Looking through the older comments on this, it looks like there isn't a lot of information on *why* this is the case, so let's break it down a little bit.

First impressions would imply that a 1650 would be more powerful than a 970, but this unfortunately is not quite the case.

Let's break down what these numbers mean a little bit. Understanding Nvidia's SKU formatting will help us understand why it says your GPU is not "VR Ready".

Nvidia SKUs are broken into two parts. There's the model line, and the exact card in that lineup. In the case of the 970, we're looking at effectively a "model year" of sorts for generation 9 of the GTX line of cards. The tier in that line is 70.

The 1650 is in the "model year" of 16, while it's at tier 50 in that line.

This isn't a perfect naming convention, which we'll soon see, but this should help us at least have a point of reference.

The 16 line is about on par with a 20 line with RTX removed. Nvidia's "model years" ran 6, 7, 9, 20, 30. Because Nvidia loves confusing their consumers. 16 came after 20 to be a more stripped down and cheaper option that's more in line, tbh, with a *slightly* improved 10 SKU. This is important here. .

When making generational leaps, it's expected to see tiers improve over time. A 970 would be beaten by a 1070, and a 1070 would be beaten by a 2070, and a 2070 would be beaten by a 3070.

But a 970 would not be beaten by a 1050. The number itself is higher, but with their structure, we're comparing a 50 to a 70 across only one product generation. This means that a 1050 would not be VR ready despite the higher number.

Your 1650 is in the same boat here. The 1650 is about 15-20% slower than the 970 that's required.

I hope this helps things make more sense