Intel
Intel Arc A310 vs GeForce GTX 1650
Full comparison of specs, performance and benchmarks
NVIDIA
GTX 1650
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Arc A310 and GTX 1650 across specs and all relevant benchmarks.
↗Arc A310 outperforms GTX 1650 by 1% based on our aggregate benchmark results.+1%
Scores are normalized on the Head to Head scale. Higher is better.Intel Arc A310 vs GeForce GTX 1650: key takeaway
The comparison of Arc A310 and GTX 1650 shows a 0% advantage for Arc A310 in gaming performance, while GTX 1650 may still be stronger in efficiency and feature set. Use the sections below to check whether that lead comes from real FPS, specifications, efficiency, price or platform features.
SUMMARY PROFILE
Verified-metrics radar
Axes with missing data are hidden; every value uses a fixed scale.
Intel
NVIDIAPerformance
Efficiency
Price / performance
Memory capacity
3333
100100
100100
6056
COMPARISON RESULT
The devices received the same overall score
Arc A310 leads in combined game performance. Arc A310 offers the better price per frame, while the final choice depends on the required features, memory, and games.
Performance is nearly identical
GTX 1650 costs less
CATALOG POSITION
Full ranking →Graphics card ranking
Positions 154–159of 317
COMPARISON VERDICT
Which should you choose?
Two practical conclusions based on community votes and gaming value.
GeForce GTX 1650
146 likesHead to Head visitors currently choose this model more often.
Intel Arc A310
100/100 · Price $169The choice is based on the price-to-performance index and launch price.
OVERALL SCORE
Overview
Scores are calculated from specifications, performance, and efficiency.
The Summary score section compares Arc A310 and GTX 1650 with normalized H2H data, turning specifications, tests and value signals into practical buying context.
GamesDirectX, OpenCL, and Vulkan performance
33
33
Professional applications3D modeling, video editing, and rendering
30
30
AI and machine learningMachine-learning and AI capabilities
28
28
Power efficiencyPower consumption across workloads
100
100
Head to Head scoreOverall catalog score
58
58
FULL COMPARISON
Specifications
The better numeric value is highlighted in green, taking the metric direction into account.
The Specifications section compares Arc A310 and GTX 1650 with normalized H2H data, turning specifications, tests and value signals into practical buying context.
DisplayPortmini-DisplayPort 2.0DisplayPort 1.4a
Device classDesktopDesktop
HDMIHDMI 2.1HDMI 2.0
DirectX12.212.1
Vulkan1.41.4
OpenGL4.64.6
TFLOPS2.6882.984Better
Power consumption75 W75 W
ThicknessSingle-slotDual-slot
Memory typeGDDR6GDDR5
UpscalingXeSS—
Power connectorNoneNone
Release date20222019
ArchitectureXe-HPGTuring
Clock speed1750 - 2000 MHzBetter1485 - 1665 MHz
Base clock1750 MHzBetter1485 MHz
Boost clock2000 MHzBetter1665 MHz
VRAM4 GB GDDR64 GB GDDR5
Memory frequency15,5 GHzBetter8 GHz
Memory bus64 bit128 bitBetter
Memory bandwidth124 GB/s128 GB/sBetter
InterfacePCIe 4x8PCIe 3x16
Power consumption75 W75 W
Process node6 nmBetter12 nm
Recommended PSU200 WBetter250 W
Compute APIOpenCL 3.0OpenCL 3.0, CUDA 7.5
Launch price$169$169
Shader units / cores768896Better
Die size157 mm²Better200 mm²
Memory cacheL2 4 MBBetterL1 64 KB, L2 1 MB
Transistor count7200 millionBetter4700 million
Max monitors43
Max resolution7680 × 43207680 × 4320
LengthVaries by board229 mm
USB Type-CNoNo
GAME TEST BENCH
Gaming FPS
Available results are shown separately; missing data is not treated as zero.
The Gaming FPS section compares Arc A310 and GTX 1650 across curated H2H Lab game presets. The useful signal is not only average FPS, but also how each device behaves at 1440p and 4K, how memory capacity and bus width affect heavy textures, and whether the game engine favors raster performance, ray tracing, or driver maturity.
