GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q vs Apple M1 8-Core GPU
Aggregate performance score
We've compared M1 8-Core GPU and GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTX 1650 Max-Q outperforms Apple M1 8-Core GPU by a moderate 18% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 379 | 335 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 37.01 |
| Architecture | no data | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | no data | TU117 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 10 November 2020 (4 years ago) | 23 April 2019 (5 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 | 8 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 1278 MHz | 930 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1125 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 5 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 30 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 72.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 2.304 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 32 |
| TMUs | no data | 64 |
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 | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | no data | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1751 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 112.1 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 data | No outputs |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | no data | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.2.140 |
| CUDA | - | 7.5 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
3DMark Ice Storm GPU
Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.
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 | 27
−119%
| 59
+119%
|
| 1440p | 24−27
−20.8%
| 29
+20.8%
|
| 4K | 14−16
−28.6%
| 18
+28.6%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
−16.7%
|
27−30
+16.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
−18.5%
|
30−35
+18.5%
|
| Elden Ring | 40−45
−22%
|
50−55
+22%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
−17.8%
|
53
+17.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
−16.7%
|
27−30
+16.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
−18.5%
|
30−35
+18.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
−20%
|
65−70
+20%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
−40.5%
|
52
+40.5%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−35
−58.8%
|
54
+58.8%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−20.4%
|
65−70
+20.4%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
−31.1%
|
59
+31.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
−16.7%
|
27−30
+16.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
−18.5%
|
30−35
+18.5%
|
| Dota 2 | 45−50
−40.8%
|
69
+40.8%
|
| Elden Ring | 40−45
−22%
|
50−55
+22%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
52
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 75−80
−15.6%
|
85−90
+15.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
−20%
|
65−70
+20%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 45−50
−14.3%
|
56
+14.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
+2.8%
|
36
−2.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−105
−18%
|
118
+18%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−35
+47.8%
|
23
−47.8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
−16.7%
|
45−50
+16.7%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+54.3%
|
35
−54.3%
|
| World of Tanks | 180−190
+9%
|
167
−9%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+2.3%
|
44
−2.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
−16.7%
|
27−30
+16.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
−18.5%
|
30−35
+18.5%
|
| Dota 2 | 45−50
−79.6%
|
88
+79.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
−13.5%
|
59
+13.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
−20%
|
65−70
+20%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−105
−14%
|
110−120
+14%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−20.4%
|
65−70
+20.4%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 18−20
−26.3%
|
24−27
+26.3%
|
| Elden Ring | 21−24
−19%
|
24−27
+19%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
−20%
|
24−27
+20%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−110
−36.7%
|
140−150
+36.7%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
−16.7%
|
14−16
+16.7%
|
| World of Tanks | 95−100
−15.5%
|
110−120
+15.5%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
−7.4%
|
29
+7.4%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−16.7%
|
14−16
+16.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
−25%
|
40−45
+25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
−21.2%
|
40−45
+21.2%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
−10.3%
|
32
+10.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
−23.5%
|
21−24
+23.5%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−17.6%
|
40−45
+17.6%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−33.3%
|
12−14
+33.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
−16.7%
|
27−30
+16.7%
|
| Elden Ring | 9−10
−22.2%
|
10−12
+22.2%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
−16.7%
|
27−30
+16.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10
+11.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
−7.5%
|
43
+7.5%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
−16.7%
|
27−30
+16.7%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14
+7.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−33.3%
|
12−14
+33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
−16.7%
|
27−30
+16.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
−17.6%
|
20−22
+17.6%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
−26.7%
|
19
+26.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−21.1%
|
21−24
+21.1%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
−20%
|
18−20
+20%
|
This is how Apple M1 8-Core GPU and GTX 1650 Max-Q compete in popular games:
- GTX 1650 Max-Q is 119% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1650 Max-Q is 21% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1650 Max-Q is 29% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Apple M1 8-Core GPU is 54% faster.
- in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 1650 Max-Q is 80% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Apple M1 8-Core GPU is ahead in 5 tests (8%)
- GTX 1650 Max-Q is ahead in 56 tests (89%)
- there's a draw in 2 tests (3%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 13.71 | 16.13 |
| Recency | 10 November 2020 | 23 April 2019 |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 12 nm |
Apple M1 8-Core GPU has an age advantage of 1 year, and a 140% more advanced lithography process.
GTX 1650 Max-Q, on the other hand, has a 17.7% higher aggregate performance score.
The GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q is our recommended choice as it beats the M1 8-Core GPU in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
