GeForce GTX 1650 vs 305M

Place in the ranking	1258	266
Place by popularity	not in top-100	3
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	39.31
Power efficiency	1.94	18.97
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	GT218	TU117
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	10 January 2010 (14 years ago)	23 April 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	16	896
Core clock speed	525 MHz	1485 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1665 MHz
Number of transistors	260 million	4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	14 Watt	75 Watt
Texture fill rate	4.200	93.24
Floating-point processing power	0.0368 TFLOPS	2.984 TFLOPS
Gigaflops	55	no data
ROPs	4	32
TMUs	8	56

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).

Bus support	PCI-E 2.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	no data	229 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
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	GDDR3	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	Up to 512 MB	4 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	Up to 700 (DDR3), Up to 700 (GDDR3) MHz	2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	11.2 GB/s	128.0 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	DisplayPortHDMIVGADual Link DVISingle Link DVI	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
Multi monitor support	+	no data
HDMI	+	+
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Power management

8.0

no data

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	11.1 (10_1)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	4.1	6.5
OpenGL	2.1	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	1.2
Vulkan	N/A	1.2.131
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.

GeForce 305M 0.39

GTX 1650 20.40
+5131%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

GeForce 305M 150

GTX 1650 7871
+5147%

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	1−2 −6800%	69 +6800%
1440p	0−1	37
4K	-0−1	23

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	2.16
1440p	no data	4.03
4K	no data	6.48

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

2−3

−1500%

30−35
+1500%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 −1667%	53 +1667%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −2500%	52 +2500%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −1500%	30−35 +1500%
Hitman 3	4−5 −1125%	49 +1125%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 −3550%	292 +3550%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	4−5 −2775%	115 +2775%
Watch Dogs: Legion	27−30 −700%	224 +700%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 −2667%	83 +2667%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −2200%	46 +2200%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −1500%	30−35 +1500%
Hitman 3	4−5 −1075%	47 +1075%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 −3150%	260 +3150%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	4−5 −1750%	74 +1750%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9−10 −411%	45−50 +411%
Watch Dogs: Legion	27−30 −636%	206 +636%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 −733%	25 +733%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −300%	8 +300%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −1500%	30−35 +1500%
Hitman 3	4−5 −925%	41 +925%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 −650%	60 +650%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	4−5 −1450%	62 +1450%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9−10 −367%	42 +367%
Watch Dogs: Legion	27−30 +33.3%	21 −33.3%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	12−14
Hitman 3	6−7 −350%	27 +350%
Horizon Zero Dawn	2−3 −2050%	43 +2050%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3

−1650%

35
+1650%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 −1200%	13 +1200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	5

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3

−750%

17
+750%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	47 +0%	47 +0%
Battlefield 5	79 +0%	79 +0%
Far Cry 5	64 +0%	64 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	80 +0%	80 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	229 +0%	229 +0%
Metro Exodus	101 +0%	101 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	77 +0%	77 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	35 +0%	35 +0%
Battlefield 5	72 +0%	72 +0%
Far Cry 5	52 +0%	52 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	56 +0%	56 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	201 +0%	201 +0%
Metro Exodus	71 +0%	71 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	55 +0%	55 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	13 +0%	13 +0%
Far Cry 5	39 +0%	39 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	65 +0%	65 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	42 +0%	42 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	36 +0%	36 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	18 +0%	18 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	13 +0%	13 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Far Cry 5	24 +0%	24 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	122 +0%	122 +0%
Metro Exodus	41 +0%	41 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	45 +0%	45 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	145 +0%	145 +0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	20 +0%	20 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	17 +0%	17 +0%
Hitman 3	13 +0%	13 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	41 +0%	41 +0%
Metro Exodus	27 +0%	27 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	26 +0%	26 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry 5	12 +0%	12 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	30 +0%	30 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	26 +0%	26 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	8 +0%	8 +0%

This is how GeForce 305M and GTX 1650 compete in popular games:

GTX 1650 is 6800% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GeForce 305M is 33% faster.
in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 1650 is 3550% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GeForce 305M is ahead in 1 test (1%)
GTX 1650 is ahead in 28 tests (40%)
there's a draw in 41 test (59%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.39	20.40
Recency	10 January 2010	23 April 2019
Chip lithography	40 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	14 Watt	75 Watt

GeForce 305M has 435.7% lower power consumption.

GTX 1650, on the other hand, has a 5130.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, and a 233.3% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce GTX 1650 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 305M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce 305M is a notebook card while GeForce GTX 1650 is a desktop one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.