GeForce GTX 1650 vs 320M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 320M with GeForce GTX 1650, including specs and performance data.
GTX 1650 outperforms 320M by a whopping 3694% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1234 | 281 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 3 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 37.73 |
| Power efficiency | 1.61 | 18.72 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | C89 | TU117 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 1 April 2010 (14 years ago) | 23 April 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $149 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 48 | 896 |
| Core clock speed | 450 MHz | 1485 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1665 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 486 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 23 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 7.200 | 93.24 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.0912 TFLOPS | 2.984 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 32 |
| TMUs | 16 | 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).
| 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 | System Shared | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 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 | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK 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 | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | N/A | 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.
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.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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 | 24
−188%
| 69
+188%
|
| 1440p | 1−2
−4000%
| 41
+4000%
|
| 4K | 0−1 | 25 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 2.16 |
| 1440p | no data | 3.63 |
| 4K | no data | 5.96 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−2450%
|
50−55
+2450%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−414%
|
35−40
+414%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1950%
|
40−45
+1950%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−2450%
|
50−55
+2450%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−414%
|
35−40
+414%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1950%
|
40−45
+1950%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−2150%
|
90
+2150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−1186%
|
90
+1186%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−943%
|
292
+943%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−2450%
|
50−55
+2450%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−414%
|
35−40
+414%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 16−18
−1259%
|
230−240
+1259%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1950%
|
40−45
+1950%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
−782%
|
97
+782%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−1975%
|
83
+1975%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−1129%
|
86
+1129%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−1675%
|
71
+1675%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−829%
|
260
+829%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−414%
|
35−40
+414%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1950%
|
40−45
+1950%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
−736%
|
92
+736%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−1525%
|
65
+1525%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−843%
|
66
+843%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−925%
|
41
+925%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−150%
|
70
+150%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 1−2
−13800%
|
130−140
+13800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−5633%
|
170−180
+5633%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 18−20 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−4500%
|
46
+4500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−1450%
|
31
+1450%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2
−4100%
|
42
+4100%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 0−1 | 14−16 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−120%
|
33
+120%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−2667%
|
83
+2667%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−1800%
|
19
+1800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−1200%
|
26
+1200%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−450%
|
11
+450%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 61
+0%
|
61
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 69
+0%
|
69
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 211
+0%
|
211
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 60
+0%
|
60
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 53
+0%
|
53
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 63
+0%
|
63
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 85
+0%
|
85
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 81
+0%
|
81
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35
+0%
|
35
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 51
+0%
|
51
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 59
+0%
|
59
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 41
+0%
|
41
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 61
+0%
|
61
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40
+0%
|
40
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| Valorant | 177
+0%
|
177
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40
+0%
|
40
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21
+0%
|
21
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 59
+0%
|
59
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30
+0%
|
30
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
This is how GeForce 320M and GTX 1650 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1650 is 188% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1650 is 4000% faster in 1440p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 1650 is 13800% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 1650 is ahead in 35 tests (54%)
- there's a draw in 30 tests (46%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.54 | 20.49 |
| Recency | 1 April 2010 | 23 April 2019 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 23 Watt | 75 Watt |
GeForce 320M has 226.1% lower power consumption.
GTX 1650, on the other hand, has a 3694.4% 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 320M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce 320M is a notebook card while GeForce GTX 1650 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
