GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q vs 305M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce 305M and GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GeForce 305M
2010
Up to 512 MB GDDR3, 14 Watt
0.39

GTX 1650 Max-Q outperforms 305M by a whopping 4005% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking1258334
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency1.9437.22
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameGT218TU117
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date10 January 2010 (14 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 cores161024
Core clock speed525 MHz930 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1125 MHz
Number of transistors260 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)14 Watt30 Watt
Texture fill rate4.20072.00
Floating-point processing power0.0368 TFLOPS2.304 TFLOPS
Gigaflops55no data
ROPs432
TMUs864

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 sizeno datamedium sized
Bus supportPCI-E 2.0no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeGDDR3GDDR5
Maximum RAM amountUp to 512 MB4 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speedUp to 700 (DDR3), Up to 700 (GDDR3) MHz1751 MHz
Memory bandwidth11.2 GB/s112.1 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 ConnectorsDisplayPortHDMIVGADual Link DVISingle Link DVINo outputs
Multi monitor support+no data
HDMI+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data

Supported technologies

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

Power management8.0no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model4.16.5
OpenGL2.14.6
OpenCL1.11.2
VulkanN/A1.2.140
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.

GeForce 305M 0.39
GTX 1650 Max-Q 16.01
+4005%

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 Max-Q 6176
+4017%

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 HD1−2
−5500%
56
+5500%
1440p0−130
4K-0−117

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−1150%
24−27
+1150%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−1533%
49
+1533%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−2000%
42
+2000%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−1150%
24−27
+1150%
Hitman 3 4−5
−675%
30−35
+675%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−900%
80−85
+900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
−1200%
50−55
+1200%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
−189%
80−85
+189%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−2200%
69
+2200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−1900%
40
+1900%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−1150%
24−27
+1150%
Hitman 3 4−5
−675%
30−35
+675%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−900%
80−85
+900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
−1200%
50−55
+1200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
−322%
35−40
+322%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
−189%
80−85
+189%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−567%
20
+567%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−1150%
25
+1150%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−1150%
24−27
+1150%
Hitman 3 4−5
−675%
30−35
+675%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−900%
80−85
+900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
−1200%
50−55
+1200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
−233%
30
+233%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
−189%
80−85
+189%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 9−10
Hitman 3 6−7
−217%
18−20
+217%
Horizon Zero Dawn 2−3
−1550%
30−35
+1550%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−1200%
24−27
+1200%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−700%
8
+700%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 8−9

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−550%
13
+550%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Battlefield 5 63
+0%
63
+0%
Far Cry 5 48
+0%
48
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 59
+0%
59
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 195
+0%
195
+0%
Metro Exodus 71
+0%
71
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 54
+0%
54
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Battlefield 5 55
+0%
55
+0%
Far Cry 5 38
+0%
38
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 41
+0%
41
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 179
+0%
179
+0%
Metro Exodus 58
+0%
58
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 45
+0%
45
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Far Cry 5 26
+0%
26
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 55
+0%
55
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 42
+0%
42
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 33
+0%
33
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 26
+0%
26
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 17
+0%
17
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry 5 19
+0%
19
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 124
+0%
124
+0%
Metro Exodus 32
+0%
32
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 11
+0%
11
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 13
+0%
13
+0%
Hitman 3 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Metro Exodus 22
+0%
22
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18
+0%
18
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 9
+0%
9
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

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

  • GTX 1650 Max-Q is 5500% faster in 1080p

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

  • in Assassin's Creed Odyssey, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 1650 Max-Q is 2200% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GTX 1650 Max-Q is ahead in 29 tests (41%)
  • there's a draw in 41 test (59%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.39 16.01
Recency 10 January 2010 23 April 2019
Chip lithography 40 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 14 Watt 30 Watt

GeForce 305M has 114.3% lower power consumption.

GTX 1650 Max-Q, on the other hand, has a 4005.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, and a 233.3% more advanced lithography process.

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


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

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce 305M
GeForce 305M
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q
GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


2.5 4 votes

Rate GeForce 305M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 617 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.