GPU Comparison
Select up to 2 GPUs to analyze their pricing, performance, and specifications side-by-side.
On raw speed the GeForce GTX 1650 comes out dramatically faster — about 40% ahead of the Arc A310. But the Arc A310 is the better value, undercutting it by $139 GBP for the performance you get.
Maximum Capacity Reached. Remove a model to add another. (2/2)
GeForce GTX 1650 vs Arc A310: In-Depth Breakdown
Performance: GeForce GTX 1650 vs Arc A310
The GeForce GTX 1650 is dramatically faster, around 40% ahead of the Arc A310. Both cards sit in the same broad class, well suited to entry-level 1080p.
Price & Value
The Arc A310 currently lists from $131 GBP, $139 GBP less than the GeForce GTX 1650 at $270 GBP. Despite being slower, the Arc A310 offers the better performance-per-dollar (~47% better value), so budget-focused buyers should weigh it carefully. The GeForce GTX 1650 still sits about $121 GBP above its $149 GBP MSRP.
Power & Efficiency
At 30W against 75W, the Arc A310 is both the lower-power and the more efficient card, making it the easier build to cool and power. Its more modern Alchemist architecture on a TSMC N6 process is part of why it does more with each watt.
Generation & Longevity
The Arc A310 is roughly 3 years newer than the GeForce GTX 1650 (Alchemist vs Turing), so it generally benefits from a more modern architecture and longer driver-support runway.
Features & Ecosystem
Beyond raw numbers, the GeForce GTX 1650 brings NVIDIA DLSS upscaling/frame generation and stronger ray tracing, while the Arc A310 offers Intel XeSS upscaling and AV1 encoding. If you lean on upscaling or ray tracing, that ecosystem difference can matter as much as the frame-rate gap.
Which should you buy: GeForce GTX 1650 or Arc A310?
Choose the GeForce GTX 1650 if you want the most performance and can absorb the higher price. If you're optimizing for value, the Arc A310 stretches your money further for only slightly lower performance.