithography (nm) (-8 nm)
- + Transistors (M) (+26,400M)
- + CUDA cores (+5120)
- + TMUs (+128)
- + ROPs (+48)
- + FP32 performance (TFLOPS) (+28.57 TFLOPS)
- + Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) (+147.72 GPixel/s)
- + Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) (+389.06 GTexel/s)
- + PassMark (overall) (+11959)
- + 3DMark Fire Strike (+25636)
- + Normalized score (+16.3)
B
GeForce GTX 1650
- + Die size (mm²) (+63 mm²)
- + Energy efficiency (+5.1)
Detailed spec comparison
| Spec |
Component A
GeForce RTX 5070
|
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) | 2000 MHz (+500 MHz) | 1500 MHz |
| Bandwidth (GB/s) | 672 GB/s (+544 GB/s) | 128 GB/s |
| Memory bus (bit) | 192 bit (+64 bit) | 128 bit |
| TGP / TDP (W) | 100 W (+50 W) | 50 W |
| Lithography (nm) | 4 nm (-8 nm) | 12 nm |
| Transistors (M) | 31,100M (+26,400M) | 4,700M |
| Die size (mm²) | 263 mm² | 200 mm² (+63 mm²) |
| Base clock (MHz) | — | — |
| Boost clock (MHz) | — | — |
| CUDA cores | 6,144 (+5120) | 1,024 |
| TMUs | 192 (+128) | 64 |
| ROPs | 80 (+48) | 32 |
| RT cores | 48 | — |
| Tensor cores | 192 | — |
| FP32 performance (TFLOPS) | 30.87 TFLOPS (+28.57 TFLOPS) | 2.30 TFLOPS |
| Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) | 201.00 GPixel/s (+147.72 GPixel/s) | 53.28 GPixel/s |
| Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) | 482.30 GTexel/s (+389.06 GTexel/s) | 93.24 GTexel/s |
| Energy efficiency | 21.3 | 26.4 (+5.1) |
| PassMark (overall) | 19,075 (+11959) | 7,116 |
| 3DMark Time Spy | — | 3,488 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike | 34,949 (+25636) | 9,313 |
| Geekbench OpenCL | — | 39,153 |
| Geekbench Vulkan | — | 36,248 |
| Normalized score | 69.6 (+16.3) | 53.3 |
Only in component A
DLSS
ReBAR
ray_tracing
In both
CUDA
FPS in games (1080p)
| Game | GeForce RTX 5070 | GeForce GTX 1650 | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| Battlefield 5 | 180 FPS | 60 FPS | +200% (A) |
| CS:GO | 240 FPS | 240 FPS | ≈ |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300 FPS | 131 FPS | +129% (A) |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 170 FPS | 52 FPS | +226.9% (A) |
| Far Cry 5 | 322 FPS | 60 FPS | +436.7% (A) |
| Fortnite | 300 FPS | 90 FPS | +233.3% (A) |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 270 FPS | 82 FPS | +229.3% (A) |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 329 FPS | 73 FPS | +350.7% (A) |
| GTA V | 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
| Metro Exodus | 170 FPS | 33 FPS | +415.2% (A) |
| Overwatch | 240 FPS | 240 FPS | ≈ |
| PUBG | 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 210 FPS | 46 FPS | +356.5% (A) |
| The Witcher 3 | 436 FPS | 62 FPS | +603.2% (A) |
| Valorant | 400 FPS | 164 FPS | +143.9% (A) |
Specs from public sources (PassMark, Geekbench). FPS measured at 1080p medium settings.
Based on the comparison:
GeForce RTX 5070 wins 17 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).