GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile 3 GB vs GTX 1650 Max-Q
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q and GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile 3 GB, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTX 1650 Max-Q outperforms GTX 1050 Mobile 3 GB by a substantial 31% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 371 | 439 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 37.58 | 11.49 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | TU117 | GP107 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 23 April 2019 (6 years ago) | 1 February 2019 (6 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 1024 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 930 MHz | 1366 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1125 MHz | 1442 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 4,700 million | 3,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 72.00 | 69.22 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.304 TFLOPS | 2.215 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 24 |
| TMUs | 64 | 48 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 3 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 96 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1751 MHz | 1752 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 112.1 GB/s | 84.1 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.140 | 1.2 |
| CUDA | 7.5 | 6.1 |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 60
+33.3%
| 45−50
−33.3%
|
| 1440p | 30
+42.9%
| 21−24
−42.9%
|
| 4K | 18
+50%
| 12−14
−50%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
+32.3%
|
65−70
−32.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+33.3%
|
24−27
−33.3%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 30−35
+47.6%
|
21−24
−47.6%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 64
+42.2%
|
45−50
−42.2%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
+32.3%
|
65−70
−32.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+33.3%
|
24−27
−33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 38
+40.7%
|
27−30
−40.7%
|
| Fortnite | 138
+38%
|
100−105
−38%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 74
+34.5%
|
55−60
−34.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 45−50
+34.3%
|
35−40
−34.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85
+41.7%
|
60−65
−41.7%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 30−35
+47.6%
|
21−24
−47.6%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+37.8%
|
90−95
−37.8%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 54
+35%
|
40−45
−35%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
+32.3%
|
65−70
−32.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 167
+39.2%
|
120−130
−39.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+33.3%
|
24−27
−33.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 94
+34.3%
|
70−75
−34.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35
+45.8%
|
24−27
−45.8%
|
| Fortnite | 80
+33.3%
|
60−65
−33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 69
+38%
|
50−55
−38%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 45−50
+34.3%
|
35−40
−34.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 56
+40%
|
40−45
−40%
|
| Metro Exodus | 28
+33.3%
|
21−24
−33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 71
+42%
|
50−55
−42%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 30−35
+47.6%
|
21−24
−47.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 53
+32.5%
|
40−45
−32.5%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+37.8%
|
90−95
−37.8%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 49
+40%
|
35−40
−40%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+33.3%
|
24−27
−33.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 88
+35.4%
|
65−70
−35.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 33
+37.5%
|
24−27
−37.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55
+37.5%
|
40−45
−37.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 53
+32.5%
|
40−45
−32.5%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 30−35
+47.6%
|
21−24
−47.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30
+42.9%
|
21−24
−42.9%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+37.8%
|
90−95
−37.8%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 59
+31.1%
|
45−50
−31.1%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−33
+42.9%
|
21−24
−42.9%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 110−120
+32.9%
|
85−90
−32.9%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+33.3%
|
18−20
−33.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16
+33.3%
|
12−14
−33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 140−150
+30.9%
|
110−120
−30.9%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+39.1%
|
110−120
−39.1%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 36
+33.3%
|
27−30
−33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+44.4%
|
9−10
−44.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+37.5%
|
24−27
−37.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+37%
|
27−30
−37%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 18−20
+50%
|
12−14
−50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+43.8%
|
16−18
−43.8%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 36
+33.3%
|
27−30
−33.3%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
+33.3%
|
21−24
−33.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10
+42.9%
|
7−8
−42.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18
+50%
|
12−14
−50%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+40%
|
60−65
−40%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 19
+35.7%
|
14−16
−35.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
+35%
|
40−45
−35%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+33.3%
|
12−14
−33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+44.4%
|
18−20
−44.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 17
+41.7%
|
12−14
−41.7%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 11
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
This is how GTX 1650 Max-Q and GTX 1050 Mobile 3 GB compete in popular games:
- GTX 1650 Max-Q is 33% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1650 Max-Q is 43% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1650 Max-Q is 50% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 14.54 | 11.11 |
| Recency | 23 April 2019 | 1 February 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 3 GB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 75 Watt |
GTX 1650 Max-Q has a 30.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 months, a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 16.7% more advanced lithography process, and 150% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile 3 GB in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