Arc A310GTX 1650
Verified H2HCommunity VerifiedEstimatedPredicted
Black Myth: Wukong
1080p High
20 FPSEstimated 64%
20 FPSEstimated 64%
1080p Ultra
17 FPSEstimated 64%
17 FPSEstimated 64%
1440p Ultra
9 FPSEstimated 58%
9 FPSEstimated 58%
4K Ultra
5 FPSEstimated 55%
5 FPSEstimated 55%
Black Myth: WukongArc A31020 FPSEstimated 64%GTX 165020 FPSEstimated 64%Arc A31017 FPSEstimated 64%GTX 165017 FPSEstimated 64%Arc A3109 FPSEstimated 58%GTX 16509 FPSEstimated 58%Arc A3105 FPSEstimated 55%GTX 16505 FPSEstimated 55%
Call of Duty: WarzoneArc A31020 FPSEstimated 64%GTX 165020 FPSEstimated 64%Arc A31017 FPSEstimated 64%GTX 165017 FPSEstimated 64%Arc A3109 FPSEstimated 58%GTX 16509 FPSEstimated 58%Arc A3105 FPSEstimated 55%GTX 16505 FPSEstimated 55%
Counter-Strike 2Arc A310165 FPSEstimated 72%GTX 1650169 FPSEstimated 72%Arc A310116 FPSEstimated 72%GTX 1650116 FPSEstimated 72%Arc A31062 FPSEstimated 66%GTX 165064 FPSEstimated 66%Arc A31022 FPSEstimated 62%GTX 165022 FPSEstimated 62%
Cyberpunk 2077Arc A310106 FPSEstimated 72%GTX 1650109 FPSEstimated 72%Arc A31092 FPSEstimated 72%GTX 165092 FPSEstimated 72%Arc A31045 FPSEstimated 66%GTX 165046 FPSEstimated 66%Arc A31015 FPSEstimated 62%GTX 165015 FPSEstimated 62%
Forza Horizon 5Arc A310134 FPSEstimated 78%GTX 1650138 FPSEstimated 78%Arc A31087 FPSEstimated 72%GTX 165087 FPSEstimated 72%Arc A31056 FPSEstimated 66%GTX 165057 FPSEstimated 66%Arc A31033 FPSEstimated 62%GTX 165033 FPSEstimated 62%
God of War RagnarökArc A31020 FPSEstimated 64%GTX 165020 FPSEstimated 64%Arc A31017 FPSEstimated 64%GTX 165017 FPSEstimated 64%Arc A3109 FPSEstimated 58%GTX 16509 FPSEstimated 58%Arc A3105 FPSEstimated 55%GTX 16505 FPSEstimated 55%
Hogwarts LegacyArc A31087 FPSEstimated 72%GTX 165089 FPSEstimated 72%Arc A31073 FPSEstimated 72%GTX 165073 FPSEstimated 72%Arc A31041 FPSEstimated 66%GTX 165041 FPSEstimated 66%Arc A31015 FPSEstimated 62%GTX 165015 FPSEstimated 62%
Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024Arc A31020 FPSEstimated 64%GTX 165020 FPSEstimated 64%Arc A31017 FPSEstimated 64%GTX 165017 FPSEstimated 64%Arc A3109 FPSEstimated 58%GTX 16509 FPSEstimated 58%Arc A3105 FPSEstimated 55%GTX 16505 FPSEstimated 55%
Monster Hunter WildsArc A31020 FPSEstimated 64%GTX 165020 FPSEstimated 64%Arc A31017 FPSEstimated 64%GTX 165017 FPSEstimated 64%Arc A3109 FPSEstimated 58%GTX 16509 FPSEstimated 58%Arc A3105 FPSEstimated 55%GTX 16505 FPSEstimated 55%
StarfieldArc A31020 FPSEstimated 64%GTX 165020 FPSEstimated 64%Arc A31017 FPSEstimated 64%GTX 165017 FPSEstimated 64%Arc A3109 FPSEstimated 58%GTX 16509 FPSEstimated 58%Arc A3105 FPSEstimated 55%GTX 16505 FPSEstimated 55%
HEAD TO HEAD · CALCULATED INDEX
H2H workload indices
Comparable internal indices on a fixed 0–100 scale.
The Benchmarks section compares Arc A310 and GTX 1650 with normalized H2H data, turning specifications, tests and value signals into practical buying context.
H2H Raster IndexH2H Index / 10033330%
H2H Compute IndexH2H Index / 10042405%
H2H Rendering IndexH2H Index / 10041395%
H2H Memory Workload IndexH2H Index / 10060567%
H2H Efficiency IndexH2H Index / 1001001000%
These are versioned H2H calculated indices derived from normalized catalog data. They are not results from a third-party benchmark.
HEAD TO HEAD · CALCULATED INDEX
H2H AI workload indices
Estimated workload profiles based on available performance and memory data.
The Detailed comparison section compares Arc A310 and GTX 1650 with normalized H2H data, turning specifications, tests and value signals into practical buying context.
H2H Image Generation IndexH2H Index / 10045435%
H2H ML Training IndexH2H Index / 10044425%
H2H Inference IndexH2H Index / 10041395%
H2H Local LLM IndexH2H Index / 10048456%
H2H Computer Vision IndexH2H Index / 10041402%
These are versioned H2H calculated indices derived from normalized catalog data. They are not results from a third-party benchmark.
