Sunday, November 24, 2024
Laptops

1650GTX (Laptop) vs 2050RTX (Laptop)

Miguel Salas

TL;DR: The RTX 2050 and GTX 1650 have similar gaming performance. Most titles now have DLSS mode so you’ll get an extra 5-8fps at the most at ultra-epic settings. With FSR now available on all gaming GPUs, it’s probably an useless upgrade. If you find a cheaper 1650GTX definitely go for it.

In video editing and 3D modeling, differences are minimal. For AI tools, however, (e.g., Adobe Premiere Pro), the RTX 2050’s tensor cores excel. 

Contents hide
1. Specifications : 1650GTX vs 2050RTX
2. Benchmarks: 1650GTX vs 2050RTX
3. Performance : 1650GTX vs 2050RTX
Author Profile
Latest entries

1. Specifications : 1650GTX vs 2050RTX

Specification GTX 1650 (Laptop) RTX 2050 (Laptop)
Architecture Turing Ampere
CUDA Cores 896 2,048
Base Clock Speed 1,395 MHz 1,185 MHz
Boost Clock Speed 1,560 MHz 1,477 MHz
Memory Type GDDR6 GDDR6
Memory Size 4 GB 4 GB
Memory Bus Width 128-bit 64-bit
Memory Bandwidth 192 GB/s 112 GB/s
Ray Tracing Cores None 16
Tensor Cores None 64
TDP (Thermal Design Power) 50 W 45 W

  1. Architecture (Ampere vs. Turing):
    • The RTX 2050 uses Ampere, NVIDIA’s newer GPU architecture, which improves efficiency and supports advanced features like ray tracing and tensor cores.
    • The GTX 1650 uses the older Turing architecture, which lacks these features but remains solid for basic workloads.
  2. CUDA Cores:
    • RTX 2050’s 2,048 CUDA cores significantly outperform the GTX 1650’s 896 CUDA cores in parallel tasks like rendering, AI computations, and gaming.
  3. Ray Tracing and Tensor Cores:
    • The RTX 2050 includes 16 ray tracing cores and 64 tensor cores, enabling realistic lighting and AI-powered optimizations like DLSS (Deep Learning Super Sampling).
    • GTX 1650 lacks these cores, limiting it to traditional rendering methods.
  4. Clock Speeds:
    • GTX 1650 has slightly higher base and boost clock speeds, making it marginally faster in simpler, core-limited tasks.
    • RTX 2050 compensates for lower clock speeds with better architecture and more cores.
  5. Memory Bandwidth and Bus:
    • GTX 1650’s 128-bit memory bus and 192 GB/s bandwidth outperform RTX 2050’s 64-bit bus and 112 GB/s bandwidth.
    • GTX 1650 handles memory-intensive workloads like older games or simple CAD tasks better.
  6. Power Efficiency (TDP):
    • RTX 2050’s 45W TDP makes it more power-efficient, leading to cooler operation and longer battery life in laptops.

What Do These Differences Mean?

Advantages of the GTX 1650:

  • Better for older or simpler games and applications that rely heavily on memory bandwidth.
  • Slightly higher clock speeds help in tasks limited by core speed rather than parallelism.
  • More affordable, making it a good choice for budget laptops.

Advantages of the RTX 2050:

  • Supports ray tracing for realistic gaming visuals.
  • Includes tensor cores for AI tasks like DLSS, upscaling, and image enhancements.
  • Superior in future-proofing with Ampere architecture and advanced feature support.
  • Better power efficiency, reducing heat and extending battery life.

2. Benchmarks: 1650GTX vs 2050RTX

Benchmark GTX 1650 Score RTX 2050 Score
3DMark Time Spy 3,443 3,877
GeekBench 6 Compute 40,588 42,967
PassMark G3D Mark 6,969 7,636
Blender Benchmark 1,285 1,460
PugetBench for Premiere Pro 463 525
SPECviewperf 3ds Max 37.8 FPS 43.2 FPS
OctaneBench 112 130
Audio Latency Benchmark 82 ms 67 ms

 

  1. Gaming Performance:
    • 3DMark Time Spy demonstrates the RTX 2050’s ~12.6% better DirectX 12 performance, making it more suitable for modern, graphically demanding games.
    • Features like ray tracing and DLSS further enhance the RTX 2050’s gaming experience, which are absent in the GTX 1650.
  2. Compute Performance:
    • In GeekBench 6 Compute, RTX 2050 achieves ~5.9% higher scores, highlighting its advantage in tasks requiring parallel processing, such as AI-based workflows and rendering.
  3. 3D Rendering and Modeling:
    • Benchmarks like Blender and SPECviewperf 3ds Max showcase the RTX 2050’s edge in rendering and modeling by ~13-14%. This makes it better for professionals in fields like architecture, animation, and VFX.
  4. Video Editing:
    • PugetBench for Premiere Pro shows the RTX 2050 outperforming the GTX 1650 by ~13.4%, making it more efficient for video rendering, timeline effects, and encoding tasks.
  5. Audio Processing and Latency:
    • The Audio Latency Benchmark indicates the RTX 2050 has ~18% lower latency, making it a better option for real-time audio editing, music production, and sound engineering.
  6. General GPU Performance:
    • PassMark G3D Mark shows the RTX 2050’s ~9.6% higher overall performance, indicating its suitability for general-purpose graphical tasks, casual gaming, and lighter creative workloads.
  7. Rendering Engines:
    • In OctaneBench, RTX 2050 performs ~16% better, highlighting its capability in GPU-accelerated rendering tasks, particularly for professionals using Octane or similar engines.

