Performance comparison: which is faster?
GeForce GTX 1650 (NVIDIA, 2019) and GeForce GTX 970 (NVIDIA, 2015) are compared here. Compare scores and VRAM, generative AI usability, and CPUs that pair well with each GPU.
Overall performance: nearly equal
Both have 4GB of VRAM, so they support a similar range of generative AI models. For gaming, prioritize performance score and CPU compatibility; for AI, prioritize VRAM.
Relative performance score (higher is faster). Actual fps varies by resolution, game, and CPU configuration.
| Item | GTX 1650 | GTX 970 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance Score | 7,000 | 7,000 |
| VRAM | 4GB | 4GB |
| Manufacturer | NVIDIA | NVIDIA |
| Series | GTX 16 | GTX 900 |
| Release Year | 2019 | 2015 |
| Compatible CPU Example | Ryzen 3 1200 | Ryzen 3 1200 |
| If You Want To... | Recommended |
|---|---|
| Prioritize high fps and smooth performance in demanding games | GTX 1650 |
| Run larger generative AI and LLM models | GTX 1650 |
| Prioritize value and adequate performance | GTX 1650 (the lower model is often sufficient) |
Their scores are nearly identical (GTX 1650: 7000 points / GTX 970: 7000 points). In this case, compare price, VRAM, and power draw.
Both have 4GB of VRAM, so the range of generative AI models they can run is nearly the same.
Using our guideline, Ryzen 3 1200 pairs well with GTX 1650 and Ryzen 3 1200 with GTX 970 (CPU:GPU ≈ 0.9:1). If the CPU is too weak, replacing the GPU may not raise fps, so check the combination before buying.
→ GTX 1650 Details ／ GTX 970 Details ／ Compare Another Combination