Graphics APIs, SDKs and upscaling
The Graphics APIs, SDKs and upscaling section compares Arc A310 and GTX 1650 with normalized H2H data, turning specifications, tests and value signals into practical buying context.
DirectX12.212.1
Vulkan1.41.4
OpenGL4.64.6
UpscalingXeSS—
Compute APIOpenCL 3.0OpenCL 3.0, CUDA 7.5
Architecture and release
The Architecture and release section compares Arc A310 and GTX 1650 with normalized H2H data, turning specifications, tests and value signals into practical buying context.
ArchitectureXe-HPGTuring
Process node6 nmBetter12 nm
Release date20222019
Device classDesktopDesktop
GPU cores, die and clocks
The Core layout and clocks section compares Arc A310 and GTX 1650 with normalized H2H data, turning specifications, tests and value signals into practical buying context.
Transistor count7200 millionBetter4700 million
Die size157 mm²Better200 mm²
Shader units / cores768896Better
Base clock1750 MHzBetter1485 MHz
Boost clock2000 MHzBetter1665 MHz
Board size, power and compatibility
The Form factor and compatibility section compares Arc A310 and GTX 1650 with normalized H2H data, turning specifications, tests and value signals into practical buying context.
InterfacePCIe 4x8PCIe 3x16
LengthVaries by board229 mm
ThicknessSingle-slotDual-slot
Recommended PSU200 WBetter250 W
Power connectorNoneNone
Display outputs and limits
The Display outputs section compares Arc A310 and GTX 1650 with normalized H2H data, turning specifications, tests and value signals into practical buying context.
HDMIHDMI 2.1HDMI 2.0
DisplayPortmini-DisplayPort 2.0DisplayPort 1.4a
USB Type-CNoNo
Max monitors43
Max resolution7680 × 43207680 × 4320
Memory and compute throughput
The VRAM capacity and bandwidth section compares Arc A310 and GTX 1650 with normalized H2H data, turning specifications, tests and value signals into practical buying context.
VRAM4 GB GDDR64 GB GDDR5
Memory typeGDDR6GDDR5
Memory bus64 bit128 bitBetter
TFLOPS2.6882.984Better
HEAD TO HEAD · DISCOVER
6Other comparisons
Navi II 2CU 7xxx/9xxxAMDReviews and questions
AI EXPLAIN · HEAD TO HEAD
Explain this comparison
Beyond percentages: causes, relevant specifications, and practical impact behind every chart.
What AI will explain
Overall score, radar, FPS, synthetic tests, specifications, efficiency, and value.
REAL CONFIGURATIONS
Owner experiences
Real builds, results, and community feedback.
♢Moderator reviewed☆Helpful to the community🏅Expert badges
Frequently asked comparison questions
Short recommendations based on performance, memory, power consumption, and intended use.
01Which is better for gaming: Arc A310 or GTX 1650?+
Arc A310 has the higher overall gaming score, while Arc A310 offers the better price-to-performance ratio. The final choice depends on resolution and settings.
02Which is better for streaming?+
GTX 1650 is the stronger streaming choice thanks to performance, hardware encoding, and application support. Check AV1, H.264, and HEVC support before buying.
03Which is better for Blender?+
GTX 1650 is generally the better option for Blender and GPU rendering. Rendering-engine support and available VRAM also matter.
04Which is better for video editing?+
Arc A310 offers more overall performance, while Arc A310 offers more memory headroom. Codecs, hardware encoders, and editor optimization can change the result.
05Which is better for neural networks and AI?+
GTX 1650 is the more practical option for local AI workloads. VRAM capacity, compute libraries, and framework compatibility are especially important.
06Which is better for 1080p?+
Arc A310 is the most rational 1080p choice, where high frame rates and cost per frame matter most.
07Which is better for 1440p?+
Arc A310 leads in combined 1440p performance. Arc A310 can be preferable for heavy textures and games with high VRAM usage.
08Which is better for 4K?+
Arc A310 is preferable for 4K, where total performance, memory bandwidth, and VRAM capacity have the greatest impact.
09Which is better for a quiet PC?+
Arc A310 is easier to use in a quiet build because of its lower estimated power and thermal load. Actual noise depends on the specific cooler.
10Which is better without replacing the power supply?+
Arc A310 is the safer candidate because its stated power consumption is lower. Verify PSU wattage, age, and power connectors.
11Is it worth upgrading from the previous generation?+
Consider upgrading to Arc A310 if your current device no longer delivers the required FPS, memory capacity, or feature support. A gain below 15–20% is usually worth waiting for a price cut.