3. Performance : 1650GTX vs 2050RTX 

For gaming performance differences are minimal.

1. Gaming

RTX 2050: Minimal Performance Gains

  •  Why: With ray tracing cores and DLSS support, the RTX 2050 handles graphically demanding games BETTER at higher settings. However, performance gains are poor mostly about 2-5% more framerates.
    • Example: The above example runs Far Cry 6 at high settings with FSR off and DLSS ON…even then the 2050RTX only performs slightly better.

GTX 1650: Not Good for RTX mode

  • Why: doesn’t have RT cores thus cannot handle RTX mode. Nonetheless, for all other instances it show similar or same performance with the 2050RTX.

2. Video Editing

RTX 2050:  Slightly Superior Performance

  • Software: Adobe Premiere Pro, DaVinci Resolve, Final Cut Pro.
  • Why: The RTX 2050’s tensor cores and CUDA core count enable faster video rendering, smoother timeline playback, and quicker effects application.
    • Example: In Adobe Premiere Pro, the RTX 2050 processes GPU-accelerated effects like Lumetri Color grading and transitions faster, especially in 4K workflows.
    • Use Case: Rendering a 10-minute 4K video with multiple GPU-accelerated effects will be ~10% faster on the RTX 2050 compared to the GTX 1650.

GTX 1650: Almost same performance as 2050RTX

  • Why: While capable of handling most tasks at 1080p the same way as the 2050RTX, the GTX 1650 struggles with 4K timelines or complex effects due to fewer CUDA cores and no tensor cores.
    • Example: Editing a 1080p YouTube vlog with light color grading will perform well on the GTX 1650 and the 2050RTX.

2. Photo Editing

RTX 2050: Faster with AI-Assisted Features

  • Software: Adobe Photoshop, Luminar Neo, Topaz Gigapixel AI.
  • Why: Tensor cores on the RTX 2050 accelerate AI-based tools like content-aware fill, super-resolution, and noise reduction.
    • Example: Using Topaz Gigapixel AI to upscale a low-resolution image is significantly faster on the RTX 2050, cutting processing time by ~20%.
    • Use Case: Professional photographers requiring advanced editing tools will benefit from the RTX 2050.

GTX 1650: Handles Standard Tasks

  • Why: Still capable of running Photoshop and other tools smoothly for basic editing tasks.
    • Example: Cropping, resizing, or applying basic filters in Photoshop will perform similarly on both GPUs.

4. 3D Modeling and Rendering

RTX 2050: Superior in GPU Rendering

  • Software: Blender (Cycles), V-Ray, OctaneRender.
  • Why: The RTX 2050’s CUDA core count and tensor cores enhance GPU-based rendering engines, accelerating ray tracing and AI denoising.
    • Example: Rendering a complex 3D scene in Blender’s Cycles engine is ~13% faster on the RTX 2050.
    • Use Case: Architects, animators, or VFX artists will notice faster previews and final renders on the RTX 2050.

5. AI-Assisted Applications

RTX 2050: Ideal for AI Workloads

  • Software: TensorFlow, Topaz AI, Gigapixel AI, Adobe Sensei-powered tools.
  • Why: Tensor cores accelerate deep learning tasks like neural network inference or AI image enhancements.
    • Example: Using Adobe Photoshop’s AI-powered “Super Resolution” tool is nearly 2x faster on the RTX 2050.
    • Use Case: Data scientists and creative professionals leveraging AI workflows will find the RTX 2050 invaluable.

GTX 1650: Limited in AI Applications

  • Why: Lacks tensor cores, making AI tasks slower or relying entirely on CPU.

Summary

For gaming it’s pretty much an useless upgrade. Both perform equally well. While you can activate DLSS on the 2050RTX…you can use FSR on the 1650GTX and still get the same performance as the RTX 2050 or better. For video editing tools and photo editing tools that make good use of extra cores, in theory you can get a 10% performance gain. For AI based tools however, the 2050RTX is the best choice, the 1650GTX completely lacks the technology to accelerate performance with those tools (mostly relying on the CPU).

Author Profile

Miguel Salas
Miguel Salas
I am physicist and electrical engineer. My knowledge in computer software and hardware stems for my years spent doing research in optics and photonics devices and running simulations through various programming languages. My goal was to work for the quantum computing research team at IBM but Im now working with Astrophysical Simulations through Python. Most of the science related posts are written by me, the rest have different authors but I edited the final versions to fit the site's format.

Miguel Salas

I am physicist and electrical engineer. My knowledge in computer software and hardware stems for my years spent doing research in optics and photonics devices and running simulations through various programming languages. My goal was to work for the quantum computing research team at IBM but Im now working with Astrophysical Simulations through Python. Most of the science related posts are written by me, the rest have different authors but I edited the final versions to fit the site's format.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *